URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 37837
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by dabo on 11-07-12 at 02:42 AM
To be honest with you all, I was fully preprared for Obama being a one term president. I thought Romney would win, and be a second in a row one-termer actually, because really can he ever make up his mind? I really thought this stuff. And I expected Romney would turn out to be another one-termer, cos honestly.

I really thought Obama coulda and shoulda run a better campaign but didn't, I dunno why. Somehow in spite of not running the campaign I expected he woulda and soulda, playing weak, he won anyway.

This is really weird.

Congrats on retaining the House. I never expected the House to change hands this time anyway, but congrats.

The Senate? In all honesty the Senate was up for grabs. But then a couple of numbnut candidates screwed up their own chances, and really the Dems after that should have had only a slim majority. Weirdly weird how things turned out.

Elections, eh.

Time for something nice.

Peace and cherries.

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by cahaya on 11-07-12 at 03:43 AM
LAST EDITED ON 11-07-12 AT 11:33 AM (EST)

The handwriting was on the wall early on, 'Bama-Biden for another four years, along with a lot of political acrimony that is sure to occur all the way up until '16, with a do-nothing Congress that may even do less than the last one.

"Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 11-07-12 at 07:03 AM
You're right, AyaK... It is clear that I really don't have much experience with U.S. Democrats and I'm not sure I get it. You'll have to explain again what I should expect from them tonight.

http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/37809.shtml#74

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by VisionQuest on 11-07-12 at 09:16 AM
Ayak was half correct. This democrat did spend election night screaming.
"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by AyaK on 11-07-12 at 10:22 AM
Thanks for being nice about it, Pepe.

According to the polling data, the election was a replay of 2004, with the incumbent generating enough votes to win again. That didn't work out so well for the Republicans then, because they concluded that their reelection and increased majority in the Senate showed that they had a mandate to govern farther right, which expressed itself in ridiculous acts like the federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

We'll see if the Democrats do better.

The main problem for Republicans is twofold: the widening of the "gender gap" and the increasing population of Democratic-leaning Latinos. There is a strong disconnect between the religious conservatives and the majority in these groups.

Since there is little doubt that Obama will have to introduce a large punitive tax hike in the next four years, I see nothing but economic collapse ahead. YMMV.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by Snidget on 11-07-12 at 10:44 AM
I just don't see the end of the if we only swing even harder to the right then we will win everything all the time political theory. I dunno if the backlash in the general election against some those that won the primaries will do anything to spark a rebirth of the Republican party.

I know that eventually anything that swings out far enough will swing back, but I dunno what will get the momentum to change directions. I'm sure eventually someone will arise, but right now it seems they are all too willing to make sure that all you get by being anywhere close to moderate in any way you will be removed from office. Even if that means we will lose the general election (I'm looking at you Indiana).

As one of the gender gap I do say that the more extreme the rhetoric of the socially conservative the more I am loathe to vote on that side of the aisle. I can never tell if the pandering to that side is because they really agree but are just being a bit more circumspect in their language, or they are just pandering because they need those votes and they don't intend to enact the legislation they have to say they will enact to win the primary.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by frodis on 11-07-12 at 10:53 AM
So what now for the Republican party, Ayak? Strategically speaking, that is.

It seems like the party knows in its head that it needs a moderate candidate to be competitive, hence the maverick and moderate Mitt, but in its heart it just can't bear to actually let one run without making him bend over backward to appease the ultra-conservatives (why? They're not going to vote dem. Maybe they just won't vote, which I guess is also a problem.)

At what point does the ultra conservative base realize that its not doing itself any favors? How have they not realized it already? I thought that they actually had the right guy this time, but still managed to muck it up.

I'm genuinely curious.

"It's an issue of faith."
Posted by Estee on 11-07-12 at 11:42 AM
LAST EDITED ON 11-07-12 AT 11:45 AM (EST)

At what point does the ultra conservative base realize that its not doing itself any favors? How have they not realized it already?

At this point, asking them to question their beliefs is the equivalent of 'Have you considered changing your religion?' And for many of them, it's literal faith -- so why should they ever do anything other than what the echo in their head (which they've named 'God') wants? You don't rewrite your holy book: you keep looking for extra converts and wait for the deviants to be punished from above.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by AyaK on 11-07-12 at 11:45 AM
LAST EDITED ON 11-07-12 AT 08:32 PM (EST)

So am I, frodis.

The fundamental split in the Republican Party has, at least since Reagan, been between small-government libertarians and big-government social conservatives. That split isn't any closer to being resolved after this election.

Romney is a small-government type who concluded that he had to become a big-government type to get the nomination. The sad part of it is, he was probably right, because the main candidates running against him were REAL big-government social conservatives, such as Rick Santorum.

According to the WSJ, the idea of tying Romney to the extreme social conservative positions that the Republican Party has taken (instead of portraying Romney as a flip-flopper) came from Bill Clinton, who felt that, if people recognized Romney's "flexibility", they'd actually like him better. Clinton showed that he hasn't lost any of his political instincts, because I thin he was 100% right.

The Democrats were in a situation similar to this during the Reagan years. Liberals argued that the party needed someone further to the left to win an election. Instead, they finally won with Clinton, who was probably the least liberal Democratic nominee since WWII. Only in Clinton's wake could a leftist like Barack Obama win.

The problem is that the Republicans have few prominent moderate figures. Then again, neither did the Democrats when they nominated Clinton. But a group of moderate Democrats formed the Democratic Leadership Council and forged a new way. We need something like that among libertarians within the Republican Party, which means standing up to the social conservatives who dominate the party.

In the Senate, I thought Republicans would have learned from the disastrous Angle, O'Connell and Buck campaigns two years ago that picking the most socially conservative candidate in the primary is a loser with the majority of the population. Then we saw Akin and Mourdock this time.

Elizabeth Warren's most-played ad against Scott Brown argued that Republican control of the Senate would open the way for "repeal of Roe v. Wade." It's a preposterous argument, since Roe v. Wade (a) isn't a law that can be repealed, and (b) isn't even the law, which is actually Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

But here was the dominant factor last night: Latinos voted 75% for Obama, and women supported Obama by 11%, while men supported Romney by 7%. I'd like to believe that the gap results from men being more worried about the economy and the upcoming fiscal cliff, but instead I believe the gap relates more to the Republicans' rigid anti-immigration and pro-life platforms and opposition to same-sex marriage.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by Snidget on 11-07-12 at 03:26 PM
*nods* The get the government out of my wallet and into your womb/bedroom franken-bedfellow thing isn't really winning them any favors.
"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by AyaK on 11-07-12 at 09:01 PM
LAST EDITED ON 11-07-12 AT 09:01 PM (EST)

To be honest, even some of the dumber conservative columnists are arguing this today. for example Michael Walsh:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332862/nice-guys-finish-second-michael-walsh#

Second, lay off the social issues. Let me be blunt: Conservatives have lost that war, and last night’s defeats are just the beginning. As with Griswold and Roe, the times they are a’changing when it comes to sex. Furthermore: It doesn’t matter. True, the eternal verities remain, well, eternal verities, but quoting random passages from the Old Testament to justify contemporary American mores is just nuts; better for the dwindling Christian majority to embrace the message of the New Testament and let God’s love wash over all His children. Salvation is neither a board game nor a checklist. So do what the Democrats do: accept changing circumstances and then co-opt them.

But he doesn't really believe that, even though he acknowledges it's true, because he blames Romney for not running an "aggressive" campaign.

Like John McCain, he never really took the fight to Obama and, more important, Obamaism; he spectacularly refused to engage the Democrats on an ideological level, to explain why conservative principles are better than the chimera of “progressivism,” and to go straight at the machine tactics of the Chicago gang, the way the Republican reformers did during their battles with Tammany. And with the intelligence community leaking damaging details about Benghazi on a near-daily basis, he inexplicably took the entire issue off the table. He’s a good man, but a bad candidate, albeit the “most electable” of an unelectable lot.

Romney may have been a bad candidate, but he at least understood what Walsh does not, which is that NO ONE CARES what happened in Benghazi, even though it was a planned attack by al-Qaeda. At least, no one cares based upon the documents that are now available. When most voters say that the economy is the most important thing and then they STILL vote for the other side, trying to change the subject to a foreign-policy gaffe is a losers' strategy. And arguing for a candidate who will fight more on an ideological level is arguing in favor of Paul Ryan. Didn't we learn anything? Well, if Michael Walsh has anything to say about it, the answer is no.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by cahaya on 11-07-12 at 11:30 AM
The problem of a split Congress still exists, so I'm not too hopeful that the next Congress will be any more productive than the last one.

Add a couple more things to the Pub problem, the age gap (the younger generation doesn't buy into social conservatism) and the moderation gap (the social conservatives are quite uncompromising, and vocal about it).

Mitt and especially Ryan should have kept silent on the social issues, where they would have gotten the religious conservative vote anyway, and stuck to fiscal issues, which is (or was) the Pub's strong suit.

And it won't be Obama who writes the future tax legislation, if such legislation even manages to make its way through what will almost certainly be another do-nothing split Congress.

I don't share your dismal outlook for the U.S. economy, at least not in isolation relative to the overall worldwide economy. Having said that, I don't see boom times ahead, either, with the American free lunch long past.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by AyaK on 11-07-12 at 11:48 AM
>I don't share your dismal outlook for the U.S. economy, at
>least not in isolation relative to the overall worldwide economy.
> Having said that, I don't see boom times ahead,
>either, with the American free lunch long past.

You haven't looked at the tax hikes coming up and the amount of money at issue in sequestration.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by cahaya on 11-07-12 at 03:06 PM
Yup, The Fiscal Cliff, as the media calls it (as originally coined by Bernanke).

What do you think the odds are that a split Congress will actually do something about it, with just eight weeks to go before provisions kick in on January 1?

Fitch Ratings is threatening to downgrade the U.S. AAA rating if the fiscal cliff is not averted.

"RE: Experience with U.S. Democrats"
Posted by Estee on 11-07-12 at 04:36 PM
After the way the Toilet Papers went hell-bent for default, I'd put the odds at going over around 100% if someone anywhere thinks doing so will give them a single opportunity at 'I told you so'. It's not about anything other than inducing failure in the other party, so anyone who gets hurt was wounded by the opposition.

No one cares about the America that exists -- just the one in their heads.

"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by Estee on 11-07-12 at 08:15 AM
*reflects on some of the racist things one of my very drunk Wandering Tea Partiers just called me*

All things considered, I would appreciate their making the first move.

When he tried to grab my shoulder, I kicked him in the crotch and called the cops.

"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by cahaya on 11-07-12 at 09:46 AM
Are you serious? You seem to be a Tesla-strength magnet for the worst kind of trouble that's not even of your own making.
"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by Estee on 11-07-12 at 09:52 AM
*sigh* Quite. The problems with these idiots (and there was only one involved this time) have been around for a while: the stickers, the Tony Alamoing of my former car... those are just the things I've mentioned: most of the rest has been verbal. Today, in his soused misery over not getting His Country back -- the one where he can attack anyone he doesn't like and have the jury applaud -- he was at the blood alcohol level where he just wanted to reach out and touch someone.

I wasn't in the mood.

He should be in the middle of processing on his way to the drunk tank. I'm not expecting to get many potential court results, but at least now he's got an official record.

"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by byoffer on 11-07-12 at 11:17 AM
Let me fix that for you:

but at least now he's got an official record, and sore nuts.

"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by qwertypie on 11-07-12 at 06:28 PM
Are you serious? You seem to be a Tesla-strength magnet for the worst kind of trouble that's not even of your own making.
Yep, she's our very own Stephanie Plum. *DUCKS*
"Be careful out there"
Posted by Snidget on 11-07-12 at 09:39 AM
I dunno what was going on last night but the Interstate Commute this morning was littered with dead bodies. I think they were animals, but most had been run over enough times to be pulverized. I mean I'll sometimes see one on the way in, but 5, and some additional carcasses that hadn't been smeared over 1/4 a mile of interstate, yet.
"They fell off the"
Posted by moonbaby on 11-07-12 at 01:54 PM
fiscal cliff!

"NC Governor"
Posted by Bebo on 11-07-12 at 03:08 PM
Republicans (and most thinking people) can celebrate that North Carolina has its first Republican governor in 20 years. He had a double-digit lead in the polls leading up to the election.

Since the governor was retiring (guess she was sick of the fraud investigations and plastic surgery jokes), the lieutenant governor ran for the Dems. In the first gubernatiorial debate, he was dumber than a box of rocks...and it only went downhill from there.

"Look on bright side"
Posted by dabo on 11-07-12 at 10:35 PM
Been sitting on this article for about three weeks. Didn't know what to make of it then. Still don't. But you Pubs and conservatives dodged the bullet despite your and Romney's best efforts to take it. (Thought Romney ran a pretty excellent campaign, really.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/political-science-says-a-romney-presidency-would-be-doomed/263918/

Why the GOP Should Fear a Romney Presidency

"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by Molaholic on 11-07-12 at 10:56 PM
The election is over. The voice of the people has been heard. We all have one more duty to perform

>>>THANK A VETERAN<<<

Because it is their sacrifice that let your voice be heard.

Don't wait until Sunday -- do it now.

"RE: ECST: Be Nice to Pubs and Conservatives Day - November 7, 2012"
Posted by jbug on 11-07-12 at 11:38 PM
Amen

"Chris Christie"
Posted by AyaK on 11-09-12 at 02:41 AM
I had no problem with Chris Christie doing photo-ops with Obama if he thought that would help New Jersey. After all, Obama was still President, and NJ needed federal help. But. . .

Chrisite calls Obama, e-mails Romney

. . .doesn't say anything positive about him.

"agree (sorta)"
Posted by dabo on 11-09-12 at 03:18 AM
With NJ in a state if emergency thanks to Hurricane Sandy, it made sense for Obama to come to their aid no matter the politics, and it made sense for Gov. Christie to be gracious about it and drop partisan politics. Why bite the hand that comes to your rescue? Especially when you may need that partner for an unknowable time to come. I like Christie, he's pragmatic.

But did it really make a difference in the outcome of the election? No, I don't believe so. NJ was going to be a blue state anyway, and voters in all the other states really couldn't have cared less what what the governor of one state had to say.

I have given it a lot of thought, because I really did think Romney would win the election, and I think that Bill Clinton was the real trump card, that his efforts on Obama's behalf, his political instincts, were what made a big difference.

Now if only Obama can become Clintonesque, reach across the aisle, compromise, bslance the budget, reduce the deficit toward creating a surplus.

Good luck, chuck, the Titanic can't turn on a dime.

This nonsense about whether a phone call is better than an email, the desperate idiocy of the disappointed trying to point a finger of guilt and create a fall guy.

Nonsense.

"Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by AyaK on 11-09-12 at 03:59 AM
>Now if only Obama can become
>Clintonesque, reach across the aisle,
>compromise, bslance the budget, reduce
>the deficit toward creating a
>surplus.

Frankly, I think the next two years will make the last four look like the Roaring Twenties by comparison. Four years ago, my practice pretty much specialized in a product that went out of existence in 2009. I barely managed to hang on and rebuilt it around a different area of tax law. But I think the coming Obamacare-fueled crash over the next two years will probably take that out too.

My advice is that, if you have a private-sector job, pray that you can keep it. Of course, if you work for the government, you'll be OK, so look for government jobs if you can find them. And good fortune.

>This nonsense about whether a phone
>call is better than an
>email, the desperate idiocy of
>the disappointed trying to point
>a finger of guilt and
>create a fall guy.
>
>Nonsense.

Wrong. As I said, the loss isn't Christie's responsibility in any way, shape, or form. But his decision to call Obama and only e-mail Romney is an attempt on Christie's part to keep himself from being tainted by Romney's supposed partisanship and retain his appeal to Democrats. In other words, to Christie, it wasn't about NJ; it was only about Chris Christie.

"Agree"
Posted by IceCat on 11-09-12 at 06:03 AM
Christie is a savvy enough politician to realize that even a feigned shift to the center and the appearance of bi-partisanship would be an astute move for his own political career.

What I wonder is, if a significant number of other Republicans adopted similar tactics, might it have the effect of pulling the GOP a little more to the center and away from the Tea Party which has driven away a lot of moderates.

Might a selfish self-serving act actually have a hidden benefit for the party as a whole?

"RE: Agree"
Posted by AyaK on 11-09-12 at 11:40 AM
LAST EDITED ON 11-09-12 AT 11:41 AM (EST)

Well, I don't know how stable either party's coalition is at the moment. Let's take a look at Europe youth unemployment rates.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-08/europes-scariest-chart-hits-peak-scariness-levels-and-rising

As the US falls into step with that curve, it seems inevitable to me that the coalitions will have to change. That's not a question of panic; it's an acknowledgement of the transitory nature of electoral coalitions in US politics. Right now, this election makes it clear, in a way that 2008 did not, that the current Republican coalition has been severely -- and probably fatally -- damaged by the Bush years and the social conservative ascendancy.

"Addendum"
Posted by AyaK on 11-09-12 at 02:32 PM
For those of you who think I'm just pessimistic about the economy because my side lost the election, let me point you to this article in Germany's Der Spiegel, translated into English for its European website:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/us-debt-problems-threaten-to-send-the-country-and-globe-into-crisis-a-866151.html

"RE: Addendum"
Posted by cahaya on 11-09-12 at 07:37 PM
LAST EDITED ON 11-09-12 AT 07:57 PM (EST)

I share your pessimism, and I would share it regardless of who was elected into the highest office in our land. A lot depends on what happens within the next eight weeks.

This is a Congressional duty, to follow up on a Budget Act that put the Congress themselves at this precipice, the so-called Fiscal Cliff, as Bernanke put it. It was never intended for Congress to let time push them over this cliff, yet less than two months remain before something, anything, must be enacted, before the massive tax increase and budget decrease causes another recession with the lack of dollars in the national economic stream.

I think they'll get something done (with negotiations in progress even now), but I also think it will end up being too little too late, with much of the budget agenda pushed again to another later date.

This is not the time for Tea Party style lack of compromise. Congress has to get off its collective azz (after a historically unproductive period last congress) and pass legislation of significant economic, potentially historic, import. Both sides of the aisle know this, but what really hurts this country, in part due to the election, is the lack of states-persons who can genuinely cross the aisle, as Americans, not as Pubs or Dems, more than a Gang of 14, to get things done. Can Obama do it with some of the Republican Congressional leadership? They're supposedly working on it now... and the clock is ticking...


Capn's temple lions

A lame duck is a dead duck.

"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by dabo on 11-10-12 at 03:33 AM
Well, first, I agree that Obamacare needs some fixin'. It doesn't do nearly enough to fix the real problems, it is just a start.

As for Gov. Christie, let me clarify:

In the days leading up to the election Christie was vilified on numerous right-wing blogs, and to some extent on right-wing talk radio (to their credit not by hosts but still by callers in) and on TV by some Faux News commentators, for being nice about Obama's immediate response to Hurricane Sandy instead of trying to throw him under the bus. Post election some of these numbnuts, from what I read, tried to blame Christie and Sandy for the result of the election.

Dumb plain idiocy looking for a scapegoat, that was what I reacting to.. I know you are better than that.

If anything, I think Christie just wanted to distance himself from the extremists in his party, which is a good thing to do in the current political climate. But pragmatically a natural disaster is a natural disaster, not the time for partisan party nonsense.

"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by AyaK on 11-10-12 at 11:40 AM
Realistically, I think all the speechifying against Christie before the election was an attempt to neutralize him as a future threat to the social conservatives.

I'm with Kathleen Parker on this, to the extent that we need to assign responsibility for the loss:

http://tinyurl.com/bwsbsq5

The truth is, Romney was better than the GOP deserved. Party nitwits undermined him, and the self-righteous tried to bring him down. The nitwits are well-enough known at this point — those farthest-right social conservatives who couldn’t find it in their hearts to keep their traps shut. No abortion for rape or incest? Sit down. Legitimate rape? Put on your clown suit and go play in the street.

I've put up with the increasing influence of the social conservatives, because I believed it was necessary to get rid of an utter incompetent like Barack Obama. As a result, for the last two election cycles, I've had to listen to morons who deny evolution like Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann, as well as fools like CHristine O'Donnell and Richard Mourdock instead of Mike Castle and Richard Lugar.

The question is, what is going to change between now and next election cycle?

As far as the Obamacare point, my problem is simple: how does a broke government pay for it, even to the extent that it currently goes? Even with all the tax hikes that were included in the package, Obamacare runs in the deep red for as far as the eye can see. Even Clinton-level taxation wouldn't cover its costs. Perhaps 1970s-level taxation, with a top tax rate of 70%, would -- except back then, money and people were fleeing America as fast as they could run.

"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by Snidget on 11-10-12 at 12:55 PM
"The question is, what is going to change between now and next election cycle?"

The sane conservatives that believe in reality leave to join the Democrats and form a coalition with the moderates there to pull the Democratic party to right of center. (because I don't see two whole new parties forming). The leftist/progressive/liberal wing of the Democrats leave and join the Green party to form a new left of center party. The Tea Party/social conservatives form a far right wing only party and move to compounds predominately in Idaho to await the rapture.

But that's a pipe dream. I think it is more likely than a whole new party is created in the middle that is viable.

"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by AyaK on 11-10-12 at 02:02 PM
That might be possible if the Democratic president were Hillary Clinton, for example. But, despite the discussions here, Barack Obama is way out on the left, even if he's not far enough out there to suit ginger.

It's not possible for a moderate coalition to take over the party that he heads.

"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by Snidget on 11-10-12 at 04:13 PM
True it doesn't seem likely in the next 4 years, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in my lifetime.
"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by cahaya on 11-11-12 at 04:03 AM
LAST EDITED ON 11-11-12 AT 04:14 AM (EST)

The likelihood of a third and/or fourth party has diminished with time, with the media influence and public perception. George Wallace was the last serious candidate to meet the criteria of a viable third-party political candidate at the national level, although candidates still exist at the state and local levels.

One of the reasons the Democrats succeeded with this election in 2012 is their inclusiveness, races of color, genders of equality, marriages of choice, appeal to the youth, and compassion for the will of the electorate, all of which were lacking in the Republican platform.

Somehow social issues were given as much equal if not greater weight than the actual issues of government and fiscal management, and this created a split. One could be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and yet find themselves (like me) in a dilemma which approaches to adopt and reject.

How can I vote for a party which condones those ethical positions that I reject, in spite of my agreement with their vision for less but more effective government? How can I support a party which chooses to intrude on the personal choices people make without their having any affect upon other citizens? Does someone else choosing to have a first trimester abortion or smoking pot have any real effect on me and my daily life, including the taxes I must pay?

The Republican party has become schizophrenic, with multiple yet conflicting identities, unable to split due to the "two party" meme that has lasted for decades, while the Democrats willingly take into their fold anyone who feels left out (no pun intended).


Foo dogs by tribe

"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by Snidget on 11-11-12 at 10:01 AM
I don't see a viable third party.

I do see a divorce between the small government end and the socially conservative end coming. But I don't think we end up with three big parties. I think we end up with two big ones and another small party that occasionally gets someone into office like the libertarians and greens do today.

There may be one election cycle where it looks like we may have three, but one of them will quickly become much smaller and less viable and I don't see that being the small government/fiscally conservative part of the split.

Herman Cain is already talking splitting the Republicans and I think they may be to the point they are ready to cut the radical right socially conservative loose and see if they can nab enough of the center from the Dems and get the libertarian types really on board with them.

A lot will depend on the rebranding, how damaged is the Republican brand and is it better to try to shift the GOP or let the wackier end have it and start the new coalition somewhere else.

"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by Round Robin on 11-11-12 at 01:49 AM
I think you will eventually see a new moderate party created, but I don't see it being big enough by 2016 to make that much difference in the election. We need to have a moderate party that's big enough to nominate its own presidential candidates and have them be a factor in the outcome of elections, and I think it'll take a couple more election cycles for voters to get disgusted enough to make this possible.
"RE: Unicorns and rainbows"
Posted by AyaK on 11-11-12 at 03:32 AM
The problem is that both major parties are coalitions. You'd need to get a coalition together of people who both felt disenfranchised AND agreed on enough to make coalition governing possible. I'm not sure if there is a big enough coalition around limiting the idea of central government power to ever make a separate party.

For example, in 1988, I voted for Michael Dukakis solely because I was so offended that the Bush campaign had made Dukakis' membership in the ACLU into an issue. A libertarian candidate would never have done that, so it proved to me that Bush 41 was not going to be a libertarian.

But that doesn't mean that I would supported Dukakis across the board, because Dukakis was no libertarian either. He just happened to be on the receiving end of (as Steve LaTourette would put it) crap for being a member of the ACLU, which is a group that libertarians generally agree with.

"Can a separation/divorce/succession be amiable"
Posted by Snidget on 11-09-12 at 03:44 PM
When you call the people who are wanting to be rid of "maggots"?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/11/08/4399621/hardin-county-gop-official-wants.html

"RE: Can a separation/divorce/succession be amiable"
Posted by Estee on 11-09-12 at 03:53 PM
Frankly, given the standard Tea Party voter base and tactics, the only surprise I had in the entire article was that he didn't remember it started with an F.
"Meanwhile in Texas..."
Posted by cahaya on 11-09-12 at 07:48 PM
... a daughter-spanking judge is back on the bench.
"RE: Meanwhile in Texas..."
Posted by AyaK on 11-09-12 at 11:34 PM
This went far beyond spanking.

The problem is, unless he lost his law license or was convicted of a crime, he couldn't be removed from the bench. And the Texas Bar wasn't about to take his law license without a conviction, because no one knows how many other lawyers go through contentious divorces that could cost them their livelihoods if the Texas Bar ruled against him, but I'll speculate that the number isn't trivial. But I think the seven-year time gap from the video to its reporting put this beyond the statute of limitations.

"RE: Meanwhile in Texas..."
Posted by cahaya on 11-10-12 at 01:57 AM
As it is, even without criminal charges due to the expiry of statute of limitations, he likely won't survive the next electoral vote to retain him as judge when it comes up.

X marks the spot, or not, on the ballot.

"An election quote"
Posted by AyaK on 11-10-12 at 05:21 PM
I'm passing this along for personal reasons. The results of this election means that I no longer have any friends in Congress, and I just wanted to share what one of my RL friends had to say about the current situation:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83571.html?hp=r2

"RE: An election quote"
Posted by kidflash212 on 11-10-12 at 05:39 PM
Interesting his comments about his wife. My friends had similar feelings, many of them (myself included) would have considered voting against Obama if the likes of Bryan Fischer, Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown were repudiated by Romney.