Just trying to find some common ground.

Yes, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are destined to destroy what small amount of creditability the Republican Party has left. This country is starting to lose having a respectable conservative party, especially if they don't nominate Mitt Romney. Honestly, I'm more concerned about the Republican primary than the actual election.

There is that better?

A long and quite insightful article on the modern Republican Party...

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult


(via Truth-Out.org)

The main problem is that a very loud minority has taken over the party and everyone is listening to them instead of calling them crazy and ignoring them like they used to do.

I blame the internet and Fox news -- in the old days, these people weren't given a forum, but with Fox (especially) treating them like they are legitimate and have real issues, the rest of the GOP (and too many democrats) are falling over backwards to try to appease them.

Aw, isn't he cute! The way he thinks he makes a point when he only just embarrasses himself! Let's hear it for Caius, everyone!

There is no argument to give when you label a group of people crazy and place yourself in the position of arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable in political discourse. Further, what you said is an argument (I use the term loosely, it is more of a talking point) that I have heard from the left about a billion times; it has a certain intolerance to it, but I am sure you are aware of that.

I disagree with much of the platform of the Democrat Party and feel that it has moved far to the left. However, I don't believe that its members are crazy or that they should be shunned. I simply think that they are wrong and when they advocate a policy that I disagree with, I try to point out why I disagree, rather than labeling them crazy or racist.

The sleeping emoticon was used because of the boring cavil spouting from you. There was nothing for me to say because you did not present an argument that could be responded to other than by someone saying, "Yes, but your side is radical too" and I did not wish to play that game.

So if you choose to give your standard response, which you often give to Goldie, that you are not going to respond to stupid arguments, whatever.

I don't really think there is much of a debate about the fact that a very radical part of the right has taken control over the Republican party. Certainly the counterpart is not true -- in fact, many Democrats are unhappy with Obama for not being liberal enough. Hell, Obama's policies on the environment, health care and spending on the war aren't even as liberal as Nixon's policies on these things.

Are you really going to argue that Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Rick Perry are rational beings? Seriously, these people don't even know basic history. They brag about their lack of education and their misunderstanding of science as if that is something to be proud of. And the Republican party leaders can't stand them but are just as afraid of them as Obama apparently is afraid of the Republicans.

No one is standing up to these people like they used to. In the past, there were right wing groups like the John Birch Society, but mainstream Republicans basically ignored them as the extremists that they are. As I said, things have changed because these people now have a venue for their crazy views -- views that are rarely supported by facts at all -- and people like you apparently are either duped by them or have decided they are "useful stooges" who will vote the way you want.

It's all a political game. I'm not on the inside, I merely on the outside trying to look in and make sense of things.

The main thing in politics is getting a job and getting a job for those on your team more likely to vote somewhat more inclined to you. The Republicans have been voted out of all three portions of the government after a president such as Bush who underwent a severe amount of scrutiny, honestly a lot of it coming from the media (although, rather it is party bias or not is another story, one which I highly doubt considering how they've swung recently), either way, if they wanted to get back in office they'd need to pull themselves back together.

And they did, lets give them credit for that. They managed to pull together a strong and vocal voting block in the Tea Party movement that got media coverage like no other and sway public opinion enough back on their side to garner votes for the party. This was primarily done by painting Obama as an extreme leftist (somehow, sorry Cauis, but partly thank racism on that one) and by promoting the most stereotypical Republican policy that is easy to like, lowering taxes. Members of the Republican Party have said it themselves, their primary goal is to get Obama out of office and take back over the government. It has nothing to do with sound policies and everything to do with getting votes. That's how their job functions, around popularity, and get a loud group to support you, like the Tea Party, and you garner votes. The Republican Party might agree with their policies on an idealistic scale, but on a more practical one, they know taxes need to be raised right now, but last time this situation happened, Bush Sr. got kicked out of office. So you hold off for a while, keep your promise until you come into power, then you switch, but it must be done gradually.

First of all, that has. The word a while ago went out that Obama was starting class wars because, well, he did not want to raise taxes on the middle class and instead suggest the wealthy classes (honestly I don't know if that is true, but I've seen in too many right-wing political cartoons. It might not be true, but it is how he was being perceived and in a democracy that matters a lot) and so they, the Republican Party, can say they merely defended the wealthy class or spew out some jargon that supports the wealthy class. This will then allow for the switch to come with more ease, except when they switch, don't be shocked when you see taxes raised on the poor disproportionately more in terms of percentage of their income over the wealthy class, essentially using the Tea Party as voting tools, nothing more, nothing less.

But they will be cheering for it because of how slowly the argument was grown to support taxes. There will be those aware and pissed, feeling betrayed. But then there will be those who continue supporting the Republican Party due to the party system mentality. It's happened with the Democrats who use to be the party of the Catholics, but that bond's finally starting to die off.

I guess that's just a long winded assumption, but it's how I see things. Party's change over time and their primary focus is to collect the most possible votes. Once you know that, figuring out why irrational messages and actions come out of politicians mouths when they're not the party in power.

I'm not a Democrat either because keep in mind, the Democrats did the same thing under Bush Jr.

The German equivalent to the Tea Party movement is Neo-Nazism. It is basically ignored as a political position but taken seriously as a threat to democracy. It grows in economically disadvantaged areas and dies in education. Living in a democratic society, you have the right to voice your opinion, but you have no right to find understanding.

When I hear the uneducated and irrational moan, I try to dissolve the issues that prompt them to moan, but I do not take their grouses seriously.

Other than the Neo-Nazi comparison, I entirely agree with your point about allowing one to speak rather than taking seriously his position. The tea party and the Neo-Nazi Party do not share one of the central planks of the Nazi platform. I.e., virulent and violent anti-semitism, unless the Neo-Nazi's have attempted to hide that platform. I would guess that the Neo-Nazi's are anti-immigrant/immigration and in that area the two may have some similarities.

Does the German branch of the Neo-Nazis hover around the 5% or so mark in terms of popular support? I think it is fair to assume, and I am probably being conservative, that at least 5% of any national population is crazy.

I also deeply dislike Sarah Palin. Mostly because she has nothing interesting to say and it is clear that she is in it for the money and I think that Michelle Bachmann is too gaffe prone. I actually hope Mitt Romney wins the primary simply because I think he has the best chance to win the general election against President Obama. However, even if Romney wins, he will be painted as an extremist tea-partier that is only for the rich, even though it is mostly the two extremes of the economic scale that vote Democratic.

I agree that Romney is the GOP's best chance. Of the candidates now running, he'd be the one who, if he won, I wouldn't go "Oh my God, the country is going to self-destruct." He'd be an OK President.

He's also who the insiders want. They KNOW that most of the others are just too crazy, but they won't call them out because of the power of the internet and Fox News.

That's the point I was trying to make -- that these kind of people would never have even been able to get in the door previously.

And if they take over the party and nominate one of these people, they're sure to lose, as assuredly as if the Democrats were to nominate Barney Frank or Bernie Saunders. The votes are in the middle. The extreme right will always vote for the GOP and the extreme left will always vote for the Democrats, so you don't need to appeal to them.

And that's why the GOP will lose in 2012.

I compared them in terms of their socio-political functions. They both collect the same sort of people, they both form minorities, they are both reactionary, they are both disproportionately loud.


The NPD - the most popular far-right party - received 6% of the votes in a state election just a few days ago. The party is currently in two of the sixteen ~state assemblies (Landtag), both from the former GDR. But people are already alarmed.


Does that mean that whatever Republican candidate has the best chance to win should win? If Michele Bachmann were likely to beat Obama, would you vote for her?

Of course he would!

The GOP manages to wield a disproportionate amount of power in narrative-making because civic engagement has collapsed in the last forty years. Turnout in 1960: 63%. Turnout in the '66 midterms: 49%(!). Turnout in 1996: 49%. It's ticked back up into the mid-50s in the last couple of presidential cycles, though it collapsed back to historically low levels (about 37%) in the 2010 midterms. The left fucked up and never came back after Vietnam, industry went away for good after Nixon chipped away at tariffs, the meme since the 80s has been to starve the beast and complain when it starts to dysfunction, and the Democrats are mostly just as complicit, especially with the rise of the Third Way. Libertarianism is just being used now as a tool to appeal to people's sense of rugged individualism and the bullshit idea that they too can one day be corporate masters (and completely self-made, of course), except almost all individuals have little to no bargaining power on their own and people get upset with massive income inequality because it inherently disadvantages them compared to others. It's a horseshit ruse that nobody takes seriously outside of the US for a good reason.

For the first question, no. I would prefer that a radical libertarian won the election. Maybe Ilya Somin if he were allowed. However, I realize my ideas are out of the mainstream and thus I usually favor a candidate who agrees with me the most and who has a legit chance to win.


For your second question, yes I would vote for her over President Obama if there was no plausible alternative, even though I think many of her social views are disagreeable. I care about one issue more than any other: Judges. For all of her faults, I trust that the judges she would nominate would hold similar views on the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment as me, though maybe more incrementalist than me. Likely speech as well. I would trust that a Souter, Stevens, Blackmun, or Brennan would not be nominated to an Article III court.

Pardon my grammar and spelling. Using a phone again.

Out if curiosity, do you have a job? I would understand if no. The job market for recent grads is terrible.

I haven't graduated, but I did get rejected from eight or nine different places of work last month before giving up again. I just might do the burger-flipping route in winter.

Yes, it is. I'm hoping youth unemployment hits 40 or 50% in the next few years (the "official" one is like 20%, but I trouble believing that, especially with only 60% or so "actively" seeking work, I smell discouragement). That should swamp NYC, Boston, LA, SF, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami and DC with 20 million very angry protesters, and if it doesn't, I give up.

The fact that you would vote for Bachmann is absolutely repulsive.

Imo Romney could easily beat Obama if the economy stays bad.

He would really have appeal in places like Ohio and Nevada and other hard hit economic states. Once you flip a few states, it pretty much is a tie.

It all depends, Obama could just easily pull off a grudge match election like 2004 and win.


This is my electoral projection with Romney
http://ElectoralMap.net/2012/myPredicti ... 0no0nrwnxq

Romney would be the only show. But Obama always has the ace up his sleeve... because Romney is Mormon.

lol McCain should have used Obama's pastor against him.

Would have made it a close election.

Should have!

He didn't? It just didn't stick.

Yeah, Romney's the most electable one. That's why he's dipping behind Perry, though. I could still see Perry get in because hey, Americans liked Bush for a while too, but something tells me he has some serious skeletons in the closet he can't overcome.

Well I can see Romney being able come back in 2016 as well.


I think Romney is there best choice, Republicans will get excited for a chance to defeat Obama and Romney will not spook out democrats and therefore Obama will suffer from a huge decline in votes from 2008. Obama easily got around 5-8+ million one time votes.