When did the GOP lose touch with Reality?

A really great (and somewhat lengthy) post by lifelong conservative Republican and former W. Bush speechwriter David Frum about the GOP's descent into madness. An honest assessment from the inside of the intellectual collapse of a once vibrant party. It's a shame intellectual honesty has become such a rare commodity on the right. I hope they find their way back soon. I've only posted an excerpt here but I highly recommend the full piece.

"But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy *errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action *phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”

"We used to say “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information."

http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politi...-frum-2011-11/

Thanks for this link and a stimulating article, it reminds me of a moment not long after Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979 when there was a surge of interest in libertarian ideas and some radical 'conservatives' dismissed Harold MacMillan as a socialist; presumably some of today's Republicans would say the same of Eisenhower.

It is a pity nobody in the Labour Party had the courage to denounce the way in which Blair, Mandelson and Brown trashed a party with values and a mixed but often positive record in government. I cannot believe that the party which sanctioned extraordinary rendition, torture, detention without trial, and such wilful ignorance of economics was not dissolved in shame in 2010. In Europe the Cold War made the existing political parties obsolete, and I would have preferred a re-alignment of politics around different agendas and ideas, but no, this farce continues with a party losing votes becoming half the government. Labour lost its soul, and is but a ghost doomed for a certain time (if not all time) to walk the night, and for the day confined to fast in fires...

Thanks for that bluegrass - very interesting and disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Thanks for this link and a stimulating article, it reminds me of a moment not long after Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979 when there was a surge of interest in libertarian ideas and some radical 'conservatives' dismissed Harold MacMillan as a socialist; presumably some of today's Republicans would say the same of Eisenhower.

It is a pity nobody in the Labour Party had the courage to denounce the way in which Blair, Mandelson and Brown trashed a party with values and a mixed but often positive record in government. I cannot believe that the party which sanctioned extraordinary rendition, torture, detention without trial, and such wilful ignorance of economics was not dissolved in shame in 2010. In Europe the Cold War made the existing political parties obsolete, and I would have preferred a re-alignment of politics around different agendas and ideas, but no, this farce continues with a party losing votes becoming half the government. Labour lost its soul, and is but a ghost doomed for a certain time (if not all time) to walk the night, and for the day confined to fast in fires...

---

Hey they are like our Labor party:dancing:

We have an administration that has run up $4 trillion in new debt in 30 months. Operating without a budget, almost a 1,000 days. And you say were out of touch? Keep living in la la land Alice, let the adults fix things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

We have an administration that has run up $4 trillion in new debt in 30 months. Operating without a budget, almost a 1,000 days. And you say were out of touch? Keep living in la la land Alice, let the adults fix things.

---

Thanks for that insightful take on Frum's piece, Faldur. You clearly devoted a lot of thought to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

Thanks for that insightful take on Frum's piece, Faldur. You clearly devoted a lot of thought to it.

---

Lol, didn't waste my time reading it.

First of all....Frum is a Republican....I'm not. I have no use for him, he's part of the problem that put us here. Mirror meet Mr. Frum. And although he may have some cred with the country club Republicans, their days are numbered. He has the same psychosis that David Brooks has. They're establishment. They like to get invited to all the book parties and Holiday Cocktail extravaganzas, suck up to Chris Matthews and the NPR crowd, and you get those invites by eating your own. His words are irrelevant to fiscal conservatives and libertarians.
If I posted any of the dozens of articles by Doug Schoen ( Clinton) or Pat Caddell ( Jimmy Carter) lamenting the democratic party is so far left of what it was even a decade ago....you'd dismiss them out of hand. I return the favor. David Frum is persona non grata, but nice try. FAIL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

First of all....Frum is a Republican....I'm not. I have no use for him, he's part of the problem that put us here. Mirror meet Mr. Frum. And although he may have some cred with the country club Republicans, their days are numbered. He has the same psychosis that David Brooks has. They're establishment. They like to get invited to all the book parties and Holiday Cocktail extravaganzas, suck up to Chris Matthews and the NPR crowd, and you get those invites by eating your own. His words are irrelevant to fiscal conservatives and libertarians.
If I posted any of the dozens of articles by Doug Schoen ( Clinton) or Pat Caddell ( Jimmy Carter) lamenting the democratic party is so far left of what it was even a decade ago....you'd dismiss them out of hand. I return the favor. David Frum is persona non grata, but nice try. FAIL

---

You're proving his point by engaging in character assassination rather than dealing with the substance of his claims. FAIL indeed. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

You're proving his point by engaging in character assassination rather than dealing with the substance of his claims. FAIL indeed. lol

---

And you're using a country club republican as some sort of leverage thinking we'll react with OMG...David Frum?? We'd better do some self evaluation because he's been our savior in the past..... LMFAO.

I explained....he was a part ( albeit) a small part of what put us here. Would you ask for Micheal Jackson's doctor for some drugs if you weren't feeling well simply because he had some political positions that you found useful? If you're looking to affect fiscal conservatives to do some soul searching....come up with something better than David Frum. Three or 4 of us have told you that, but you're pretty slow. He had no cred with lefties yesterday, but suddenly he's a sage....you're fuckin' kiddin with this......right?:dancing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

A really great (and somewhat lengthy) post by lifelong conservative Republican and former W. Bush speechwriter David Frum about the GOP's descent into madness. An honest assessment from the inside of the intellectual collapse of a once vibrant party. It's a shame intellectual honesty has become such a rare commodity on the right. I hope they find their way back soon. I've only posted an excerpt here but I highly recommend the full piece.

"But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy *errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action *phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”

"We used to say “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information."

http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politi...-frum-2011-11/

---

David Frum is okay.... He's quite principled. (I like so-called conservatives who don't waver. One should stick firm to their beliefs. Again, Ron Paul is indicative of a principled politician. Albeit I disagree with Paul on a lot of his positions.) I mean, most politicians are opportunists. Whether they're so-called Dems or so-called Republicans. Anyway, they're essentially part of the same team. Although there are some differences. An acquaintance of mine said he doesn't vote because politicians, all politicians, serve their own interests. That's partly true. They serve their own power. And corporate power. All governments serve power structures.
Here's David Sirota: "... every politician on the national stage is an opportunist. As a rule, you don’t get to be a U.S. congressman, Senator or president without being a narcissistic, self-focused, would-fleece-your-own-mother-to-get-elected opportunist. In a sense, politics at that level is rarely ever about ideals and “good guys” and “bad guys” — it’s about a bunch of opportunists getting together and seeing whose self-interest wins."

Attention Blue Grass .....head to a dark room and and start a
re-evaluation of all you previously held dear. Two Democrats are about to tell you Why Obama is bad for your party. I'm sure we can expect your mea culpa................tomorrow? Get Real man.

• 
  By PATRICK H. CADDELL
  AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.
Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.
Enlarge Image


http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...1120143401.jpg Close
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...1120143401.jpg


Associated Press Secretary of State Hillary Clinton



President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president's performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.
Consequently, he has to make the case that the Republicans, who have garnered even lower ratings in the polls for their unwillingness to compromise and settle for gridlock, represent a more risky and dangerous choice than the current administration—an argument he's clearly begun to articulate.
One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be "guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it." The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.
If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate—especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame—George W. Bush or Barack Obama?—to a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future.
Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country. A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton's approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation's first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%).
But this is about more than electoral politics. Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does. Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.
President Bill Clinton reached a historic agreement with the Republicans in 1997 that led to a balanced budget. Were Mrs. Clinton to become the Democratic nominee, her argument would almost certainly have to be about reconciliation and about an overarching deal to rein in the federal deficit. She will understand implicitly the need to draw up a bipartisan plan with elements similar to her husband's in the mid-to-late '90s—entitlement reform, reform of the Defense Department, reining in spending, all the while working to preserve the country's social safety net.
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country. We do not write as people who have been in contact with Mrs. Clinton or her political operation. Nor would we expect to be directly involved in any Clinton campaign.
If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative—Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

And you're using a country club republican as some sort of leverage thinking we'll react with OMG...David Frum?? We'd better do some self evaluation because he's been our savior in the past..... LMFAO.

I explained....he was a part ( albeit) a small part of what put us here. Would you ask for Micheal Jackson's doctor for some drugs if you weren't feeling well simply because he had some political positions that you found useful? If you're looking to affect fiscal conservatives to do some soul searching....come up with something better than David Frum. Three or 4 of us have told you that, but you're pretty slow. He had no cred with lefties yesterday, but suddenly he's a sage....you're fuckin' kiddin with this......right?:dancing:

---

Another dodge. The more you attack the messenger the more important the message appears. Since you don't object to any of the substance I assume you agree with it or at least recognize its truthfulness. Congrats, it's the first step on a long road back to honesty.

I would comment, but I have no dog in this fight anymore :wiggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Attention Blue Grass .....head to a dark room and and start a
re-evaluation of all you previously held dear. Two Democrats are about to tell you Why Obama is bad for your party. I'm sure we can expect your mea culpa................tomorrow? Get Real man.

---

So now we can add changing the subject as well as character assassination to your response. Every little bit keeps building my case. lol.

As for this nonsense, the idea that the president would have more bargaining power with the GOP if he resigned is literally laughable. I laughed. Why would the GOP cooperate with someone who has no power? And as the article states, Obama still has a good shot at winning re-election, indeed, most political scientists are predicting his victory. The article cites Truman and Johnson, do they remember who actually went on to win the WH in those elections? It's just a silly idea that Clinton could just step into the role and win. Her positive poll numbers are largely a result of being out of the public eye and partisan crosshairs. She would quickly be the target of smears that would lower her standing.

So thanks for your bit of fiction OMK. Now back to the reality of the conservative movement. Still nothing to say? Your silence is deafening. :dancing:

onmyknees, surely the point of this thread and the value of Frum's article is that it opens up for debate the problem that the Republican Party has in agreeing on what it now stands for. On both sides of the Atlantic these 'conservative' parties have tended to contain blocs that are -in your cute phrase- 'country club' conservatives at one end, and libertarians at the other -the aggressive manner in which the Tea Party enthusiasts denounce their Republican brothers and sisters as RINO's suggests that this is a bitterly divided party, and divided parties don't win elections -although in the US I guess individual candidates will win. The voters either don't know what they are voting for, or they may look at another fiasco in Congress today, for which the 'no surrender' loonies are responsible, and decide the Boston Tea Party looks much better in the history books than as a roadshow on its way to the Capitol...the English conservative party is not as badly divided as it was after Thatcher left, but the fissures remain similar -if we didn't have the comedy of this coalition I dread to think where we would be now. But Hippifried in the other thread did raise the core question -are Libertarians actually Conservatives? Shouldn't the Tea Party actually be a separate party from the Republican?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

I would comment, but I have no dog in this fight anymore :wiggle:

---

Oh? Change of heart or just tired?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Lol, didn't waste my time reading it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

You're proving his point by engaging in character assassination rather than dealing with the substance of his claims. FAIL indeed. lol

---

I agree with you BC. Rather than discuss facts, I see people only looking to things that confirm their viewpoint. I have seen so many articles with statistics saying the rich are getting a greater percentage of the total wealth, and that middle class wages have been stagnant for decades. Yet the Republican universe says tht giving more breaks, and less oversight, to the wealthy is the answer. Republicans say creating jobs here, when the evidence shows they're increasing tied to overseas investments. Why was the stock market in such upheaval over the European monetary situation, if thier real focus is the US economy?

Even though, throughout history, people understood that war meant, that a nation needed to band together and sacrifice, its not recognized today. But facts outside the Republican universe, are not given much weight. I'm not sure who believes this, but I am surprised that there are people who think that cutting back on support to public education is good ofr our collective future.

I need to qualify my earlier comment as I am not always completetly aware of how the US system works. According to today's New York Times, the failure of the Supercomittee to agree on the deficit could work both ways -Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, which I was not aware of -and I assume taxes then rise (?) but the cuts must also go ahead, mostly in the military, hence the argument that both sides win if they let things stay as they are. Whether or not your economy overall wins is another matter. But I have to say to use all those man hours to come up with no agreement at all suggests your Congress is in need of reform, or you just need to elect people who put their country's interests first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I need to qualify my earlier comment as I am not always completetly aware of how the US system works. According to today's New York Times, the failure of the Supercomittee to agree on the deficit could work both ways -Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, which I was not aware of -and I assume taxes then rise (?) but the cuts must also go ahead, mostly in the military, hence the argument that both sides win if they let things stay as they are. Whether or not your economy overall wins is another matter. But I have to say to use all those man hours to come up with no agreement at all suggests your Congress is in need of reform, or you just need to elect people who put their country's interests first.

---

They will go to the Clinton era which was 39% for the richest. They currently pay 36%. I'm not sure how it would effect the other tax brackets.

Quote:

---

They currently pay 36%.

---

No they don't. Those brackets are for wages, salaries, & tips. If memory serves, the top rate on capital gains is 15%. That's how Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

No they don't. Those brackets are for wages, salaries, & tips. If memory serves, the top rate on capital gains is 15%. That's how Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary.

---

Short term tax rates in 2011 are the same as the investor's ordinary income tax rate, up to 35%. I assure you Jimmy Buffet is in the 35% bracket,.

Long term rates remain from 15 - 35% depending on the type of earned income. Small Business Stock Gains are at 28%.

Long Term and Short Term CApital Gains Tax Rate 2011, 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bra..._United_States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

Another dodge. The more you attack the messenger the more important the message appears. Since you don't object to any of the substance I assume you agree with it or at least recognize its truthfulness. Congrats, it's the first step on a long road back to honesty.

---

Stuipd is as stupid does.
You're entire premise was that because some speech writer ( by no means a spokesman, or even a lightweight) in The GOP wrote some things he perceived as wrong with the GOP, that conservatives here would dive into some deep introspection and confess their sins to you. That's an asinine premise, Frum is like that other air head Meghan Mc Cain...they represent no one but themselves...and the ironic thing is they have no following on the right, but apparently now they do on the left. ..so rather than take any time to explain that to a fragile, closed mind...I thought I'd provide you with the exact opposite scenario, to show you how adolescent your attempt was. It obviously went soaring right over your head. When you find some article posted by someone who actually has some credibility, such as a Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Larry Kudlow, then maybe you'll have a scoop worth answering...until then...you shoot more blanks than anyone I know, but I give you a "D" for effort and an "F" for content. You wear the dunce cap today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Oh? Change of heart or just tired?

---

Not a big change of heart, but I have changed many of my social positions to reflect my current life, and I am tired of defending a party that
A) fired me
B) Does not respect me for who I am.
If the younger generation gains power that would bring me back into supporting or maybe even working for them agian, but under it's current leadership I would rather be shot in the knee caps with my own 44Mag.
Just my :2cent

Maybe the discussion should be about how political parties change over time, it has happened in the USA since the Civil War, it has happened in the UK since the First World War, and it has also been a feature of continental Europe. If there is one common denominator it is losing an election or two or, in the case of the Labour Party in the UK, four elections on the trot. Soul searching then takes place, the leadership changes, policies are reviewed.

In the US, however, the party system differs -the 'leader' of the Democrats does not automatically become the Presidential candidate, same with the Chairman of the Republican Convention; whereas in Europe, if someone is elected/chosen to lead their party they acquire huge significance. In Europe the Cold War had a divisive impact, mainly because our socialist parties were formed before the Russian Revolution, whose consequence with the creation of alternative, Communist Parties, split the left forever after. In the USA the Republican Party has gone from being the party of Lincoln to a party associated with the South and South West of the USA; its 'natural constituency' seems to have flipped.

But do these parties have a soul? Do they have a coherent ideology? The GOP is clearly divided between 'country club conservatives' and tea party radicals; but it is also divided on specific issues such as abortion, gay rights, and foreign policy. The blocs that are associated with the parties -the unions with the Democrats, Wall St/Corporate America with the GOP seem secure, but it seems clear to me that just as there has been no effecitve re-aignment of party politics in the UK, in the USA also there is a rigid two-party system, is it the case that there is no separate Tea Party because its adherents need the national organisation of the Republican Party as their vehicle?

I wonder if people are afraid of the consequences if an effective third party emerged with a strong Presidential candidate that resulted in 'hung elections' in which it is the Electoral College who chooses your leader, who would clearly not have a popular mandate, maybe elected on just over a third of the vote. Capitalism is clearly changing, why doesn't the party system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Stuipd is as stupid does.
You're entire premise was that because some speech writer ( by no means a spokesman, or even a lightweight) in The GOP wrote some things he perceived as wrong with the GOP, that conservatives here would dive into some deep introspection and confess their sins to you. That's an asinine premise, Frum is like that other air head Meghan Mc Cain...they represent no one but themselves...and the ironic thing is they have no following on the right, but apparently now they do on the left. ..so rather than take any time to explain that to a fragile, closed mind...I thought I'd provide you with the exact opposite scenario, to show you how adolescent your attempt was. It obviously went soaring right over your head. When you find some article posted by someone who actually has some credibility, such as a Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Larry Kudlow, then maybe you'll have a scoop worth answering...until then...you shoot more blanks than anyone I know, but I give you a "D" for effort and an "F" for content. You wear the dunce cap today.

---

No, no you already used character assassination, don't you have any other ways to avoid dealing with the substance? Maybe repeating talking points or maybe just making something up? Try it, it might make you feel better. You'll have "won." LOL

And nobody on the left follows Frum, he's much too conservative, but at least he's honest. And he's clearly no airhead like McCain, or Cain or Perry or Palin or Bachmann or any other Tea Party favorite. It's sadly predictable that you would offer huckster snake-oil salesman Paul Ryan as someone with credibility.

I had no hopes of a confession from conservatives on here but introspection would be a nice change from the lack of self-awareness and hatred that permeates the conservative posts on here. But I assume looking in the mirror is too painful, that's why it feels good to bash the black guy in the WH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Maybe the discussion should be about how political parties change over time, it has happened in the USA since the Civil War, it has happened in the UK since the First World War, and it has also been a feature of continental Europe. If there is one common denominator it is losing an election or two or, in the case of the Labour Party in the UK, four elections on the trot. Soul searching then takes place, the leadership changes, policies are reviewed.

In the US, however, the party system differs -the 'leader' of the Democrats does not automatically become the Presidential candidate, same with the Chairman of the Republican Convention; whereas in Europe, if someone is elected/chosen to lead their party they acquire huge significance. In Europe the Cold War had a divisive impact, mainly because our socialist parties were formed before the Russian Revolution, whose consequence with the creation of alternative, Communist Parties, split the left forever after. In the USA the Republican Party has gone from being the party of Lincoln to a party associated with the South and South West of the USA; its 'natural constituency' seems to have flipped.

But do these parties have a soul? Do they have a coherent ideology? The GOP is clearly divided between 'country club conservatives' and tea party radicals; but it is also divided on specific issues such as abortion, gay rights, and foreign policy. The blocs that are associated with the parties -the unions with the Democrats, Wall St/Corporate America with the GOP seem secure, but it seems clear to me that just as there has been no effecitve re-aignment of party politics in the UK, in the USA also there is a rigid two-party system, is it the case that there is no separate Tea Party because its adherents need the national organisation of the Republican Party as their vehicle?

I wonder if people are afraid of the consequences if an effective third party emerged with a strong Presidential candidate that resulted in 'hung elections' in which it is the Electoral College who chooses your leader, who would clearly not have a popular mandate, maybe elected on just over a third of the vote. Capitalism is clearly changing, why doesn't the party system?

---

Polarization is a huge problem in American party politics. The GOP has been moving to the right over the last 30 years. The Democratic Party has moved to the left, though not as much as the GOP went right. The result is the gridlock we have today, where one party will willfully sabotage the economy to unseat an opposing party president.

This polarization is maintained through the primary system where a small ideologically extreme group selects the candidates who will go into the general election thus guaranteeing an extreme outcome. A possible fix is to create open top-2 primaries where everyone votes in one primary and the top 2 vote-getters go on to the general. You're no longer guaranteed a Republican and a Democrat in the general. You could have two Republicans, two Independents, one Green & one Democrat etc. Washington state is the only one to try it so far, but hopefully more will follow its lead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Short term tax rates in 2011 are the same as the investor's ordinary income tax rate, up to 35%. I assure you Jimmy Buffet is in the 35% bracket,.

Long term rates remain from 15 - 35% depending on the type of earned income. Small Business Stock Gains are at 28%.

Long Term and Short Term CApital Gains Tax Rate 2011, 2012

---

And I assure you that Warren Buffet didn't become one of the top 5 richest men in the world by being a moron and having his income taxed at 35%. Rich people draw their income from the sources that will be taxed least. In this case, 15%. Besides, if you knew anything about Buffet you would know that he's made his money as a value investor. One who buys stocks that are undervalued and holds them for a long period of time. Every time he sells a stock it's one he's held for longer than a year, ergo 15% tax rate. And I'm sure he draws a nominal salary, like Bill Gates does... often as little as $100,000, so very very little of his income is taxed at 35%. He's been transparent about his finances. His blended tax rate has worked out to be around 16 to 17%.

Because ol' Newt wants to embrace (some aspects of) the free market: no child labor laws and most likely no minimum wage laws. (Corporate executives, who are by and large liberal -- meaning: they believe in gay marriage, abortion etc. -- do not believe in free markets.
Because, well, because they want a powerful Nanny State to protect them from the rigors and discipline of markets.
I mean, what does bailing out the banks have to do with pure/unfettered capitalism. Again, unfettered markets would be an absolutely disaster for the ownership class and they know it....) And we saw what happened when the big banks became zombie banks. They came running to the State for a handout -- ha ha ha! What happened to their so-called "belief" in unfettered markets -- ha ha!!! :)

Child Labor Is Great! - Newt Gingrich - YouTube

A quiz to match you to your perfect sweetheart GOP presidential candidate:

http://reason.com/quiz/GOP2011/match

Why Not Huntsman?

Huntsman has a record more conservative than his moderate image suggests:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/21/why-not-huntsman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

A quiz to match you to your perfect sweetheart GOP presidential candidate:

http://reason.com/quiz/GOP2011/match

---

Apparently I am in love with Gary Johnson, and I have never even heard of him before taking this test! Guess that was a blind date.

Who said this?
"I have two grandchildren. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
How can America be simultaneousy secular and Muslim? Some of the quotes in this survey are barely literate.

Quote:

---

When did the GOP lose touch with Reality?

---

That would be about the time they began to fight the Dumocrats for first place in line for sucking bankster cock.

Quote:

---

First of all....Frum is a Republican....I'm not. I have no use for him, he's part of the problem that put us here.

---

Math doesn't care what side of the political fence you're on there chief.

The sooner you stop with the bullshit politics and pry your head out of your ass the better off you'll be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Who said this?
"I have two grandchildren. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

---

Who cares? Ok ok... I'll take a guess. Oh yeah!
It's that ignorant reactionary shithead that couldn't find a clue with a microscope, right?
There's too many sets of empty flapping lips out there to choose a name to put on the description.

I'm so sick & tired of all the stupid...

[[QUOTE]] When did the GOP lose touch with Reality? [[QUOTE]]

One could say the same about the Dems. (I like neither party... if you can even call the GOP a political party... as they simply serve the super rich. I mean, super rich. Ain't even the rich. But the SUPER rich.)
But Obama is somewhere in the real world. Ya can't say that about Bachmann or Santorum (a homophobe, transphobe and religious zealot) and even Cain comes across as being irrational.
Paul is steadfast in his beliefs. On some policy positions he's good. On others, well, not so good. Huntsman appears sensible. And Romney is a corporate stooge.

Video: CAIR Decries Santorum's Call for Profiling of Muslims - YouTube

And here Santorum does Sarah Palin:

Santorum: 'Africa Was A Country On The Brink' - YouTube

[quote=Ben;1053236][[QUOTE]] When did the GOP lose touch with Reality? [

Quote:

---

]

One could say the same about the Dems. (I like neither party... if you can even call the GOP a political party... as they simply serve the super rich. I mean, super rich. Ain't even the rich. But the SUPER rich.)
But Obama is somewhere in the real world. Ya can't say that about Bachmann or Santorum (a homophobe, transphobe and religious zealot) and even Cain comes across as being irrational.
Paul is steadfast in his beliefs. On some policy positions he's good. On others, well, not so good. Huntsman appears sensible. And Romney is a corporate stooge.

Video: CAIR Decries Santorum's Call for Profiling of Muslims - YouTube

And here Santorum does Sarah Palin:

Santorum: 'Africa Was A Country On The Brink' - YouTube

---

Palin never said that, the network that broke the story even apologised for getting it wrong. Your belief in that,is proof positive the effect the media has on the masses, one lie that they even admit was one, and they was misinformed by a mischief maker. That has been stated numerous times on here.

[quote=arnie666;1053440][quote=Ben;1053236][

Quote:

---

] When did the GOP lose touch with Reality? [

Palin never said that, the network that broke the story even apologised for getting it wrong. Your belief in that,is proof positive the effect the media has on the masses, one lie that they even admit was one, and they was misinformed by a mischief maker. That has been stated numerous times on here.

---

Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News - YouTube

[quote=arnie666;1053440][quote=Ben;1053236][

Quote:

---

] When did the GOP lose touch with Reality? [

Palin never said that, the network that broke the story even apologised for getting it wrong. Your belief in that,is proof positive the effect the media has on the masses, one lie that they even admit was one, and they was misinformed by a mischief maker. That has been stated numerous times on here.

---

I'm not sure who to believe: Sarah or Fox.... Hmm... tough one. I tend to side with Sarah.

Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News - YouTube

Sarah Palin "Africa question"-On Larry King Live - YouTube