"Rebellion brewing" in GOP base

[ponderingturtle]

But is it really correct to speak of the Democrats and the Republicans as two parties? Aren't they more like election platforms? Yes I know that the US is different from any european country and that the state governor is a far more important person than the president will ever be etc.

But in terms of consistency and long-term thinking, most swedish parties are running a much more tighter show than R&D. (And I guess that it also applies to the rest of the european parties and the smaller parties of the US.) Of course the swedish parties aren't alike. It's only if you are in for the long haul that you will get to the top of Socialdemokraterna and Moderaterna, the two biggest parties. But Folkpartiet and Vänsterpartiet can "enroll" celebrities as they see fit.

The thing is that because of our election process we will always be a two party system. In america you will have two main parties and a bunch of loons who will rarely be significant other than splitting the vote and causing their postions to lose.

 

[dudalb]

From a political point of view, it's all a non issue. The real movers and shakers know the last election was driven by Iraq and everything else was a distant, distant second. To pretend otherwise, and thus the GOP is in "crisis" is sophistry.

Wrong...it was the economy in the last election.
One of surprised of the 2008 election is that Iraq played a much smaller role in the campaign then the experts thought.
You seem to be a few months behind the times, slick.

 

[aerosolben]

Speaking of rebellion, Specter just switched parties....

Interesting timing, but not all that surprising. Pennsylvania Republicans were almost certainly going to oust him in the 2010 primaries.

 

[davefoc]

It may depend on what time frame you're looking at.

The recession technically (according to most economists) started in Q4 2007, but even in Q3 2008 the evidence that the country was in recession was still moderate enough that it was a debatable proposition. With nine months of hindsight, that debate looks positively twee.

For most of the primary campaign season Iraq was the major issue, and that was the environment in which McCain secured the nomination. The economy didn't tank until late Q3 2008 (August/September, IIRC) when AIG hit the skids. And McCain lost whatever chance he had of winning the election in his totally botched response to the economic crisis.

So you're both right.

Out of your many insightful posts I thought this one was one of your standouts.

 

[pgwenthold]

And McCain lost whatever chance he had of winning the election in his totally botched response to the economic crisis..

And that includes his "The fundamentals of the economy are strong" statement 3 days before the whole thing collapsed.

Personally, I think that was the beginning of the end for him.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Speaking of rebellion, Specter just switched parties....

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.

 

[Whiplash]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, you guys can have him. Never liked that guy.

 

[drkitten]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, you guys can have him. Never liked that guy.

I, on the other hand, considered him to be the only honest and principled Republican on the Hill -- and the only one for whom I would step on the brakes to avoid hitting.

So I guess it just shows that he identified who his supporters are.

 

[drkitten]

And that includes his "The fundamentals of the economy are strong" statement 3 days before the whole thing collapsed.

Personally, I think that was the beginning of the end for him.

Was it three days before? My memory must be failing me; I thought he made that statement when the first collapse happened. September 15, 2008, right?

Ok, right to the major news affecting the markets:

Bloomberg reports on the Federal Reserve’s overnight repo actions today. $70 billion was added to the banking system, to off-set the rise in borrowing costs spurred by Lehman Brother’s bankruptcy. Is it going to be enough? All financial sector stocks took a beating today, with Washington Mutual (WM) getting clobbered down to $1.80. S&P cut WM’s rating to junk status, but WM says they are well-capitalized. AIG has been cut by S&P and Fitch, and could cause the most "dislocation" of the markets. AIG’s status as a viable company is hanging by a thread.

FITCH CUTS AIG TO A FROM AA-; THE FIRM REMAINS ON WATCH NEGATIVE
- The rating actions reflect Fitch’s view that AIG’s financial flexibility and ability to raise holding company cash is extremely limited due to recent declines in the company’s stock price, widening credit spreads, and difficult capital market conditions. The rating actions also reflect benefits derived from a plan announced by New York’s governor today that grants certain AIG operating company subsidiaries the authority to exchange up to $20 billion of assets with AIG in order to promote the company’s liquidity. Fitch believes that AIG’s ability to fund collateral requirements and replace capital lost due to the company’s on-going exposure to the U.S. residential mortgage market is now largely dependent on accessing assets provided under the plan outlined by New York’s governor and by asset sales.

Events are unfolding very quickly now.

The upheaval in the American financial system sent shock waves through the stock market Monday, producing the worst day on Wall Street in seven years as investors digested the failure of one of its most venerable banks and wondered which domino would be next to fall.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost more than 500 points, more than 4 percent, its steepest point drop since the day the stock market reopened after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. About $700 billion evaporated from retirement plans, government pension funds and other investment portfolios.

The carnage capped a tumultuous 24 hours that redrew U.S. finance. Lehman Brothers, an investment bank that predates the Civil War and weathered the Great Depression, filed the largest bankruptcy in American history. A second storied bank, Merrill Lynch, fled into the arms of Bank of America.

and from McCain,

John McCain may want to refine his economic message a bit more during this potentially disastrous week for the financial sector.

On the campaign trail in Jacksonville, Florida, the Senator declared this morning that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," despite what he described as "tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street."

The line may seem like GOP boilerplate, save for the fact that this morning, the McCain campaign released a television ad that began: "Our economy is in crisis." Moreover, with financial and job markets in disarray, and with Lehman Brothers, the troubled investment bank, filing for bankruptcy, it may not be the wisest political message to tell voters that the fundamentals are a-okay.

It's one thing to tell people there is no fire two days before it breaks out. It's another thing to tell them there's no fire when the fire trucks are spraying the building behind you. McCain's statement was made in response to the Lehman Brother's bankruptcy.

 

[Brainster]

And that includes his "The fundamentals of the economy are strong" statement 3 days before the whole thing collapsed.

Personally, I think that was the beginning of the end for him.

Start the clock ticking on Obama then:

The Chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, on Sunday said that the fundamentals of the economy are "sound," a comment similar to one that her boss as a candidate repeatedly attacked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for making during the heat of last year's presidential campaign.

"Of course, the fundamentals are sound," Romer said on Meet the Press, "in the sense that the American workers are sound. We have a good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that, temporarily, we're in a mess, right? We have seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. Certainly in the short run, we're in a bad situation."

 

[Tricky]

And that includes his "The fundamentals of the economy are strong" statement 3 days before the whole thing collapsed.

Personally, I think that was the beginning of the end for him.

Start the clock ticking on Obama then:

The Chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, on Sunday said that the fundamentals of the economy are "sound," a comment similar to one that her boss as a candidate repeatedly attacked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for making during the heat of last year's presidential campaign.

"Of course, the fundamentals are sound," Romer said on Meet the Press, "in the sense that the American workers are sound. We have a good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that, temporarily, we're in a mess, right? We have seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. Certainly in the short run, we're in a bad situation."

Meh. There's not really any "bulletin board" material there. He qualified everything and left room to say that "bad stuff will still happen". It's a fairly typical political statement, i.e. it doesn't really say anything.

 

[drkitten]

Start the clock ticking on Obama then:

Wow.

First of all, you're mistaking a statement by one of Obama's advisors for one by Obama himself.

Second, you're completely ignoring the much larger and nuanced context in which Romer placed that context. What killed McCain was not the fact that he was optimistic (hell, Obama ran on optimism), but his apparently thoughtless optimism that looked and sounded like he was completely unaware of the economic disaster that was happening all around him.

And third, you're completely ignoring the fact that, economically, things are actually doing much better now then they were last September; the stock market is moving up, leading indicators are improving, and there is a strong consensus among professional economists that the economy will be in recovery within six to nine months. At the time McCain made his statements, Merril Lynch had been forced into a shotgun merger and Lehman Brothers had filed for the largest bankruptcy in US history less than twenty-four hours before he made his Polyanna-ish statement.

And, fourth, Obama isn't in the middle of a presidential campaign right now.

You really are desperate to find something negative to say about Obama, aren't you? It's truly pathetic how far you are willing to stretch....

 

[Dr Adequate]

Start the clock ticking on Obama then:

"Of course, the fundamentals are sound," Romer said on Meet the Press, "in the sense that the American workers are sound. We have a good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that, temporarily, we're in a mess, right? We have seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. Certainly in the short run, we're in a bad situation."

Now if only McCain had said that, no-one would have disagreed with him, much less criticized him for it.

But he didn't.

 

[Tricky]

You really are desperate to find something negative to say about Obama, aren't you? It's truly pathetic how far you are willing to stretch....

I have to take issue with this. Brainster made a simple observation, and one that is not really unreasonable, though I have also disagreed with it.

If you want to attack conservatives, pick somebody other than Brainster. Time and time again he has showed that although is partisan, he is not a mindless drone. He has quite often criticized the direction of the Republican party and he has debated with a noticible lack of acrimony and has criticized the right-wing extremists posting here. I truly hope that his faction will gain a foothold in the Republican party and make them into opponants I can respect.

 

[davefoc]

I have to take issue with this. Brainster made a simple observation, and one that is not really unreasonable, though I have also disagreed with it.

If you want to attack conservatives, pick somebody other than Brainster. Time and time again he has showed that although is partisan, he is not a mindless drone. He has quite often criticized the direction of the Republican party and he has debated with a noticible lack of acrimony and has criticized the right-wing extremists posting here. I truly hope that his faction will gain a foothold in the Republican party and make them into opponants I can respect.

That was a nice thing to say Tricky and probably accurate.

None the less, everything else that drkitten said besides the personal criticism of Brainster was accurate. What brainster seems to have dug up was the result of some spinmeister's research to attempt to mitigate some of the criticism of McCain for his moderately ill conceived statement. And taken out of context it seemed to do that.

In context, it doesn't do much to support the notion that McCain had intended his comment to be just a general purpose platitude and not something specifically directed at describing the current state of the economy.

I'm not sure what McCain intended with the comment. I think McCain is somewhat more dishonest than the average politician and I think what he claimed to mean after the fact isn't of much value in sorting out what he actually meant at the time he said it.

 

[Tricky]

That was a nice thing to say Tricky and probably accurate.

None the less, everything else that drkitten said besides the personal criticism of Brainster was accurate.

That's why I only quoted and objected to the personal criticism. Heck, I'd already addressed why I thought Brainster was wrong.

But ya know, here in the forum, we make points, and some are better than others. I wish that we could discuss them dispassionately, but... well... it's politics.

What brainster seems to have dug up was the result of some spinmeister's research to attempt to mitigate some of the criticism of McCain for his moderately ill conceived statement. And taken out of context it seemed to do that.

In context, it doesn't do much to support the notion that McCain had intended his comment to be just a general purpose platitude and not something specifically directed at describing the current state of the economy.

I'm not sure what McCain intended with the comment. I think McCain is somewhat more dishonest than the average politician and I think what he claimed to mean after the fact isn't of much value in sorting out what he actually meant at the time he said it.

Yeah, it's spin, but it is not outrageous spin. One of Obama's staff made a comment that was superficially very similar to McCain's statement. Bringing it up is perfectly legitimate. Upon (dispassionate) discussion, I think it can be shown that they are not really all that similar. And I think Brainster would be willing to discuss it dispassionately, provided you don't make it personal.

 

[shecky]

On the other hand, there is a pattern. After a severe defeat, the defeated party generally does a whole "Back To The Basics" routine,

But what are the basics for the Republican party? Fiscal conservatism? After 8 years of Bush, with 6 years of sympathetic Congress, that's a pretty hard sell. Lately, they are running as the pro torture, pro christianism party. And purging the ranks, all in the cause of ideological purity. The big tent has disappeared in favor of a faithful minority that cannot be too selective and exclusionary. The country needs a viable opposition party now. You can blame the Republicans for the extent that they are increasingly making themselves irrelevant.

 

[davefoc]

But what are the basics for the Republican party? Fiscal conservatism? After 8 years of Bush, with 6 years of sympathetic Congress, that's a pretty hard sell. Lately, they are running as the pro torture, pro christianism party. And purging the ranks, all in the cause of ideological purity. The big tent has disappeared in favor of a faithful minority that cannot be too selective and exclusionary. The country needs a viable opposition party now. You can blame the Republicans for the extent that they are increasingly making themselves irrelevant.

This seems exactly right but is it all that bad for the Republican Party? In a good part of the country there is enough support for that kind of Republican Party that they will be able to compete or dominate congressional elections. And then they can win a few more seats in areas less favorable to them with some RINO types and pretty soon they're nearing parity with the Democrats in congress. And in a few years when the Democrats have stumbled a few times they've got a shot to regain a congressional majority again. And not once did they have to do any self examination about the causes of their disastrous governance when they were in the majority previously.

It seems to me that if there is any chance for a moderate Republican Party to rise again the secular economic conservatives need to leave the party. The old coalition of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives may still be in place but it is a coalition where fiscal conservatives have no power.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This seems exactly right but is it all that bad for the Republican Party? In a good part of the country there is enough support for that kind of Republican Party that they will be able to compete or dominate congressional elections. And then they can win a few more seats in areas less favorable to them with some RINO types and pretty soon they're nearing parity with the Democrats in congress. And in a few years when the Democrats have stumbled a few times they've got a shot to regain a congressional majority again. And not once did they have to do any self examination about the causes of their disastrous governance when they were in the majority previously.

It seems to me that if there is any chance for a moderate Republican Party to rise again the secular economic conservatives need to leave the party. The old coalition of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives may still be in place but it is a coalition where fiscal conservatives have no power.

But what are the basics for the Republican party? Fiscal conservatism? After 8 years of Bush, with 6 years of sympathetic Congress, that's a pretty hard sell. Lately, they are running as the pro torture, pro christianism party. And purging the ranks, all in the cause of ideological purity. The big tent has disappeared in favor of a faithful minority that cannot be too selective and exclusionary. The country needs a viable opposition party now. You can blame the Republicans for the extent that they are increasingly making themselves irrelevant.

I'd have an easier time taking this seriously if his lack of fiscal conservatism wasn't the cause of Specter losing his partys support.

 

[Upchurch]

Start the clock ticking on Obama then:

Is that old things still being drug around? Didn't we already have a thread where those who have good reading comprehension explained the differences between what Obama and McCain said to those who have lousy reading comprehension?