Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-03-2009, 03:41 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
Read this.
And this:

Quote:
Centrists In The Wild

The centrist is an elusive and unpredictable species. It is prone to darting out of press conferences before the Q&A starts. When backed into a corner by reporters, the centrist is known to give vague, uncomfortable answers, eye flitting about looking for escape routes. Our Brian Beutler encountered a female from the rare subspecies of Senate centrists today on Capitol Hill, and she exhibited many of the behavior patterns of her kind, especially when pressed on health care reform.

--David Kurtz
Slight correction: that should be our Brian Beutler, David Kurtz. ;^)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:02 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default NAF

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
Read this.
You're not being serious here. All that New America Foundation stuff sells itself as being centrist but it's obviously left wing (I love it, of course). Aside from Snowe maybe there's not a single Republican in Congress who'd vote for any of it (hell, it's almost to the left of the median Democratic senator). They're not going to sign up for a 21st c. Hamiltonianism. The Republicans couldn't even get behind SCHIP, let alone the NAF-style health care reform moving through congress right now. Jesus Christ they couldn't even go along with Franken's anti-rape bill.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:15 PM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

There's a huge difference between centrist elected officials and centrist voters. Most principled centrist voters I know don't vote for so-called moderate officials who are simply advocating watered down versions of the policies of either the left or right. True centrists (of the Halstead/Lind school at least) want policies that are amalgams of the undiluted policies of both sides. They're trying to merge hard left and hard right. Clearly, that doesn't happen very often. But if policies like Halstead's and Lind's are your ideals, it's easy to see why R's and D's look equally unappealing.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:22 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
There's a huge difference between centrist elected officials and centrist voters. Most principled centrist voters I know don't vote for so-called moderate officials who are simply advocating watered down versions of the policies of either the left or right. True centrists (of the Halstead/Lind school at least) want policies that are amalgams of the undiluted policies of both sides. They're trying to merge hard left and hard right. Clearly, that doesn't happen very often. But if policies like Halstead's and Lind's are your ideals, it's easy to see why R's and D's look equally unappealing.
I agree with your view in the ideal. In practice, anyone with power or seeking power who claims to be a centrist is usually a squish, and is less interested in ideas than in getting (re)elected, and people who vote for them are usually just falling for snow(e) jobs.

Secondly, I believe that the Republican Party as it stands now is so thoroughly controlled by the far right that there is no choice but to be equally firm about where we liberals stand. Not that the Democratic Party will ever commit to doing that on our behalf, of course, but we lefties have to keep pushing, lest the wingnuts drive this country off a cliff.

"The middle ground doesn't exist."
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-03-2009 at 04:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:24 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
There's a huge difference between centrist elected officials and centrist voters. Most principled centrist voters I know don't vote for so-called moderate officials who are simply advocating watered down versions of the policies of either the left or right. True centrists (of the Halstead/Lind school at least) want policies that are amalgams of the undiluted policies of both sides. They're trying to merge hard left and hard right. Clearly, that doesn't happen very often. But if policies like Halstead's and Lind's are your ideals, it's easy to see why R's and D's look equally unappealing.
Why don't you share some of that NAF policies with the board and let people decide if they're left or right ideas. I wonder what people will think of nationally funded K-12.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:43 PM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default Re: Live From Upstate New York! (Matthew Yglesias & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Dave has been doing yeoman's work covering the lunatic fringe that has taken over the Republican Party, mainly at The Washington Independent[/URL].
TWI's parent is partly funded by Soros and Rockefeller, and Weigel does what they want quite well. For instance, here's Dave Weigel lying by just making something up. (I.e., what he says never happened).

In the case of NY23, I posted a link to these questions for Doug Hoffman on his entries at TWI. If Weigel were a real reporter he would have asked things like that. Can anyone find examples of Weigel asking anything even remotely close to those type of questions? Weigel is just a hack, even if those who are blinded by partisanship can't recognize it.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:54 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Live From Upstate New York! (Matthew Yglesias & David Weigel)

Shorter ImmRefDotCom:

Quote:
Since Dave Weigel is not perpetually in a frenzy about teh Messikins, he must be a liar. Also, Soros. Do the math.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-03-2009, 05:07 PM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
Why don't you share some of that NAF policies with the board and let people decide if they're left or right ideas. I wonder what people will think of nationally funded K-12.
Off the top of my head, I recall the book plugging the following: mandatory health insurance (left), mandatory k-12 (left), replacing social security with individual accounts (right), nixing corporate taxes (right), consumption tax (right). Mostly, it was hard left social policy paid for by hard right economic policy.

I'm pretty solidly left of center, so much of what Halstead and Lind take from the right I oppose, but I see how what they are advocating is fundamentally different from what we get from so-called 'centrist' officials and how, if you decide that all parts of their agenda are equally important to you, both parties fail to impress.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-03-2009, 05:18 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
Off the top of my head, I recall the book plugging the following: mandatory health insurance (left), mandatory k-12 (left), replacing social security with individual accounts (right), nixing corporate taxes (right), consumption tax (right). Mostly, it was hard left social policy paid for by hard right economic policy.

I'm pretty solidly left of center, so much of what Halstead and Lind take from the right I oppose, but I see how what they are advocating is fundamentally different from what we get from so-called 'centrist' officials and how, if you decide that all parts of their agenda are equally important to you, both parties fail to impress.
The bottom line is they raise federal spending by 2-4% of GDP. Republicans are never going to go for that (unless it's for invading Argentina or something).

BTW, there are plenty of liberals for (progressive) consumption taxes and for eliminating corporate taxes ('cause only people pay taxes). So yeah, I agree H+L won't find any friends among village centrists. Also, Lind ain't for privatizing social security.

Look, I think it's great to try to sell a social democratic agenda as radically centrist or whatever, but let's not kid ourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-03-2009, 05:35 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Live From Upstate New York! (Matthew Yglesias & David Weigel)

John Cole's take: "We’re All Moderates Now."

[Added] DougJ's earlier post might have provoked that sarcastic title -- he actually makes a plausible case that the teabaggers are, in some senses, a possible moderating force on the Republican Party.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-03-2009 at 05:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-03-2009, 05:54 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Secondly, I believe that the Republican Party as it stands now is so thoroughly controlled by the far right that there is no choice but to be equally firm about where we liberals stand. Not that the Democratic Party will ever commit to doing that on our behalf, of course, but we lefties have to keep pushing, lest the wingnuts drive this country off a cliff.

"The middle ground doesn't exist."
Closely related: Former staunch Republican John Cole looks at "reasonable conservative" Rick Moran's futile attempt to find that middle ground.

P.S. JC just has a screenshot of the Memeorandum link in question. Here's the actual link.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-03-2009 at 10:35 PM.. Reason: as -> has
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-03-2009, 07:22 PM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

I think we have to define terms.

1. centrism

2. Moderate

3. Radical Center

I think what Brendon is talking about is party discipline while moving the American political system in a more parliamentary direction. Most voters are still consensus and moderate. The current president is a consensus politician. But, there's now, in Sam Tanenhaus' argument, a radical conservative movement analogous to the radical leftist movement in the late 60s and 70s, that is prompting Democrats to call for party discipline. But, it's all highly populist and uncritical. And this is where a horrible media sector combines with private constituencies for policies that don't necessarily match party categories. Radical centrists have the only strategy to navigate this shoal-laden map. Partisanship only works when the bureaucracy is completely professionalized, meaning political appointees going only one level deep. That's just too much change for American voters.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-03-2009, 07:26 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Live From Upstate New York! (Matthew Yglesias & David Weigel)

Harking: "Powell/Frum/Brooks brand of socialism-lite"

Do you have any idea how crazy that is ? Do you expect anyone to consider you anything less than deranged ?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-03-2009, 10:31 PM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

I'm not disputing that there ARE progressives who will espouse these policies, or denying that the GOP in its current extreme incarnation won't espouse these policies. I'm just saying that on a philosophical level, these are centrist proposals.

And Lind may have changed his position since writing that book; fair enough. My point is still that the ideas in that book are centrist ideas. Twin seemed to be suggesting that there was no such thing as centrist thinking. And I'm saying there is such a thing. If philosophical liberals adopt some of those proposals, that doesn't MAKE them philosophically liberal ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-03-2009, 10:42 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Live From Upstate New York! (Matthew Yglesias & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
'Teabaggers'? Really? The best you can do is regurgitate a tired, immature piece of snide that even Anderson Cooper realized was playground-level smack and apologized for? Looks like that dialogue with Bob trying to foster civil discourse is working wonders and the high class of the left wing here strikes again.
Where'd that term originate?



The only people who need to apologize for the term are the morans who put that sign in the hands of a kid. Don't blame Cooper for repeating what they'd already been calling themselves.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-03-2009, 10:49 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
I'm not disputing that there ARE progressives who will espouse these policies, or denying that the GOP in its current extreme incarnation won't espouse these policies. I'm just saying that on a philosophical level, these are centrist proposals.

And Lind may have changed his position since writing that book; fair enough. My point is still that the ideas in that book are centrist ideas. Twin seemed to be suggesting that there was no such thing as centrist thinking. And I'm saying there is such a thing. If philosophical liberals adopt some of those proposals, that doesn't MAKE them philosophically liberal ideas.
The question, though, is (IMHO): Are they meaningful centrist ideas? By which I mean: Do they represent more than the merely random, idiosyncratic views held by a (statistically) insignificant minority? If you allow a small enough minimum sample size, almost any view has a chance of being represented.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-03-2009, 11:04 PM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
The question, though, is (IMHO): Are they meaningful centrist ideas? By which I mean: Do they represent more than the merely random, idiosyncratic views held by a (statistically) insignificant minority? If you allow a small enough minimum sample size, almost any view has a chance of being represented.
Agreed. I don't know, and am not that interested in, the statistical or political implications of such ideas existing. Twin seemed to be making a philosophical point, that it wasn't a tenable ideological position to be centrist--that's all I was trying to counter.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-04-2009, 01:17 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Move over, Mark Halperin!

The GHEMRotRSTF intones:

Quote:
The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.

This is a huge win for conservatives.
I am not making this up.

P.S. Doug Hoffman has his first glass of whine.

[Added] Vote count details.

[Added2] An interesting earlier note.

[Added3] Can't wait to hear the Son of Erick comment on the news from California.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-04-2009 at 01:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-04-2009, 01:48 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

It's like the GOP paid $20 for an apple. The GOP can keep paying dearly for the same real estate every election, too. Corzine and Bloomberg can keep spending $20 for an apple, too. I'm embarrassed that Americans, wingnuts and non-rodeo clowns, are so profligate with their money.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:03 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

But, what was the turnout?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:18 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
But, what was the turnout?
Haven't seen anything official, and I don't think all the votes have been counted yet (absentee ballots plus some mechanical problems in four precincts), but right now, it looks like it was about two-thirds of what it was in 2008.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-04-2009 at 02:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:21 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

And, the Fox headline will be: "Liberals Scare Voters from NY 23 Polls!"
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:22 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
And, the Fox headline will be: "Liberals Scare Voters from NY 23 Polls!"
You think it'll be that tame, eh?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:30 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Well, I guess writing headlines for Fox is one job I'm proud not to be good for. Sinking one-liners is not my forte!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:40 AM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

No no no no.
It's going to be something like "ACORN influence in NY-23?" Or maybe "Chicago style politics in NY-23?" Whatever it is, it will surely contain the Cavuto Mark.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-04-2009, 03:04 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
No no no no.
It's going to be something like "ACORN influence in NY-23?" Or maybe "Chicago style politics in NY-23?" Whatever it is, it will surely contain the Cavuto Mark.
I think the first has already been asserted (not even phrased as a "question"), although I'm not positive that Fox has run it as a headline.

Yet.

I think "Chicago-style politics" (with "thug" or "thuggery" thrown in somewhere) is now mixed into all Fox News broadcasts by Autotune.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-04-2009, 03:43 AM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

As a Chicagoan, I'm very irritated about the misuse of this phrase. Chicago-style politics does not mean intimidation or thuggery or whatever Glenn Beck thinks it means. It means "vote early and vote often", dead people voting, exchanging votes for beers, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-04-2009, 04:39 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
As a Chicagoan, I'm very irritated about the misuse of this phrase. Chicago-style politics does not mean intimidation or thuggery or whatever Glenn Beck thinks it means. It means "vote early and vote often", dead people voting, exchanging votes for beers, etc.
Quite so.

However, you're trying to bring accuracy back into a situation where the wingnuts have already picked a meme and defined it to suit their taste, and the Villagers have opened wide and swallowed deep, so, uh, may I recommend a battle with better chances of winning, perhaps?

(I'm still trying to save "liberal," myself.)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-04-2009, 06:44 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
And, the Fox headline will be: "Liberals Scare Voters from NY 23 Polls!"
LOL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
You think it'll be that tame, eh?
LOL x 2!


Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
No no no no.
It's going to be something like "ACORN influence in NY-23?" Or maybe "Chicago style politics in NY-23?" Whatever it is, it will surely contain the Cavuto Mark.
Yes, this is right. I think I'll turn on Fox News right now and see how they're spinning it.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-04-2009, 07:01 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Is Jon Stewart right about how Fox covers the NY-23 story?

http://radicalcontra.wordpress.com/2...m-to-change-2/
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-04-2009, 07:28 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Chris Matthews has GOP mouthpiece for late night snack

Entertaining video.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-04-2009, 12:00 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
I'm just saying that on a philosophical level, these are centrist proposals.
i thought they were extremist proposals entirely, some from the left and some from the right - which may balance out to "centrist" if you deal in averages, but really, it just seems like the worst, most extreme ideas from both sides. pretty much the antitheses of anything i'd like to see happen in this country.

just my .02
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-04-2009, 12:04 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Move over, Mark Halperin!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
As a Chicagoan, I'm very irritated about the misuse of this phrase. Chicago-style politics does not mean intimidation or thuggery or whatever Glenn Beck thinks it means. It means "vote early and vote often", dead people voting, exchanging votes for beers, etc.
I thought it was like New York style, except served in a deep dish like a casserole.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-04-2009, 10:28 PM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
i thought they were extremist proposals entirely, some from the left and some from the right - which may balance out to "centrist" if you deal in averages, but really, it just seems like the worst, most extreme ideas from both sides. pretty much the antitheses of anything i'd like to see happen in this country.

just my .02
yes, they are the most extremist ideas from left and right amalgamated into something id agree with halstead and lind and call "radical centrism." it's not moderate politics, which is what i think most people think of when we use the term "centrist," and what most "centrist" elected officials reflect. i was just trying to draw the distinction between this [radical] kind of centrism--which averages out to being in the middle but is of its own philosophy--and the more commonplace washington centrism which is just watered down versions of liberalism or conservatism.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-05-2009, 08:53 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

You have mentioned in a previous thread that you believe the parties are more similar then I and most others believe.

Could you explain your reasoning?

Edit:
From my vantage point, the rise of hyper-partisan news sources (such as Fox or MSNBC), is radically polarizing the electorate. How can there ever be consensus among the electorate (instead of a perpetual 55-45 split), when the two sides cannot even come togethor and agree on basic facts about reality (which I would argue is largely an artifact of partisan news sources) ?
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 11-05-2009 at 08:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-05-2009, 12:16 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
You have mentioned in a previous thread that you believe the parties are more similar then I and most others believe.

Could you explain your reasoning?

Edit:
From my vantage point, the rise of hyper-partisan news sources (such as Fox or MSNBC), is radically polarizing the electorate. How can there ever be consensus among the electorate (instead of a perpetual 55-45 split), when the two sides cannot even come togethor and agree on basic facts about reality (which I would argue is largely an artifact of partisan news sources) ?
The question isn't directed to me, but at least until pretty recently I would have said that the parties were pretty similar, certainly more so than portrayed by their more rhetorically-extreme advocates. I might still make that argument, although the Republicans are making it hard, especially since it seems unclear how to separate what they really advocate vs. what they are happy to use to rile up the tea party mobs (who don't seem to really have that much in common with traditional Republicanism in a lot of ways).

I was just thinking about this in light of the attack on Obama's so-called extremism. The major culprits in this attack are the growth of the deficit, cap & trade, and health care, it seems, as not even the nuts seem capable of portraying his foreign policy as remotely radical. So look at those issues. I've actually got major problems with both cap & trade and the health care reform as currently envisioned, but hardly because either is particularly leftist. Both are pretty much a combination of a sop to centrism and the powers that be and basically politics as usual (don't want to have too much change). I'm not especially left-wing (I'd guess my posts here would put me as something of a moderate), and my problem with the health care plan is that it doesn't really address the problems it should, because it's too moderate.

So that leaves the deficit, which I find the weirdest of the apparently polarising issues of the moment, in that it seems most directly related to (1) the bailout of the financial sector (supported by the Bush admin and almost certain to have been supported by a President McCain, even if he had trouble figuring out how to work it as a campaign issue) -- not a traditional lefty policy, but the kind of issue where mainstream business-oriented Republicans and the particular pragmatist and DLC sectors of the Dems who have been big influences in the party in recent years tend to agree; (2) the stimulus -- again a policy that owes as much to mainstream thinking about economists and business interests as some supposedly leftist idelogy and, again, a policy that I suspect a Republican president would have followed to a certain extent, although with different pork projects to be embarassed by; and (3) a recalculation of the budget going forward revealing the cost Bush's own policies, such as the wars and the tax cuts (assuming they wouldn't be allowed to expire). Plus, of course, the negative effect on tax revenue caused by the recession.

While there has been an element of rhetoric in the Republican Party that has, since Reagan (probably since Goldwater and even tied -- in a different way -- to Nixon's silent majority stuff, but the issues seem to have evolved quite a bit since then), at least, tried to play up a connection between populism and supply-side econ and constant tax cutting, the only aspect of this for which there has really been much apparent support by Republican administrations is the tax cutting, and the idea of the Republicans as the populists is weird. Perhaps less so if they really become a regional party, though (which I'm skeptical about, just because I expect them to pull it together eventually).
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-05-2009, 12:47 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
So that leaves the deficit, which I find the weirdest of the apparently polarising issues of the moment, in that it seems most directly related to (1) the bailout of the financial sector (supported by the Bush admin and almost certain to have been supported by a President McCain, even if he had trouble figuring out how to work it as a campaign issue) -- not a traditional lefty policy, but the kind of issue where mainstream business-oriented Republicans and the particular pragmatist and DLC sectors of the Dems who have been big influences in the party in recent years tend to agree; (2) the stimulus -- again a policy that owes as much to mainstream thinking about economists and business interests as some supposedly leftist idelogy and, again, a policy that I suspect a Republican president would have followed to a certain extent, although with different pork projects to be embarassed by; and (3) a recalculation of the budget going forward revealing the cost Bush's own policies, such as the wars and the tax cuts (assuming they wouldn't be allowed to expire). Plus, of course, the negative effect on tax revenue caused by the recession.
i think you're problem here is thinking. you know, being rational. The point of "oh noz - the deficit!" hand wringing from the right is to obstruct everything in Obama's agenda. It has nothing to do with actually thinking about the issues, or trying to understand why we are in the situation we are in, or trying to solve problems.

once you realize that they are just digging in their heels for pure power-politics reasons, their actions and "concerns" become easily understood.

but people say i'm cynical...
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-05-2009, 12:58 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
but people say i'm cynical...
When it comes to mainstream Republicans activists and the like, and to some extent the actions of politicians, I actually do think you are more right than cynical (not that the two are mutually exclusive).

What I'm puzzling through is whether the rhetorical games means that there's really a difference between the parties or whether the fact that I think the situation would be pretty much the same on these matters no matter who was elected allows me to maintain my traditional view that the parties aren't so far apart as all that.

It also makes me frustrated with those of good faith who seem to be falling for the rhetoric or imagine that Obama is some hardcore lefty, but oh, well.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-05-2009, 01:05 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
....what they are happy to use to rile up the tea party mobs (who don't seem to really have that much in common with traditional Republicanism in a lot of ways)...

...I've actually got major problems with both cap & trade and the health care reform as currently envisioned, but hardly because either is particularly leftist. Both are pretty much a combination of a sop to centrism and the powers that be and basically politics as usual (don't want to have too much change)...
It is always hilarious too see the left trying to define their preferred policies as those of the centrists but a take or of some 16-17% of the economy is not centrist nor is the placing of regressive tax policies on energy, even with the various Robin Hood clauses of rob the rich to redistribute to the poor, centrist.

Perhaps some of the more partisan name calling, in an attempt to re-brand those individuals participating in the summer protests (mobs, teabagers, right wing fanatics etc.) many of which, if not the majority, are just working folks expressing their concerns, has been unproductive. While arguments can be made to say there are or are not national ramifications to the Democratic blood bath in Virginia, or the failure of the entrenched Democratic machine in New Jersey to hold the Governorship I believe that the most telling evidence is the nearly 2:1 margins of the independents favoring the Republicans. Spin it all you like in these two instances the middle dramatically shifted to the Republicans and it is the independents that decide most national elections.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-05-2009, 01:05 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: I don't understand this strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
i think you're problem here is thinking. you know, being rational. The point of "oh noz - the deficit!" hand wringing from the right is to obstruct everything in Obama's agenda. It has nothing to do with actually thinking about the issues, or trying to understand why we are in the situation we are in, or trying to solve problems.

once you realize that they are just digging in their heels for pure power-politics reasons, their actions and "concerns" become easily understood.

but people say i'm cynical...
When I have to deal with some cousin's blowhard right-wing boyfriend or whatever I play a little game with him:

1) who was the last guy to hit .400?
2) what's the debt right now anyway?

They always get the first one right and never get the second.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.