jerseyhoya wrote:He calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed.

What, you mean the millionaires who'd rather see bridges collapse than pay a couple thousand more in taxes?

I detest those people, and insomuch as Huckabee weakens them, I wish him all the success in the world.

VoxOrion wrote:The entire format was stupid.

Someone on National Review suggested they take all of the questions submitted for the Democrat debate and ask them to the Republicans, and vice versa.

That's not only be telling but a very facinating thing to watch.

My version of this: one Democrat gets to chime in a couple times at every Republican debate, and vice-versa. I would have loved to hear Biden last night on that McCain-Paul argument over Iraq, for instance.

VoxOrion wrote:
You're choosing to see it as a party versus party, somehow denying that there won't be fundamental differences between whoever wins the GOP nomination and whoever wins the Democrat nomination. In primaries, of course the candidates are similar - by definition they will be. The general election is what matters in terms of choosing between the individual platforms. You're confusing choosing between candidates in a primary and choosing between candidates in a general election.

How am I doing that? I make that distinction when I comment that you'll only vote for the Republican even if he sucks because he is still better than the democrat in your eyes. My point though was that there is no difference between the candidates in each party because they all pander to the base. Seriosuly. Does anyone believe that Romney or Guliani are social conservatives? They are now, cause that's what will get the vote. So, if everyone is basically a cookie cutter, then what point is it to even vote? Just have the democratic ticket and the republican ticket and put whomever you want in there.

This isn't how it should work.

VoxOrion wrote: Furthermore, I know that I agree with little (or nothing, in the case of Clinton) that the Democrats will run on.

This just sounds like you are spouting the republican talking points. Clinton is almost the most middle of all the candidates. While she certainly won;t be terribly different than Edwards or Obama in office, she is certainly more conservative than they are. That is why the republicans are continually bashing her. Cause they know that she is their greatest challenge.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:The entire format was stupid.

Someone on National Review suggested they take all of the questions submitted for the Democrat debate and ask them to the Republicans, and vice versa.

That's not only be telling but a very facinating thing to watch.

My version of this: one Democrat gets to chime in a couple times at every Republican debate, and vice-versa. I would have loved to hear Biden last night on that McCain-Paul argument over Iraq, for instance.

Watch CSPAN.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed.

What, you mean the millionaires who'd rather see bridges collapse than pay a couple thousand more in taxes?

I detest those people, and insomuch as Huckabee weakens them, I wish him all the success in the world.

They do good work on trying to get solid economic conservatives elected to congress. They're for cutting taxes and cutting spending. If that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but they're an important part of the Republican base, and Huckabee has decided to respond to their criticism of him by mocking them.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed.

What, you mean the millionaires who'd rather see bridges collapse than pay a couple thousand more in taxes?

I detest those people, and insomuch as Huckabee weakens them, I wish him all the success in the world.

They do good work on trying to get solid economic conservatives elected to congress. They're for cutting taxes and cutting spending. If that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but they're an important part of the Republican base, and Huckabee has decided to respond to their criticism of him by mocking them.

Their criticism of him was pretty mocking in the first place ("Tax Hike Mike"). If you condemn him on tactical grounds, it seems strange not to have an issue with them for using the same tactics.

Disco Stu wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:
You're choosing to see it as a party versus party, somehow denying that there won't be fundamental differences between whoever wins the GOP nomination and whoever wins the Democrat nomination. In primaries, of course the candidates are similar - by definition they will be. The general election is what matters in terms of choosing between the individual platforms. You're confusing choosing between candidates in a primary and choosing between candidates in a general election.

How am I doing that? I make that distinction when I comment that you'll only vote for the Republican even if he sucks because he is still better than the democrat in your eyes. My point though was that there is no difference between the candidates in each party because they all pander to the base. Seriosuly. Does anyone believe that Romney or Guliani are social conservatives? They are now, cause that's what will get the vote. So, if everyone is basically a cookie cutter, then what point is it to even vote? Just have the democratic ticket and the republican ticket and put whomever you want in there.

This isn't how it should work.

"Pander to the base" - that makes no sense in the context. Of course they are pandering to the base - it's a party primary. Who should they be pandering to - marxists?

One is voting for the best candidate of the bunch to determine who will represent the party. You point out yourself that Giuliani and Romney aren't social conservatives, there's a difference right there!

Have primaries ever run the way you wish they would?

If Giuliani (for example) wins the nomination and becomes the de facto party leader, that will represent a significant change in the Republican party - the same way Bill Clinton's nomination represented a significant change in the Democrat Party in 1992 (compared to Mondale, and Dukakis, at least).

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed.

What, you mean the millionaires who'd rather see bridges collapse than pay a couple thousand more in taxes?

I detest those people, and insomuch as Huckabee weakens them, I wish him all the success in the world.

They do good work on trying to get solid economic conservatives elected to congress. They're for cutting taxes and cutting spending. If that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but they're an important part of the Republican base, and Huckabee has decided to respond to their criticism of him by mocking them.

Their criticism of him was pretty mocking in the first place ("Tax Hike Mike"). If you condemn him on tactical grounds, it seems strange not to have an issue with them for using the same tactics.

That he mocked them isn't the problem. It's that he mocked them over something where they're right. He did raise taxes. He takes a decidedly state centered approach to solving economic problems. Then he responds using Democratic class warfare type rhetoric to rebut the conservative group. He's an economic populist. It's fine if you like that, and I'm sure it has some appeal with GOP voters too, but in general it's not what the party stands for, and I hope it's not what the party becomes.

VoxOrion wrote:The coalition between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are fracturing.

This is certainly true, and it's probably the biggest story of the 2008 race--or at least it would be were it not for the Clintons and their incurable case of Terrell Owens Syndrome (ME ME ME!!!).

I'd like to think the fracture is caused by social conservatives tumbling to the reality that the "family values" they cherish are difficult to preserve in a viciously exploitive economic context--e.g. that families are terribly strained when both high-school educated parents have to work overtime to pay the extortionate interest rates on the mortgage and credit cards and the medications their crappy insurance declined to cover; their wages are declining in real terms because the company is threatening to move production to China and they've got no union, and all this leaves no time or energy to help the kids with homework or make sure they aren't fooling around with drugs.

(Note: Democrats haven't concerned themselves about this stuff in a long time either.)

But it's probably because they realized that people like Bush and Rove take them for suckers, again and again. It couldn't have escaped their notice that after campaigning against gay marriage in 2004, Bush's first action in 2005 was to try and destroy Social Security--which I suspect most of those folks kind of like.

dajafi wrote:I'd like to think the fracture is caused by social conservatives tumbling to the reality that the "family values" they cherish are difficult to preserve in a viciously exploitive economic context...

I agree completely. Combine this factor with the new "party of the rich" data and we're seeing the signs of some serious tectonics shifting.

What facinatees me is that I expect those same people you describe (who are turning to traditional Democrat values) will continue to be villified and alienated by the Democrats in the name of "freedom from religion".

No matter who wins this election, the traditional platform points of both parties are and will be in complete disarray. Sometime later a Clinton or Reagan will come along and turn it into a viable and popular platform - the question is which party will capture those folks?

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:He calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed.

What, you mean the millionaires who'd rather see bridges collapse than pay a couple thousand more in taxes?

I detest those people, and insomuch as Huckabee weakens them, I wish him all the success in the world.

They do good work on trying to get solid economic conservatives elected to congress. They're for cutting taxes and cutting spending. If that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine, but they're an important part of the Republican base, and Huckabee has decided to respond to their criticism of him by mocking them.

Their criticism of him was pretty mocking in the first place ("Tax Hike Mike"). If you condemn him on tactical grounds, it seems strange not to have an issue with them for using the same tactics.

That he mocked them isn't the problem. It's that he mocked them over something where they're right. He did raise taxes. He takes a decidedly state centered approach to solving economic problems. Then he responds using Democratic class warfare type rhetoric to rebut the conservative group. He's an economic populist. It's fine if you like that, and I'm sure it has some appeal with GOP voters too, but in general it's not what the party stands for, and I hope it's not what the party becomes.

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of Huckabee's fiscal record in Arkansas, though I think I remember reading that he raised taxes a couple times to address very specific needs. As he said again last night and has repeated at other times, he evidently also cut a lot of taxes.

What I hate about the Club for Growth is that they're categorical--fanatical--about taxes. No tax increase is ever justified, regardless of the need or context. That isn't policy; that's fanaticism, similar to the social fanaticism you (and I) deplore. It is, essentially, greed. They argue, "it's your money"; but it's also true that "it's your government." Rather than make it work better, their interest seems to be in not making it work at all. I suspect Grover Norquist was delighted with the response to Katrina--he could argue it justified everything he's always said about the public sector, and the human cost be damned. I think that's pretty sick.

That said, I now get what you're saying, though I don't think this was clear from your first post. Thanks for clarifying.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'd like to think the fracture is caused by social conservatives tumbling to the reality that the "family values" they cherish are difficult to preserve in a viciously exploitive economic context...

I agree completely. Combine this factor with the new "party of the rich" data and we're seeing the signs of some serious tectonics shifting.

What facinatees me is that I expect those same people you describe (who are turning to traditional Democrat values) will continue to be villified and alienated by the Democrats in the name of "freedom from religion".

No matter who wins this election, the traditional platform points of both parties are and will be in complete disarray. Sometime later a Clinton or Reagan will come along and turn it into a viable and popular platform - the question is which party will capture those folks?

I haven't seen this "Party of the Rich" data, nor am I sure what you mean by "traditional Democrat[ic] values." (Is that the mandatory gay marriage, or the forced conversion to atheism? )

On the vilification/"freedom from religion" point, I think that's where it depends on who wins. Obama wouldn't do that; he gets the linkage between faith and values, and he's not afraid to call BS on Democrats who don't. (Though he also won't be for, say, a Hate Amendment to the Constitution.)

But yeah, something important is happening. If it leads to the Republicans coming up with a modernized traditional conservatism--small government that's competent, and some compelling argument for how and why other societal stakeholders can fulfill those roles conservatives don't think should fall to government--than I'm all for it. Doubly so if the changes "liberalize" the Democrats from their current snobbery and fixation on social issues rather than economics.

(This is another reason I wish the Clintons and Bushes would get out of the goddam way. Their dynasties, and the celebrity-addled MSM, obscure the much more significant changes that are unfolding.)

One thing I'm actually optimistic about is that we're going to return to the Cold War model of bipartisan foreign policy (which, aside from the uber-prick DeLay, continued through the Clinton administration). If Bush/Cheney hadn't been such rabid partisans, this would have happened already, and I guess it still might not if, God forbid, Giuliani gets his hands on the nuclear launch codes. But any of the Democrats and McCain and I think Huckabee, will appoint at least one big name from the other party to a big post like State, Defense, UN Ambassador, etc. That's badly needed.

I don't have much truck with the Club for Growth, but while they are fanatical about not raising taxes ever, keep in mind they're also fanatical about the fact that the existing pool of tax revenue is spent terribly.

It's so easy when talking about taxes to presume every dollar received is spent well, and that the only way to increase services is to bring in more revenue - that's only a 50% solution.

Either that, or (if I can risk assuming your opinion dajafi), the spent poorly factor is considered the cost of operating government, so an expectation to control it can only go so far.

VoxOrion wrote:
"Pander to the base" - that makes no sense in the context. Of course they are pandering to the base - it's a party primary. Who should they be pandering to - marxists?

It is called lying. They can do it, but my point is that they are misrepresenting themselves to get elected. I don't know how you don't see the issue here. The point of a primary is to elect the person who best represents most of your party. Thus, the candidates should differentiate in areas so we can choose one that we want the most. Instead, they are self serving and not doing what is best for the American people but what is best for them. Changing their stances so people vote for them does NOTHING for us. It is ridiculous. Why even have people up there. Just say, "This is the republican candidate and this is the democratic candidate." For a poly sci major you seem to miss the entire point of the primaries.

VoxOrion wrote:I don't have much truck with the Club for Growth, but while they are fanatical about not raising taxes ever, keep in mind they're also fanatical about the fact that the existing pool of tax revenue is spent terribly.

It's so easy when talking about taxes to presume every dollar received is spent well, and that the only way to increase services is to bring in more revenue - that's only a 50% solution.

Either that, or (if I can risk assuming your opinion dajafi), the spent poorly factor is considered the cost of operating government, so an expectation to control it can only go so far.

No, I don't accept that. Absolutely we should do everything to ensure that the public's money is spent better, based on need rather than politics or inertia or whatever else. If anything, liberals should be bigger hardasses on this than conservatives; otherwise it's not intellectually honest to advocate increasing services.

(This is why I sort of like Tom Coburn, of all people--unlike the "big government conservatives," he gets really angry about misspent revenues.)

I think one way to get at this is public financing of campaigns--take away the imperative to keep those donations flowing, and it's amazing how much cleaner and more rational the budget gets.

dajafi wrote:I haven't seen this "Party of the Rich" data,

The Washington Times did what appears to be a pretty valid and not-too-complicated study of wealth and what party represents those sectors of wealth, and determined:

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions,"

This trend isn't surprising to me - in the 2004 election there was a study going around showing that the GOP had many more donors that contributed small amounts to the party, while the Democrats had far fewer contributors with much higher contributions. I've had the opinion that the Democrats had become the party of the very rich and the poor a while ago - what's interesting is that the middle class seems to be following them as well.

dajafi wrote:nor am I sure what you mean by "traditional Democrat[ic] values."

I'm talking more simply about "the people" versus "the corporations". While the social family values conservatives aren't necessarily looking to the government for services, they are demanding more and more that the government, or someone, step in and demand justice from corporations who (as you describe) contribute to the destruction of the family.

dajafi wrote:On the vilification/"freedom from religion" point, I think that's where it depends on who wins. Obama wouldn't do that; he gets the linkage between faith and values, and he's not afraid to call BS on Democrats who don't. (Though he also won't be for, say, a Hate Amendment to the Constitution.)

Agreed. I know it's about finances and "sticking to the core", but man, if Obama (for example) came out against Abortion... he'd probably win those social conservativees in a landslide and transform the Democrat party. For the worse, I'm sure

I think a Democrat that ran on controlled government growth, pro-life, and a foreign policy that didn't come off as surrender or weakness could conquor America in 2008. Ironically, Rudy could have been that guy if it weren't for his weak pro-life record.

dajafi wrote:But yeah, something important is happening. If it leads to the Republicans coming up with a modernized traditional conservatism--small government that's competent, and some compelling argument for how and why other societal stakeholders can fulfill those roles conservatives don't think should fall to government--than I'm all for it.

The problematic part is that social conservatives see religious organizations as the solution to the last part, a concept that is probably more popular than we're lead to believe among traditional Democrats, but wildly unpopular among the loudest voices in the party. Again, a place where Democrats could steamroll to success if they just lightened up a bit and came off as more sympathetic to people of faith, and less hostile to them [which I accept may be a perception less than reality].

dajafi wrote:One thing I'm actually optimistic about is that we're going to return to the Cold War model of bipartisan foreign policy ... will appoint at least one big name from the other party to a big post like State, Defense, UN Ambassador, etc. That's badly needed.

Do you think this is a reasonable hope with how partisan politics has become in the past 20 years? It seems like both parties have betrayed each other enough times on these kinds of efforts that it might be a lost cause at this point.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I haven't seen this "Party of the Rich" data,

The Washington Times did what appears to be a pretty valid and not-too-complicated study of wealth and what party represents those sectors of wealth, and determined:

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions,"

This trend isn't surprising to me - in the 2004 election there was a study going around showing that the GOP had many more donors that contributed small amounts to the party, while the Democrats had far fewer contributors with much higher contributions. I've had the opinion that the Democrats had become the party of the very rich and the poor a while ago - what's interesting is that the middle class seems to be following them as well.

1/3rd? So, in order to make their numbers work out, they decided to grab a bunch of upper middle class democratic areas and add them into the "study" in order to make it appear that Democrats are the party of the rich.

Show me rankings. Show me 1-435 and the average income in each district and who represents them.

If 1-20 are 80% republican and then the next 40 are 70% democrat, it means nothing. The ultra rich are either republicans or movie stars.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I haven't seen this "Party of the Rich" data,

The Washington Times did what appears to be a pretty valid and not-too-complicated study of wealth and what party represents those sectors of wealth, and determined:

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions,"

This trend isn't surprising to me - in the 2004 election there was a study going around showing that the GOP had many more donors that contributed small amounts to the party, while the Democrats had far fewer contributors with much higher contributions. I've had the opinion that the Democrats had become the party of the very rich and the poor a while ago - what's interesting is that the middle class seems to be following them as well.

Hmmm. A study by a partisan think tank (Heritage), published by a partisan paper. I don't dispute their factual findings, just not sure about the interpretation or whether their methodology is particularly meaningful--I can't find it right now, but I'm pretty sure that through 2004, higher-income voters broke Republican by a pretty significant margin. That seems more compelling to me than looking at congressional districts by median average income, where the "Bill Gates plus a hundred broke people" problem comes into play.

On the other hand, I know that "professionals" and college-educated voters have been trending Democratic over the last 40 years or so. The reason for this seems pretty clear: those people are more turned off by the Republicans' embrace of social reaction than turned on by tax cuts, etc. This has been the story of where I grew up in Montgomery County, which sent Republicans to Congress for 40 years before 1992 and is now solidly Democratic, with Alyson Schwartz in that seat probably for as long as she wants it.

More later--you guys have already killed too much of my workday

The 10 wealthiest congressional districts are Virginia-11, Davis; New Jersey-11, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R); California-14, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D); Georgia-6, Rep. Tom Price (R); California-15, Rep. Mike Honda (D); New Jersey-7, Rep. Michael Ferguson (R); Colorado-6, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R); New Jersey-5, Rep. Scott Garrett (R); Virginia-10, Wolf; and Illinois-13, Rep. Judy Biggert (R).

Eight Republicans represent the 10 richest districts. New Jersey is the most represented state, with three districts in the top 10. Virginia and California both have two districts in the top 10. - http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/washington-area-tops-list-for-income-2006-02-28.html

Some of these are in trending Democratic areas though. VA-11 and NJ-07 are going to be competitive races this cycle.