Smart Republicans

[PBTree]

been reading all of the posts and have a question.

In my wonderous land we have two main parties, Labour and Liberal. Labour was started to assist the working class (a tinge of red) and Liberal was always for the middle to upper class. Whilst this may not be how it is today, it is generally considered the difference between the two parties. How do they compare with Democrats and Republicans. Where/what is the difference in your two parties?

 

[Piggy]

Where/what is the difference in your two parties?

You really can't apply that kind of thinking to the US system. Here, it's all about critical mass, all about constituency.

The actual policy differences between Dems and Reps are relatively trivial, when you get right down to what they're willing to do.

Because a national party has to appeal to such a huge number of geographically dispersed people, strange bedfellows are a requirement.

Consider Republicans, "the party of Lincoln", who now attract single-digit percentages of the black vote in most places, while the formerly segregationalist Democrats largely take the black vote for granted.

Democrats used to control the "solid South" merely because of hatred of Republicans who were associated with Lincoln and the carpetbaggers. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the tide bagan to turn. Now the South is solidly "red", even though the Republican party acts against the economic interests of the vast majority of Southern voters.

Bush is a populist conservative hero, even though he has acted against just about every conservative value in the book, favoring high deficits, increased government payrolls, government intrusion into private lives of citizens, foreign entanglements, Constitutional amendments, curtailing personal liberties, and the like.

The conservative "base" votes for him because he favors Christianizing the government, and effectively portrays the Democrats as "liberal" nut jobs who want to secularize the entire world. And he gets the power vote because he's helping to make the rich much richer.

But the Dems are hardly the shining knights of the working class.

The thing is, the landscape shifts. It's all about getting the biggest piece of the pie. There are no core values.

 

[BrianSI]

I'm going to write in Piggy for president next time.

(Maybe I should know his real name first.)

 

[Piggy]

I'm going to write in Piggy for president next time.

I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my... uh... constituent... for a term as your president.

 

[PBTree]

You really can't apply that kind of thinking to the US system. Here, it's all about critical mass, all about constituency.

The actual policy differences between Dems and Reps are relatively trivial, when you get right down to what they're willing to do.

Because a national party has to appeal to such a huge number of geographically dispersed people, strange bedfellows are a requirement.

Consider Republicans, "the party of Lincoln", who now attract single-digit percentages of the black vote in most places, while the formerly segregationalist Democrats largely take the black vote for granted.

Democrats used to control the "solid South" merely because of hatred of Republicans who were associated with Lincoln and the carpetbaggers. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the tide bagan to turn. Now the South is solidly "red", even though the Republican party acts against the economic interests of the vast majority of Southern voters.

Bush is a populist conservative hero, even though he has acted against just about every conservative value in the book, favoring high deficits, increased government payrolls, government intrusion into private lives of citizens, foreign entanglements, Constitutional amendments, curtailing personal liberties, and the like.

The conservative "base" votes for him because he favors Christianizing the government, and effectively portrays the Democrats as "liberal" nut jobs who want to secularize the entire world. And he gets the power vote because he's helping to make the rich much richer.

But the Dems are hardly the shining knights of the working class.

The thing is, the landscape shifts. It's all about getting the biggest piece of the pie. There are no core values.

Am I right in thinking that your government is more along the lines of the old Roman senate. Lots of independent senators who band together at some points (rep and dem) for common or self interests?

Does the fact that their differences are trivial defeat the purpose of this thread, that tries to show the republicans as "dumb as dog s..t"? I mean, they are all fairly much the same aren't they.

re: the 3rd party mentioned in an earlier post. Not to sure how another party would fit into this system. What could they portray themselves as, that would be any different to the bunch that are already there?

Curiouser and curiouser!

 

[BrianSI]

I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my... uh... constituent... for a term as your president.

Didn't Jesus say something similar?

 

[Piggy]

Am I right in thinking that your government is more along the lines of the old Roman senate. Lots of independent senators who band together at some points (rep and dem) for common or self interests?

No. The parties are the basis of power. Very few switcheroos, the exceptions are notable, and they usually happen because of a power shift within a state.

Does the fact that their differences are trivial defeat the purpose of this thread, that tries to show the republicans as "dumb as dog s..t"? I mean, they are all fairly much the same aren't they.

The differences are trivial when you consider what the parties are willing to do. But what they're willing to do at any given moment shifts with time.

Because they have to divide the voting population, they are continually carving and recarving their turf. When one zigs, the other must zag or get caught short.

Right now, the Republicans are dominant because they have better marketing. More specifically, they have developed an organizational mechanism by which "talking points" are physically (and electronically) distributed among party members and media shills. Everyone is "on message". It's highly top-down.

The goal of the Republicans is to maintain dominance. In order to do so, they must (a) appease the "base", (b) satisfy the power blocks, and (c) smear the opposition.

Unfortunately, they have an administration run by a small junta of very short-sided men who know how to win elections and run marketing campaigns, but practically nothing about governing a nation. And now, their almost mind-bogglingly stupid policies are catching up with them.

But this does not mean that the Dems will do any better if/when they get power, or that the Reps wouldn't do better if they managed to elect sane leadership.

So although the Republican executive is truly scary, there are now sane Republicans with many years experience who are willing to stand up and call BS on all this.

Arlen Specter is a good example. When Bush was re-elected, he made a calm and rational appeal for the president to please not send judicial nominees to the Senate who would be so controversial as to be unapprovable and merely constitute a waste of their time and a distraction from important business. He was called onto the carpet, and I don't know what Rove and Douglass threatened him with, but he came out of the meeting with a public statement that he would approve anyone the president sent over.

Then he got cancer and changed his perspective about what is truly important in life, and has been on the right track ever since.

On the other hand, there are true fools like my representative, Lynn Westmoreland, and truly immoral men like my senator, Saxby Chambliss, who want to turn Congress into a rubber-stamp politburo.

So yes, the Reps, as a party, and the executive in particular, are doing some horrendous things and attempting to drive truly dangerous legislation. But that's just because of the whims of the leadership and a desire to cement power. It has nothing to do with any underlying and enduring differences in party ideology.

re: the 3rd party mentioned in an earlier post. Not to sure how another party would fit into this system. What could they portray themselves as, that would be any different to the bunch that are already there?

Well, here's the catch 22. When a 3rd party shows enough mass to identify a significant voting bloc, one or the other of the main parties adopts their platorm in order to secure their votes. It's happened again and again through our history.

 

[Piggy]

Didn't Jesus say something similar?

Jesus... Johnson... what's the difference?

Johnson certainly didn't seem to see any.

 

[RandFan]

Right now, the Republicans are dominant because they have better marketing. More specifically, they have developed an organizational mechanism by which "talking points" are physically (and electronically) distributed among party members and media shills. Everyone is "on message". It's highly top-down.

Excellent posts Piggy. I don't have much to argue. However I have to say that this organizational mechanism goes way back when the Democrats were in power under Clinton. Rush Limbaugh would regularly put together a montage of Democrat Pundits from talk radio, network news and cable talk shows spouting talking points and they would be near word-for-word and it would go on for 10 or more pundits. This was back before the Republican take over of Congress under Clinton. I don't doubt the Repub's were doing the same but Limbaugh didn't want to make that point.

A dynamic of 50 states and 100,000,000 voters really can't be boiled down to one or two simple variables. The soccer mom crap is interesting to a point especially as it relates to swing voters but it really is far more complex than that.

 

[Piggy]

I have to say that this organizational mechanism goes way back when the Democrats were in power under Clinton.

Right. It's a matter of degree. When Murdock came into the fold, the system under the direction of Rove -- who learned at the lotus feet of Atwater, and went on to surpass the master -- simply outclasses what the Dems had developed.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'd vote for another Ike, or heck, even another Nixon. Even Bush Sr. was far superior to his son. I hate the fact that if I mention that I loath GWB as worse that Harding and Buchanan put together many people automatically assume that I must be far to the left, just before they ask who Harding and Buchanan are.

Steven

They all know who Pat Buchanan is, no doubt, but Harding is probably to them a skater named Tanya, which makes the comparison confusing.

Mention Teapot Dome and see what their eyes do.

Curiously, GW Bush makes Pat Buchanan look attractive to a conservative as a presidential candidate, which strikes me as a strange turn of events, or a sense of desperation. I think he's burned his Repubilcan bridges, so he's a third party, or nothing, player in 2008.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.

Got an example? I am curious.

DR

 

[Geek Goddess]

The conservative "base" votes for him because he favors Christianizing the government, and effectively portrays the Democrats as "liberal" nut jobs who want to secularize the entire world. And he gets the power vote because he's helping to make the rich much richer.

.

As a fairly conservative non-Christian (non-religious) person, who has a fair number of people in common with me, I'd say this is not correct. There may be a lot of Christians who vote for him 'just because' he's a purported Christian. Christians tend to be conservative, but that's not universal.

Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government" anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government, I see them bringing their own values and views into their job. Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)

I recommend Dr Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" as an excellent work on how the two different world views can't talk to each other because they don't use the same olanguage. "I believe this way, and if you don't you have a different viewpoint or are misinformed" vs "I believe this way, and if you don't you are evil, hate the poor, want to destroy the environment"

 

[Darth Rotor]

There may be a lot of Christians who vote for him 'just because' he's a purported Christian. Christians tend to be conservative, but that's not universal.

There are plenty of liberal Christians who are not pleased with the strong arm tactics of the religious right, whose influence in the mid 80's was enough to preclude me from ever registering as a Republican. (Note: I was never a liberal Christian, but I have met loads of them over time.)

Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government" anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government.

The "secularization" you refer to seems to me a movement that can be clearly traced to US participation in WW I. "Once they've seen Paris, how ya gonna keep them on the farm?" With the importation of the new and radical socialist ideas from Europe, along with the Enlightenment strains already present in the founding principles. it seems to have been a natural course for things to take.

Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)

Violation of the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 by using Active Duty personnel from Fort Hood (as well as Texas National Guard) for the Waco mess wasn't successfully brought to court. This omission strikes me as curious bit of myopia on the part of the ACLU, whose apathy in that case lends credence to a new nickname, the Anti Christian Lawyers Union. Even ATF agents in their articles point to the fraudulent "it's crank lab, it's a War on Drugs matter" nonsense.

[qipote]"I believe this way, and if you don't you have a different viewpoint or are misinformed" vs "I believe this way, and if you don't you are evil, hate the poor, want to destroy the environment"[/QUOTE]
As true for Moore as for Limbaugh, two closed minded fat men.

DR

 

[Piggy]

As a fairly conservative non-Christian (non-religious) person, who has a fair number of people in common with me, I'd say this is not correct.

Actually, you're right. I stand corrected. I should have qualified my use of "base" further.

Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government"

Here, I have to disagree with you. He clearly is.

anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government, I see them bringing their own values and views into their job.

The government is rightly secular, per the Constitution, so of course there's no need to secularize it. And yes, everyone brings their own values, but there's a difference between that and deliberately trying to blur the line between church and state. In any case, that's a different thread, perhaps?

Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)

That may be a viewpoint, but Whitewater was trumped-up nonsense, and Elian had to be returned. Lewinsky was a pecadillo. Ruby Ridge, imo, was a legitimate screw-up.

 

[Piggy]

Ruby Ridge, imo, was a legitimate screw-up.

Clarification -- by which I mean, a serious issue, a legitimate issue... not justified. (I just realized that "legitimate screw-up" could be interpreted as meaning "honest mistake", which is not what I mean.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What [bjb] said.

Thank you both.

I am having a hard time with the bombardment of ad homs from a minority of members. I really want to address actual issues. There are many points of view and we can all learn from those points whether they contain something new or whether they help one fine tune their own points when challenged.

But when people throw naive insults around I guess to make themselves feel better, it just clutters the thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.

According to Hersh in the New Yorker article, Bush wanted Israel to drop massive bombs on Lebanon with the belief the Lebanese would blame Hezbolah for bringing on the devastation. The article is credible.

Bush seems to think brute force at any cost is OK as evidenced in our actions in Iraq. He speaks of the deaths of a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians as collateral damage. Even if one were to believe the war in Iraq had anything to do with the desire of the US to prevent more attacks like that on 9/11, the deaths of Iraqis are no less tragic than the deaths of people here on 9/11. Clearly in the mind of Bush and many others, those Iraqi deaths are close to meaningless.

He didn't spend more than a few minutes reviewing any of the death penalty cases as governor of Texas.

I for one, think these are examples of a pattern of utter disregard for the life of people Bush considers "them" and not "us".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois.

I believe the Illinois governor recognized that since the Innocence Project was finding a large % of the cases they looked at were wrongful convictions, then out of 100 executions you would definitely have at least some innocent people. And when I first looked at this I assumed the Innocence Project examples were a selected sample but there was actually other studies that put the estimate of wrongful convictions on serious felonies and death penalty cases over 25%, IIRC.

What the Illinois governor rightfully concluded was that until the justice system was corrected it was inevitable innocent people had been and would be executed. It is close to 100% probable based on statistics that Bush allowed more than one innocent person to be executed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Proof that he was 'gleeful', please?

Actually, the court system and the juries voted the death penalties in every case. Since an average death-row inmate spends years, if not decades, on the appeal process, Bush wasn't governor when the sentences were pronounced.

He declined in most cases to overturn the original court, appeal court, supreme court, and jury decisions. He did not choose or dictate the punishment. That included the death sentence for some of those involved in the shameful dragging death of a black man in Jasper years ago. Capital punishments are continuing under the present, Democratic governor.

I believe Bush was recorded making sarcastic jokes about Karla Fae Tucker's appeals for reprieve.

And the claim Bush had no authority to actually stop a death was refuted in the Salon article I linked to. Bush merely needed to call a member of the board who did have authority, and in fact Bush did in a single case. The board members said Bush never contacted them on any other case.

There are always going to be cases that one has less arguments against carrying out the death sentence. Read a few of the cases of those wrongfully convicted before assuming every case is as bad as the worst cases or as certain as the most obvious.

Well, I read on and see others already posted all this. Good work!