Obamacans

Good points. I absolutely agree that the GOP leadership has become detached from the trials and tribulations of the average American. There are good Republicans out there, but they are pressured to cave in to the leaderships' positions, which are often at odds with a significant majority of the voting public. It will take years in the minority and the frustration of remaining irrelevant for these power elites to question their stances. Today's GOP is much too closely alligned with corporatism and special interests who keep their campaign coffers full.

In looking at the article in the very left Austin American Statesman, Jack Holt has only donated to Democrats in 2007.

I want to know what issues they agree on with Senator Obama. Do they support an expansion of the welfare state? Do they want health care nationalized? Do they want an expansion of the power of the teacher's unions, the trial lawyers, and environmental activist?

What issue would make a conservative want to vote for Senator Obama? It is like reading John Cole claim to be a former Republican but I have not found a single issue that would make me believe he was ever a Republican.

My guess is that the Obamacans are like the Reagan Republicans in that they are jumping on the winning band wagon.

The real question is what will the U.S. be like after the Republican party colapses and the U.S. becomes a one party state. Given the changing demographics of the U.S. there is no chance that the Republicans can make a comeback after a decade or more as a powerless minority party.

I know several "Obamacans" and none of them fits SD's dismissive characterization. They are sick of the war, the saber-rattling, the fear mongering, the wiretapping, the fiscal irresponsibility, the corruption, the greed and the theft of their childrens' future, through massive debt and environmental destruction. (Does that sum it up for anyone out there?) Not jumping on a winning bandwagon, they're jumping off a sinking and morally bankrupt ship. A couple of them were major Bush supporters in 2000 who couldn't stomach him by 2004, totally hate him now and what he and his ilk have done to the GOP.

That said, it's not just a vote against the Bushies. The optimistic, "can-do" tone of Obama is giving them the only bright spot in an otherwise drab selection of candidates.

"after the Republican party collapses and the U.S. becomes a one party state"

Gosh, I heard the same fears expressed back when it looked like the Republicans were going to be in office forever. It was no more true then than now, although it does let people like SD get their alarmist rocks off.

Any party that manages to gather enough of the levers of national government here in the US eventually (and actually, usually pretty quickly), succumbs to hubris and corruption.

If there is one thing I can count on from our national elected officials as a whole, it is that eventually their attitudes of superiority and entitlement will hoist them by their own petards.

Thanks AustinRoth for that enlightened perspective.
What keeps me identifying myself as an independent even though I agree with most of the Democratic Platform is my fear of the corrupting effect of power. The Democratic leaders are inclined to use the same tactics to twist redistricting to help incumbents, protect special interests, and disenfranchise voters who are not likely to support them. However I am likely to commit to the party that is most effective at Election and Campaign Reform in the interest of making our government increasingly representative and populated by pragmatists.

AustinRoth,

When 95% of black America is voting for a single candidate, to believe that the Republicans can make a comeback is naive. The Democrats who proposed that the Republicans could survive as the majority refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans get almost no minority votes.

GreenDreams,

There is no way a rue social conservative, neo-con, or fiscal conservative could support Senator Obama. They may hate Bush but how can putting in a candidate who proposes boiler plate Democratic proposals in any way prove that a person is or was ever a conservative.

If I had more time I'd be remonstrative again about the misuse once again here of "extreme" [sic] and such nonsense as well as the misuse by leftists of the words "moderate" and "centrist." (I'm less willing to try to remediate those who refuse to be able or willing to learn, though.)

I'll just note that liberal NPR is hosting guests on its morning news show this week. David Keene was on this morning. This week has conservative guests (on NPR, of all things) dedicated to discussing the dysfunctionality of the GOP and of conservatism.

Austin Roth: Superdestroyer has a point even if it is exaggerated and premature. The demographics that cement the Dems in place won't happen for another decade or so. On the other hand, that may keep the GOP alive as the taxpayer defense party because in one or two decades our problems with entitlements, notably those related to retirement (which we knowledgeable people have raised many times, to meet denial and rudeness by the ignorant and worse here as well as elsewhere) include unprecedented costs.

The case among non-liberals for supporting Obama is that McCain and Clinton are Washington, DC fixtures (in Clinton's case, as a co-President in the previous decade) and with Obama there is a possibility (weak and remote) of forcing at least some personnel changes in Washington. (The Dem establishment won't willingly permit this, and will fight this, so please, Obama fans, don't be so naive.)

"My guess is that the Obamacans are like the Reagan Republicans in that they are jumping on the winning band wagon."

a) Swing voters -- the closest thing to being practical "independents" or "centrists."

b) Disenchanged GOP-leaners. No big issue with the social conservatives (who are objects of hatred and scummy behavior from the Left, maybe because they so often lack virtues sought by the social-cons). Instead, their interests are too narrow for the rest of us -- it would be like the Dem Party being mainly interested in, say, animal rights -- and unlike lib-Dems, we don't want Washington doing any conservative activist stuff any more than we want it doing liberal activist stuff. (The lib-Dems want Washington to grow even larger and more interventionist in all ways but involving personal behavior and conduct of those who are politically protected.)

"Disenchanged" => "Disenchanted"

change, change, change, change

"GOP leadership has become detached"

LEADERSHIP???

The biggest attraction that Obama has for Indies is his willingness to put country ahead of party- at least in abstract. In reality, he has voted along party lines, almost exclusively.

I agree with DLS that Obama would be up against a brick wall in Washington, which is why I voted for Clinton in our primary. Everything he is saying about the system is true, but it will take more than an election of one promising candidate to change it. Too many on both sides of the aisle have too much invested in the system as it is today. This is why we never see radical changes in ethics or lobbying reform, or legislation banning earmarks.

Unless the constant need to raise money for reelection is removed, no meaningful change will be supported by career politicians, who value their staying power much more than the future they create for our children.

"I want to know what issues they agree on with Senator Obama."

On the issues, Obama is nearly identical to Clinton -- both are well left of center, despite what frustrated, impatient, unsatisfied far-lefties may claim to the contrary.

On the issues alone it's merely a choice of packaging -- a young, fresh, new face or familiar old, already-proven ('tested and ready') face. I.e., style, not substance.

The decision among many lies elsewhere -- strategy, "punishing the GOP" for being Dems Lite, etc.

This looks to be a Democratic rout this year. With the White House, it's a matter mainly of which Dem candidate should be nominated -- he or she will likely be assured election.

I have no illusions about what to expect with the White House and with Washington in the few years to come (and in the decades to come). For those of us who don't want a monstrous Washington far outgrowing its constitutional federalist limitations, it comes to a cynical matter of viewing things, namely watching our wallets and lives and hoping for damage control.

* * *

"radical changes in ethics or lobbying reform, or legislation banning earmarks"

Term limits; line-item veto (individual decisions must be overridden individually by the Congress); ban amendments to bills.


"Unless the constant need to raise money for reelection is removed"

Term limits; banning the running for re-election to the same office and type of office. (No hopscotching districts in the House or states in the Senate, in other words, to avoid an explicit ban of re-running in district X or state Y but staying in Congress nevertheless.)

Here y'all go:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

Kritt11,
I agree with DLS that Obama would be up against a brick wall in Washington, which is why I voted for Clinton in our primary.

This is the same rationalization I used for voting for Obama. As a more charismatic candidate his longer coattails may help more democrats get elected to make legislative change more likely.

"The real question is what will the U.S. be like after the Republican party colapses and the U.S. becomes a one party state. Given the changing demographics of the U.S. there is no chance that the Republicans can make a comeback after a decade or more as a powerless minority party."

Wow SD you are so wrong about that. Can't you see that the pendulum has simply swung the other way and will be coming back to the right again in a few election cycles. Like it ALWAYS does. First one, then the other, thats the way of things. The GOP will no more being disappearing than the Dems did during that last 6 years.

Slamfu,

The previous swings occurred when the voting public was almost totally white. In the future, the percentage of the voters who are black, Hispanic, or Asian will be so high that the Republicans will have no chance. If you think that the Republicans can make a comeback, then please explain how the Republicans can ever be the majority party in California again.

Given demographics, campaign finance reform, and the media, conservatives have no chance of affecting policy. Look at how the Republicans do not even have the next generation of leaders. The 20-somethings realize that conservative politics have no future in the U.S. If you want a career in politics in the future, you have to be a Democrat.

Slamfu: SD has his own little world. DO NOT ENTER!

Maybe it has more to do with the Democrats just having a way better track record than republicans. Lets face it, conservatives talk a big game but when you put em in the drivers seat they just screw things up. I'm confident the GOP can step up in the future, but they need to start making policies based in the real world instead of the make believe one they think is out there.

SD
I see various things the GOP can do to come back as a relevant and competitive party. And the more the Democrats abuse their advantage the easier it will be for the GOP to sell a new message to Independents.
I not only see this possibility but I hope for it as well.

Actually, Slamfu, the Democrats do have an advantage not merely because liberalism is portrayed as positive while conservatism is seen as negative (and optimistic versus pessimistic), but because the development of our modern welfare state based in Washington consists in large part of vote-buying through entitlements (a few of us Peters are taxed to buy the votes of the many more Pauls who receive entitlements of one kind or another) and the demographics not only of minorities but of our aging population in the future point the way toward more, not fewer, entitlements. (Federally-provided health care is now seen as not only a normal idea but inevitable, for example, and this would of course constitute a vast new entitlement "complex" and means of control over people by Washington.) The aging-related demographics point toward greater entitlement presence in this country even though people typically grow more conservative as they get older and wiser.

The GOP does have a future in that the taxpayers of the future will face even worse problems than those of us hit for most of Washington's bills already face -- it will be much worse (although not as horrible as in Europe, whose problems will be worse than ours). There will be an attempt (often changing) to balance the howls from the taxpayers (facing ever larger demands) and beneficiaries (who will resist any reduction in benefits, any reduction in growth of benefits, and who may demand more benefits). This taxpayer "opposition" to the entitlement "machine," which is likely to be stronger than the relatively feeble, lib-media-muzzled opposition that has already existed for decades, is the logical foundation for the future GOP. Even if people are benumbed by intrusion as well as intervention to gross excess by Washington, at least they'll take notice when their money is under attack. One would hope, at least.

What actually will happen, who knows.

"but because the development of our modern welfare state based in Washington consists in large part of vote-buying through entitlements (a few of us Peters are taxed to buy the votes of the many more Pauls who receive entitlements of one kind or another) and the demographics not only of minorities but of our aging population in the future point the way toward more, not fewer, entitlements."

DLS what are you basing that on? According to the 2005 report on state by state tax burden you're getting your Peters and Pauls mixed up. Check it out here:

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

I did some math for you, basing a RED/BLUE state on the results for the 2004 presidential election. Blue states get back $.86 for every dollar they send to the federal gov't, red states get $1.16 for every dollar they send Washington. The idea that GOP are fiscally responsible and its dems that use up all the tax money for wasteful programs is a myth.

The differences are at least partially due to book keeping. The retired live in red states Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Also, military spending is more in the red states (large land areas) versus the blue states. The BRAC commissions have closed most of the military bases in the blue states.

If you exclude New York, the numbers becomes much closers because NYC has little government spending.

No matter how high taxes gets, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews will just not vote for Republicans. Cheating on taxes will go up before people vote Republican. Also, blacks and Hispanic voting patterns have demonstrated that corruption or incompetence on Democratic politicians does not have voting patterns. The incompetence of Marion Barry or Kwame Kilpatrick did not get DC or Detroit to stop voting Democratic.

There is no scenario that will either get blacks or Hispanics to vote Republican or to get more than 60% of whites to vote Republican. Thus, no relevant Republican party.

SD thats some pretty flimsy justification for the numbers not going your way. And why would I exclude NY? The arguement is that liberals waste money on programs that don't work or just prolong the problem while practical republicans spend wisely and can balance a checkbook. Maybe in one or two states your views might be true, but this is a national average. You're just making excuses.

Also, minorities don't vote GOP because all their talking heads are racists. Take O'reilly or Rush. These guys are so friggin condescending to minorities they stop just short of racial slurs on their shows. Rush lasted all of 10 seconds as a sportscaster and you know he couldn't talk about minorities for much longer than that without putting his foot in his mouth. There's is not a Klan racism, but its pretty thinly veiled what they really think.

"Also, military spending is more in the red states (large land areas) versus the blue states."

Try again, CA has by far the largest amount of military spending going on of all the 50 states.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/defensemap.html#ca

DLS: 'Actually, Slamfu, the Democrats do have an advantage not merely because liberalism is portrayed as positive while conservatism is seen as negative (and optimistic versus pessimistic)'

Seriously, put aside your biases, which include the political defs of lib and con, and look at world and US history.

In every major way to measure human success- from base economics to individual liberties to civil and human rights to technical innovation, liberalism is a better approach, because by its nature it takes risks. Conservatism does not.

Einstein's scientific liberalism has led to many of the scientific breakthroughs of the last 100 years- including defense systems and nukes, which via MAD, kept the peace in the Cold War.

FDR and LBJ, hardly liberal by today's standards, were open to ideas in their day, and not only blacks and women are better for them, but we all are. The electorate has more access to info, even if it usually squanders it.

Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?
In 25 years Cons will be defending gay marriage and Healthcare as a right, and conveniently forgetting that people like you ever existed and dared to call themselves cons.

Make book on that! History's flow is toward greater liberties, and there's a reason liberty and liberalism come from the same root word.

Conservatism is the ever shrinking corner of a room and Cons always, mindbogglingly, paint themselves into the same corners on all issues. Liberals are wrong on many things, but in a variety of ways, whereas Cons always make the same errors and never learn.

Cosmoetica:
Awesome! With a little reworking this could be part of a world class political speech.

"Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?
In 25 years Cons will be defending gay marriage and Healthcare as a right, and conveniently forgetting that people like you ever existed and dared to call themselves cons.

Make book on that! History's flow is toward greater liberties, and there's a reason liberty and liberalism come from the same root word."

Cosmetica,

You have forgotten that liberialism producted the NYC, DC, Baltimore, Philly of the 1970's that had high taxes, bad services, high crimes, and a poor quality of life. The reason the left call themselves progressives is that liberals gave themselves a bad name with bad schools, forced busing, high crime, and high unemployment. Look at the quality of life in 1980.

Also, FDR's infatuation with central planning would make his adminsitraiton very liberal by today's standards. One of the tings that the Democratic party had to get over was the idea central planning from the New Deal and WWII.

California is number one in defense spending but Texas, Georgia, and Florida are the next three. Also, since the top 1% pay such a high level of taxes and they are concentrated in NYC and LA, of course those states apy the most taxes.

And last, if Hillary Clinton cannot attract black voters while running policies that are left of center, then how can the Republicans ever hope to win black or Hispanic votes while offering fewer handouts and fewer quotas? It is impossible. There is nothing that a conservative can say that will ever attract blacks or Hispanics. It is much more than packaging and message. As long as the Democrats can promises government goodies while whites pay most of the taxes, then blacks will vote 90% for Democrats.

"California is number one in defense spending but Texas, Georgia, and Florida are the next three. Also, since the top 1% pay such a high level of taxes and they are concentrated in NYC and LA, of course those states apy the most taxes."

CA's budget is equal to TX, GA, and FL combined, give or take a billion. And the arguement that CA and NY are so propserous they generate so much money also fails to move me. Many would argue one of the reasons they are so propserous is because of the way they run things. Also, there were many other blue states involved in that list, so lets not just assume it all falls on those to just because they are the biggest.

Paulsilver,

Child labor was considered a progressive idea because it kept children from getting into trouble since schools did not exist. It was the SCHIP of its day. Progressive are for modern Jim Crow. In 2007, progressives were in front of the Supreme Court arguing that assigning children based upon race is not only legal but good public policy. Fifty years after Brown, progressives have been in front of the Supreme Court several times arguing that separate and equal is acceptable. Eugenics was a progressive idea in its day because it would limit poverty. The founder of planned parenthood supported forced sterilizations. It was the stem cell research of its day. Abolition was a progressive idea of its day since it was support to help women and children. The women's vote grew out of that. Progressives have been wrong so many times on mental health that it is embarrassing. Remember, dumping them all on the street?

Slamfu,

NY and California benefit from geography and history. NYC was the financial center before air conditioning made the south livable. Unless the stock exchanges move, there is no way for a red state to get the rich to move. California benefits from being on the coast. An agriculture state like Kansas is always going to get more taxes than it pays in.

Lol, so air conditioning or the lack of it and the stock exchanges are what does it? Gimme a break. Btw CA is the biggest agriculture state in the union. You're also forgetting another key factor in any booming economy, cheap labor. NY and CA having a large immigrant pool have always had access to that. TX too which is one of the reasons for its success. And for awhile, the South.

Texas is growing because it does not have a state income tax and low property taxes. For the middle class, it is better to be in a low service, low tax state. California is losing its middle class. the total number of whites in California has gone down since 1990. California and NYC are great is you are rich but they are not great places to open a business unless you are corrupt. Wages in California is very high, environmental compliance is difficult, and legal liability is virtually unlimited. Utah and Nevada has stolen many corporations form California due to this.

SD: 'You have forgotten that liberialism producted the NYC, DC, Baltimore, Philly of the 1970's that had high taxes, bad services, high crimes, and a poor quality of life. The reason the left call themselves progressives is that liberals gave themselves a bad name with bad schools, forced busing, high crime, and high unemployment. Look at the quality of life in 1980.'

Actually, it was a conservative movement, under the rubric of progressivism, that caused Urban Blight, and under FDR! The Wagner-Steagall Act of 1937 paved the way for 'urban renewal' under scumbags lie Robert Moses, which literally destroyed minority neighborhoods, and disenfranchised blacks that actually had moved into middle class areas w whites. It was the conservative tactic of scaring whites into flight that led to the spiral of higher taxes and diminishing returns. Sorry, but wrong.
And busing was a solution to segregation- a conservative principle. O for 2. It worked, and led to open minded kids, like the many who actually might vote a black man Prez.

Central planning is neither a left nor right issue, it's a good or bad thing depending on application- both fascist and Communist states tried it, as have theocracies and socialist states. You are confusing ideology w application.

Also, if Hill wins the Presidency, I predict a Republican wins in 2012. More and more people are Indies, and winning them means winning the WH.

'Child labor was considered a progressive idea because it kept children from getting into trouble since schools did not exist. It was the SCHIP of its day. Progressive are for modern Jim Crow. In 2007, progressives were in front of the Supreme Court arguing that assigning children based upon race is not only legal but good public policy. Fifty years after Brown, progressives have been in front of the Supreme Court several times arguing that separate and equal is acceptable. Eugenics was a progressive idea in its day because it would limit poverty. The founder of planned parenthood supported forced sterilizations. It was the stem cell research of its day. Abolition was a progressive idea of its day since it was support to help women and children. The women's vote grew out of that. Progressives have been wrong so many times on mental health that it is embarrassing. Remember, dumping them all on the street?'

Child labor started in the 1800s, and was not an idea about keeping kids out of trouble, but exploiting immigrant labor who had fears of reporting abuses and de facto slavery. There was a little book called How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis, as well as Upton Sinclair and co. My God, you can twist reality.

There are a few wackos who support anything, lib or conn, and you are again arguing by exception, rather than rule, always a losing tactic. And the biggest segregation supporters are cons who support school vouchers- a Con idea. Next.

Eugenics was not a progressive idea, but championed as a way to control minority populations and increase Aryan purity. At least the US bastardization. Again, wrong.

'Abolition was a progressive idea of its day since it was support to help women and children. The women's vote grew out of that'

Finally, you are correct. So, are you arguing that slavery is good? That Suffrage was wrong?

'Progressives have been wrong so many times on mental health that it is embarrassing. Remember, dumping them all on the street?'

Yes, a bad idea, but actually better than the excrement and filthy conditions, and daily abuse that the healthcare system forced on them, including lobotomization.

You do realize each claim only shrinks whatever credibility you have left?



Also, FDR's infatuation with central planning would make his adminsitraiton very liberal by today's standards. One of the tings that the Democratic party had to get over was the idea central planning from the New Deal and WWII.

California is number one in defense spending but Texas, Georgia, and Florida are the next three. Also, since the top 1% pay such a high level of taxes and they are concentrated in NYC and LA, of course those states apy the most taxes.

And last, if Hillary Clinton cannot attract black voters while running policies that are left of center, then how can the Republicans ever hope to win black or Hispanic votes while offering fewer handouts and fewer quotas? It is impossible. There is nothing that a conservative can say that will ever attract blacks or Hispanics. It is much more than packaging and message. As long as the Democrats can promises government goodies while whites pay most of the taxes, then blacks will vote 90% for Democrats.

SD: 'Texas is growing because it does not have a state income tax and low property taxes. For the middle class, it is better to be in a low service, low tax state. California is losing its middle class. the total number of whites in California has gone down since 1990. California and NYC are great is you are rich but they are not great places to open a business unless you are corrupt. Wages in California is very high, environmental compliance is difficult, and legal liability is virtually unlimited. Utah and Nevada has stolen many corporations form California due to this.'

I live here. TX is a service economy with low wages. People move here because of the weather, mostly, and still cheap and undeveloped real estate. Again, you are trying to fit square pegs in round holes. There is more to life than economics.

Well we can argue geography and why we do so well out here, but I'm pretty convinced that if the conservatives ever took over out here they'd run us into the ground in no time.

Actually SD your line of thinking is what gets me about conservatives. There is this sense that these huge social constructs we make just happen, its inevitable and will maintain itself. NY and CA are nothing without people to organize it and live there and make things happen. Yes there are advantages but you act as if the success enjoyed is automatic and natural instead of the result of a mind boggling amount of resource management.

Bush is a fine example of that too in his appointments. FEMA had worked so well for so long he thought he could put anyone in charge of it, roll it into another organization and things will still work out ok. Then comes Katrina and it turns out if you remove the autonomy and skilled management it doesn't work like it used to. Iraq was just going to love us after we got rid of Saddam. Kill him and we got us another ally in the ME. Just these huge assumptions based on wishful thinking that don't ever pan out nearly as well as intended. Thats what I think of when I think of "Conservatives" today. Very bad on results unless you work in the energy industry or own Exxon stock.

Paul- I think we are talking about two different things. I see Clinton as part of the status quo, who can work with what we already have. I see Obama as wanting to dismantle the status quo, by mobilizing popular sentiment. I just think that Clinton would be more effective at working with what we already have. I do see your point about coattails- and I will be voting for him in the general if he's the nominee.