Sigh. Can it really be so long ago that I was out protesting his leadership of the dastardly Republican conspiracy to interrogate Anita Hill? Backwards, turn backwards, oh time in thy flight . . .
Instant analysis: this is probably not a good sign for the future of the Republican party, not because Arlen Specter is so crucial to its ideological or political integrity, but simply because he's a seasoned politician from a swing state, and what does he know that other Republicans don't?
On the other hand, I remember when that savvy political prognosticator, Jim Jeffords, sealed the doom of the Republican Party in the Senate. I hope that Specter has better sense than Jeffords in titling his next self-serving autobiography.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
60 Democrats in the Senate. There goes the filibuster, and any Republican hope of restraint.
clarification: any hope of restraining debate.
There is a difference between senate restraint and total lack of debate.
Yes, we know. When Obama silenced Republican opposition with "I won" and stamps his foot, that was the end of debate.
But at least then he had to convince a few Republicans to vote his way. Debate was over, restraint was hanging by a thread.
Now the restraint is over, and he can gleefully ruin the economy.
After all the hard work George W. Bush put into leaving the economy in such great shape . . . For Obama to go and ruin it is just a shame.
Hey DB, do you have any proof whatsoever that GWB had anything to do with the recession?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Remember Congress holds the purse strings, and the purse string holders since the 2006 have been....the Democrats.
When the Republs were in charge, the economy hummed.
Actually, not only did Obama win, but a number of other Democrats one additional seats in the House and the Senate. A majority of voters supported Democrats.
I'd pose the better question: while Republicans held the White House and controlled both houses of Congress, how often did the Democrats filibuster and shut down debate?
Just wondering, because you have a pretty revisionist view of history.
I liked it better when you lived up to your name and just lurked.
"Actually, not only did Obama win, but a number of other Democrats one additional seats in the House and the Senate. A majority of voters supported Democrats."
---And? it's called momentum. The democrats had it, by blaming the economy on the Republicans, and insinuating the war's failure (but by the end trying to ignore it, as it turned on them).
The Dems capitalized on Bush's unpopularity (largely unjustified) just as the Repubs, in 94 capitalized on Clinton's then-unpopularity (Joe Scarborough famously said that when asked when running for COngress why he was running, he said two words: "Bill Clinton." And he says that's when people donated money and offered support.)
"I'd pose the better question: while Republicans held the White House and controlled both houses of Congress, how often did the Democrats filibuster and shut down debate?"
---If you're trying to say they didn't, witness the vicious attacks on Bush judicial nominees, even after Bush offered compromises and gave Democratic consituencies liberal judges. And at what point did Bush and repubs silence debate? Didn't we have a full on debate on the Iraq war that lasted months? Didn't we have a full blown fight of judicial nominees? The Dems both were given ample time for debate and also used the tools of government to shut it down. But then again, your head was in sand for that, right?
"Just wondering, because you have a pretty revisionist view of history."
---I love liberals. telling the truth=revisionism. Tell me again how the Republicans caused the recession, zic?
"I liked it better when you lived up to your name and just lurked. "
---Don't yuo love liberals? When facts are against you, make glib attacks.
Laughing so hard I'm spewing. Don't go look in the mirrior, 'cause you're already living in backwards land.
You're so much fun to rile; it's so easy.
But you're hijacking threads, wasting time, and to be truthful, sound like a broken record.
If Republicans want to keep losing elections, losing members, etc., that's fine by me.
So that means, again, like most liberals, you can't find a single thing about the recession to blam and Bush and Republicans,r ight?
And you remember the Democrats reneging on judge deals, right?
and you remember how hte dems swept in on an unpopular president, right?
just checking, seems like you libs tend to lose out on lost of things like "facts" and "arguments."
"But you're hijacking threads, wasting time, and to be truthful, sound like a broken record."
--zic, it's easy to sound like a broken record when you ignore questions presented to you and refuse to see explanations that contradict your way of thinking.
That sound of banging you hear is zic hitting her head against the wall, realizing she has no logical comeback.
Ok, I'll bite. Ways in which the Bush administration helped to ruin the economy:
1) Trillions in deficit spending for fighting part of our war against terrorism in Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 as confirmed by any number of sources and reports.
2) The appointment of criminal banking/mortgage whore Alphonso Jackson as HUD director and the full endorsement of rampant deregulation, including that of the loan origination market which led to idiots making bad loans to idiots who could not pay them back.
3) The first TARP plan, now largely considered a huge failure in its execution, was egregiously pushed through by Bush and then treasury secretary Paulson.
The fact that the stock market crashed a full month before Obama was even elected, let alone inaugurated, also seems like a fairly sizeable indicator.
"Ok, I'll bite. Ways in which the Bush administration helped to ruin the economy:
"1) Trillions in deficit spending for fighting part of our war against terrorism in Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 as confirmed by any number of sources and reports."
---The war figures did not cause the current recession, although I agree they do not bode well for the future---of course Obama and his cronies have so dwarfed Bush's deficit at this point it seems positively quaint, since the deficit belongs to the current moron-in-chief. And once again, wittle wiberals, 9/11 was never used as a justification to invade Iraq.
"2) The appointment of criminal banking/mortgage whore Alphonso Jackson as HUD director and the full endorsement of rampant deregulation, including that of the loan origination market which led to idiots making bad loans to idiots who could not pay them back."
---calling the deregulation "rampant" is ridiculous, as is your underlying assertion that the regulations loosened would have prevented this from happenening. There is no regulation that could have stopped the uptick in the housing market based on bad loans, and the resulting mortgage backed chaos.
"3) The first TARP plan, now largely considered a huge failure in its execution, was egregiously pushed through by Bush and then treasury secretary Paulson."
---after the recession occurred, so that's a false argument. Plus, that would make Obama's successive bailouts and lyingly-named "stimulus" plan (which dwarf Bush's to the ration of an appleseed to an apple) the true destroyers of the economy.
The fact that the stock market crashed a full month before Obama was even elected, let alone inaugurated, also seems like a fairly sizeable indicator.
Basic, 9/11 was absolutely used as a justification. Cheney and Bush repeatedly stated that, in addition to having weapons of mass destruction (where are those btw?) they were certain that Saddam had operational ties to Al-Qaeda, who had, you know, just attacked our country. I'm sorry if you can't chain this together. Has it ever been our national policy to randomly attack countries that may have had WMD and terrorist ties? Why haven't we invaded North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and about half a dozen African nations by now?
As to your notion that no regulation could have prevented the housing crisis, that is certainly debatable and largely unprovable, but regulating the loan origination market certainly would have provided for damage control and made losses much less systemic and widespread. I don't really know of any economists, be they liberal or conservative, that do not believe the increase in (bad) Alt-A and subprime loans (largely written by unscrupulous loan originators) in the market from single to double-digit percentage points was a fairly sizeable input into the current financial crisis.
And how is my third point a false argument? It was a policy directly birthed, endorsed and implemented by the Bush Administration, that being the original topic of this debate. The timing is irrelevant. I would think you could appreciate that, seeing as how you want to anachronistically blame the entire debacle on Obama save the retorts where you're forced to retreat a bit and say that he didn't cause the crisis but he is certainly exacerbating it.
It was always a false hope. With people like Specter, Snowe, and Collins the Republicans were never going to sustain a filibuster on an issue that wasn't purely symbolic. This actually presents more of a problem for the Democrats than the Republicans, since they can't blame anyone for not passing the legislation they promised to pass. There is a great deal of legislation they pretend to support during the campaign as they court this group or that. But they can't afford to actually pass it and irritate Joe Average. I'm thinking of things like gun control legislation and repeal of DOMA.
Granted, gay people will probably still vote Dem after a good kick in the teeth, but they might not donate as much money.
This whole idea that Republicans should tolerate people like Specter is silly. Unless you're around 50% of a legislative chamber and stand to gain or lose control of committees, there's no point in having someone who votes with the other side and is still capable of bringing you bad press. I don't know if it's even possible, but the best thing that the Republicans could do at this point is eject Snowe and Collins.
I would add carbon tax and/or cap & trade legislation to your list of problems for the Democrats. I don't think they'll lose constituents by not passing it, but it's going to be interesting watching then justify not getting to it or watering it down to the point that it is only symbolic.
I'm not sure cap & trade falls into that category. Cap & trade is likely to pass just because Obama is counting on the money it'll skim off the economy to pay for socialized medicine.
When the Republican party has purged its moderates, how successful do you suppose it will be at capturing the votes of moderates/swing voters?
Now, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and in principle, I don't care much whether either party self destructs. But the Republicans spinning into an ideological-purity feedback loop has the potential to leave us with one viable national party. If that happens, the Democrats will have no check at all on their own tendency toward stupid ideologically driven policies, corruption, etc. The US form of government actually needs two functioning, more-or-less sane parties to work.
Totally bigoted, rude, uncalled for, and unacceptable.
Sorry, just too far out of line to let pass.
Oh? I don't see it as any of those. Gay people have been pushing for the repeal of DOMA since it was passed, and the Democrats have promised to do it. This comes after a long string of reversals, most notably "don't ask, don't tell", which itself was a policy Clinton put in place because throwing gays under the bus was convenient?
What else would you consider all that but a kick in the teeth? And still gays will support them.
(replying to tsotha)
It's your language; reeking of "nice place, hate to see anything happen to it."
It's not a 'kick in the teeth,' it's political reality in the face of prejudice.
Zic, is English not your first language?
Tsotha,
Some people "hear" what they want to.
I doubt the 60 vote cloture vote is any more likely to happen now than before. You're not going to get 60 Democrats ranging from Bryan Dorgan to Al Franken to agree on anything if the Republicans are a bloc against it. Too many senators are from states that could elect a Republican and would be averse to taking a risk.
The filibuster's real importance was in the civil rights era, to assure decisive power was in the hands of what was essentially a third party, the Southern segregationist Democrats who weren't going to leave office except by dying. Since then, it's been a feature of Senate deliberations mostly as a bargaining chip. If Harry Reid goes to Mitch McConnell and says, "I've got 60 votes for (say) card check," I think McConnell's response will be, "Okay, let's see if you do."
Every Democrat will know he or she can be portrayed in a negative campaign ad as "the decisive vote" on approving a divisive issue that has a major downside. "The decisive vote" to raise taxes. "The decisive vote" on cap and trade. That's the last thing some of the moderate Dems want.
Unless and until there are 60 actual liberals in the Senate, the Senate will continue to cool the coffee.
"this is probably not a good sign for the future of the Republican party, not because Arlen Specter is so crucial to its ideological or political integrity, but simply because he's a seasoned politician from a swing state, and what does he know that other Republicans don't?"
To be honest, this is more about the makeup of Pennsylvania and Specter's strong desire to stay in office than anything else. PA has a closed primary and over 200k Republicans switched parties last year to vote in the closed Democratic primary that was such a big deal. So the Republicans that are left in PA are very, very conservative, and Pat Toomey (who lost 51-49 in '04) has somewhere between a 10 and 21 point lead on Specter right now, according to which poll you look at. He was a dead man walking as a Republican, and PA has a sore loser law so he couldn't pull a Lieberman. It was either run as an independent and hope to narrowly pull out a three-way race, switch parties, or get primaried.
But I think he's pretty much the only Republican in that position. The Maine senators don't have to worry about closed primaries or a very conservative fringe.
It probably doesn't mean as much as it seems. The most contentious items (climate change legislation) weren't going to get all the Democrats anyway, and supreme court judges would have been approved by the nuclear option if necessary. What may happen now is to put through healthcare legislation the correct way- by overcoming filibuster, but that is a cosmetic change only since the Democrats were already going to use reconciliation to do so.
When it comes to climate change, I won't be surprised to see my sens., Collins and Snow, vote with Dems; one of ME's big problems is high levels of mercury concentration in water bodies; a by-product of coal burning plants in the midwest.
Here in Vacationland, we have a wealth of water bounding with fish, but you're not supposed to eat too many because of their high mercury levels. Believe it or not, that's a huge drag on our economy; and something Mainiacs want addressed. Cap and trade is one method of addressing it.
When it comes to global warming, the other serious consideration is rising sea levels, easier to disregard when you don't come from a state with 3.5k miles of coastline.
Sounds like you guys need some fission plants. It would put an end to all those mercury problems.
Not us, the midwest. We get their coal emissions.
You also get "their" power, seeing as how the power system is an interconnected grid and the largest pool of consumption is on the east coast. The quickest path to reducing coal-fired power is either to go without power or start agitating for more nuclear power.
The surprise is when Collins and Snowe vote with the Republicans.
Perhaps its going to take the death of the republican party to give the libertarian party a chance.
What is going to have to happen with the Republicans is for all of the previous leadership to be voted out/retired. This might take another 2 to 3 election defeats. The party needs to find its small government feet again, but that cannot be done in a credible fashion with the current leadership that was complicit in the fiscally irresponsible Bush Administration. If I could change one thing in time, it would be to have Gore win in Florida in 2000. Divided government is a godsend, and we could have had that for an extended period of time, plus, I doubt we would have ever invaded Iraq or still be in Afghanistan (though that last is less certain).
Sorry Yancey, I still am in favor of the Iraq invasion. The war was won, the democracy was installed, Hussein was killed. I would do it again, only, of course, with the surge strategy installed from the beginning.
With, or without torture?
um, DB, wasn't the point of the memos that *al-queda* and not *Iraq* forces were put at Guantenmo? Put another way, the Iraqis who were resisting, as opposed to terrorist organizations, were not at Guantanemo, or not supposed to be.
Well, that was recommended. But Rummy wanted to do it on the cheap.
I reported on military contractors, had two family working in the Pentagon on 9/11; one had his office destroyed and many of his co-workers killed.
Lot of good people left military service because of Donald Rumsfeld, Lurker. He did an enormous amount of damage to our military. Some because they didn't like invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11; others because the couldn't stand the incompetence.
And they're not liberals.
zi, finally, something we agree on. The Rumsfeld plan failed; the execution of the intial phases of the war, not the surge or the idea of the war itself, were bad.
"Some because they didn't like invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11."
---we never invaded Iraq based on 9/11. That was never given as a justifcation.
"I reported on military contractors, had two family working in the Pentagon on 9/11; one had his office destroyed and many of his co-workers killed. "
---Nonsequitor. I'm very sorry for his loss, but what does that have to do with supporting the Iraq war or being against it?
...the economy was burdened with 3 trillion dollars in debt, the international reputation of the U.S. was destroyed, the credibility of further use of force was lost, the war in Afghanistan (home of the real 9/11 agressors) was practically abandoned, the 4000 American troops were killed, 1 million Iraqi civilians (3% of the total population) were slaughtered, 4 million turned into refugees.
What's to regret, Lurker?
Nimed:
"the economy was burdened with 3 trillion dollars in debt,"
----caused mainly by band spending, not all military. taxes, I believe, should not have been cut if the war was to run up a deficit.
"the international reputation of the U.S. was destroyed,"
---Nimed, are you one of those idiots who think that anti-Americanism began with Bush? Wow. Someone forgot the end of the Cold War was the catalyst, but anyone watching European movies from the last 50 years noticed the strain of mocking Americans in them.
"the credibility of further use of force was lost,"
--How? oh wait, when liberals painted the war as lost, even though it is won.
"the war in Afghanistan (home of the real 9/11 agressors) was practically abandoned,"
----no, there was a resurgence, most notably due to Pakistan's problems.
"the 4000 American troops were killed,"
----when 75% vote for a "war-monger" in the last election, you can bet those 4000 were proud to give their lives to help a democracy. But you liberals don't understand sacrifice like that, do you?
"1 million Iraqi civilians (3% of the total population) were slaughtered, 4 million turned into refugees."
---Numbers that have been debunked and debunked again. Wil exaggerations (Megan herself pointed out the flimsy basis for those numbers). And do you really think life under Saddam's executioner's sword was better? Really? By that argument, no war should ever be fought, since more will die in the war than if an oppressive state is allowed to continue its ways.
You lose.
"What's to regret, Lurker?"
---Not doing the surge first. The Rumsfeld Doctrine was too bold for the moment; overwhelming numbers and manpower is a gamebreaker. Other than that, Nimed, your pathetic complaints are as slimsy as your so-called concern for the troops.
Hey, it cost 3 billion dollars. 3 billion optional dollars. Not on education, healthcare or Cheetos. On killing Iraqis, essentially.
Really? Somehow, I doubt you see many European movies. Which are those?
This is ignorance incarnated. The Iraq War (and Bush's reelection in 2004) have hurt the U.S. reputation more than any single event in the past 50 years. I lived in Europe to witness this, but never mind anecdotal evidence. There were opinion polls reporting world's opinion, you know? Not to mention the most massive anti-war protests in memory.
Your ignorance in this point is perhaps the most understandable. Press in the U.S. is not very good in reporting international news. But I would say that your opinion is pretty much unsustainable had you done some traveling and discussed the issue with Europeans. Or almost anybody else.
No, you failed to understand the argument. It has nothing to do with liberals, and everything to do with the unavailability of troops and the country's economic situation. The threat of invasion has diminished in other countries, because another war is simply too expensive and unpopular. So the U.S. ended up losing negotiating power with Middle Eastern countries. The war option now is basically bombing them.
The war in Afghanistan was forgotten, and registered pratically no progress since 2003. The "resurgence, mostly due to Pakistan's problems" is the kind of vague bullshit typical of someone who doesn't know much about the subject matter. And it doesn't refute anything. If we go by troop commitment, the war in Afghanistan was 5 times less important to Bush than the war in Iraq. How can anyone defend this, I don't know. I guess what's left of the people who once supported the Republican Party are similar sport's fans. It's their party. They won't change their minds no matter what.
Oh yes, their families must be ecstatic with the loss of their children. And please, spare us the "democracy" argument, which was an afterthought after the reasons for the war turned out to be bogus.
The Iraq war is not over. Although I have my doubts, I really hope democracy in Iraq works. It is now the only reason why the loss of those lives was not in vain.
Once again, they have only been debunked in your head. I don't know what Megan said about the surveys (which ones? The Lancet ones? The ORB ones? Got a link?), nor do I care very much.
Megan is not an expert in statistics, unlike the many members of the American Statistical Association, not to mention others around the world, that supported the Lancet study and the series of subsequent ORB surveys. I've discussed this subject many times and find it tedious to point out all the sources for and against the studies. People can read the studies and methodologies directly and make up their minds.
I'll just point out that a) these studies use the same methodology used to calculate death tolls in genocides and other catastrophes with high loss of human life, and that somehow they are not questioned in those cases. There's a lesson in hypocrisy to be learned here; b) there is a clear pattern in the people who support these studies, which tend to be experts and desinterested, and those who "debunk" them, which tend to be non-specialists and have vested interests.
It's like the Iraq War legality, really. Every expert says it violated international law, except lawyers in the British and U.S. department of Justice.
Agreed, It may even be helpful to ditch the republican label all together. However, what will happen to the country during a one party transitional period?
Pat Toomey’s challenge is real, and Specter is tired of the GOP asking him for loyalty on critical votes (in return for resources).
Whatever happened to Anita Hill?
Specter last month:
en. Arlen Specter (R-PA) told The Hill that he will not become a Democrat -- but he might become an independent.
"I'm staying a Republican because I think I have a more important role to play there," he said. "I think the United States very desperately needs a two-party system. ... And I'm afraid that we're becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party."
The only thing that changed is the polling data. This is simple self-preservation.
Peopl wonder why I became conservative. Then I just point at the liberals, and suddenly they understand.
Basic, nobody wonders why you became conservative. You were and still are a full-fledged cheerleader for a war that got thousands of our soldiers killed. You think all abortion is murder and that any woman doing so should be put in jail for life. You think tax cuts are the answer to every economic problem. You support the same kinds of torture we executed Japanese soldiers for doing.
I really rather doubt people wonder, or have ever wondered, about the reasons for your choice of political party. You're the dead-end rump, the 20% of the country that's quickly falling into complete irrelevance. The liberals you're pointing at are winning election after election and their positions are broadly popular.
Which makes it all the more enjoyable how completely oblivious you are to it.
Adam, I cheerleaded for the war because I still think the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. BTW, the soldiers who fought in that war and continue to fight favored McCain over Obama 3-1. 75% that is. So its not like people on the ground don't believe in the war, either, despite what you liberals believe.
No, I don't think tax cuts are the answer to every problem, straw man, kiddo. I was originally for holding the line on the recession--no tax cuts, but I was for spending decreases (to reduce the deficit). Now, though, after the stimulus has pushed the economy further and Obama and the Demcrats have pushed us so far into the debt and recession, and his tax increases will punish the only group that would get us out, we need a tax cut just to get back to the old position we were when this whole mess began. You remember when taxes were low, and the economy hummed along, right? And when the Democrats took over COngress (which controls the purse strings) and fought against low taxes, suddenly the recession began, right?
"You think all abortion is murder and that any woman doing so should be put in jail for life."
---unless their lives are on the line, yes. And the doctors too.
" You support the same kinds of torture we executed Japanese soldiers for doing."
---straw man, but of course you lefties deliberately conflate the two, because you're so stupid. I argued that torture did not fit the definition of torutre we currently have---which, if you bother to to read the torture memos, is a very good argument. And then I asked for debate on whether torture was ever morally justifed, even to save 1,000, 000 lives. Notably, idiots like you and Jasper declared it wasn't but refused to see that others could have a defensible opposite opinion.
"You're the dead-end rump, the 20% of the country that's quickly falling into complete irrelevance."
---then why are you so intent on repeating it--shouldn't you just ingore us, because we're nothing to you? Just 4 years ago, you liberals were running around like chickens wihtout heads, claiming the reublicans could have one party dominance forever. Now you've gone from paranoid to smugly positive about the future? This is like the switch from global warming to global cooling by you nuts---you can't see that your previous extreme position negates your current one.
"The liberals you're pointing at are winning election after election and their positions are broadly popular."
---winning elections does not mean your policies are correct. It means you're currently good at winning elections. Their positions are not broadly popular, they are just the party in power. And the popularity of positions, in case you haven't noticed, dummy, often changes....
"Which makes it all the more enjoyable how completely oblivious you are to it."
---said the man so obsessed with republicans and conservatives he feels intent on leaving an entire posting attacking them when they have "no chance and no power" according to his stated opinion.
me thinks the liberals doth protest too much.
said the man so obsessed with republicans and conservatives he feels intent on leaving an entire posting attacking them when they have "no chance and no power" according to his stated opinion.
Pot, kettle? Why are you here every post, spouting the same tired politics? Why do your posts on this thread outnumber everyone else's a few times over?
Hey, the dems are in power now. Never said that they have no chance and no power. Electing the current moron in chief is exhibit A that the people are stupid.
"Why are you here every post?"
---because I care.
"Why do your posts on this thread outnumber everyone else's a few times over?"
---because your wittle wiberal stupidity needs to be shot down with logic.
Clearly, Lurker and his friends have pretty low standards of discussion. That explains a lot.
Too bad about all that help Bush and his fellow Senators gave Specter in his race against Toomey. We have to live with RINOs from Maine. PA can do better than this clod.
Yeah, it's really too bad Toomey didn't lose badly in 2004. I suppose he'll have to lose badly in 2010. While I agree that PA can do better than this clod, I'm sure I take that far differently than you do. Toomey won't get within 15 points in the general given the makeup of PA and Specter's broad popularity among independents. And there isn't a Republican out there who's going to beat Toomey in the primary to make a better showing.
Adam, I'm sorry you're typing the url. The echo chamber is over at dailykos.com. Here is where adults debate the issues, not merely scream left wing talking points and expect others to bow down to them.
How's that Obama recession going?
Losing Specter isn't really a big deal for the Senate GOP--as a Democrat, he's likely to win in 2010 and Toomey will be another "ideologically pure" sacrificial lamb (not so much because I'm sure 2010 will be a bad year for the GOP generally, but because Pennsylvania much like the rest of the northeast is sliding ever farther into a "solid Democratic" stronghold, as the Deep South once was for that same party) who probably won't break the low 40s in the general election. Specter will be a Democrat, but a moderate one--sure he'll feel pressure from the Senate Democrats to toe the party line, but I don't see him becoming the next Babs Boxer overnight. And, he'll be 81 when he starts his next term--he's not likely to be in office much longer after that.
What the GOP should be more worried about is why they're forced to write off the northeast, and now playing defense in the South and West. Every "growth" group of voters (immigrants, young professionals, suburban voters) is trending away from the GOP. They might want to take the time to consider why that is, and what options they have to reverse these trends.
Why do you think 2010 will be a bad year for the GOP? I expect them to pick up a significant number of seats in both houses.
Maybe this isn't such a bad thing.
Think of it as excuse removal. Everything is on the Democrats shoulders now. If they do ok, so much the better, if not, there will be plenty of chances later. Personally, I think that given time, they will be true to form and overreach.
BD, immigrants and young professionals have long gone blue; suburban moms and dads are the ticket. 8 years without a terror attack plus the war perceived badly (despite winning it) helped push Bush and friends down. To win back the dads and moms, some law-and-order push needs to be done.
What helped the Repubs before was guys like Giuliani, local repubs winning and putting crime in jail. One bad thing about Democrats is that they often play to the black vote by going easier on criminals, most of whom are black, and also loosen punishments on homelessness and other morale-type situations. Nothing helped Repubs more in 1988 than Willie Horton and the shots of squeegee men in NYC.
We have a new rise in panhandling in cities such as portland, memphis, etc., and I wouldn't be surprised if that combined with loosening criminal prosecutions (already threatened in DC) drives many yuppies and suburban moms and dads to the right side of the ticket after a few years of city living/fear of traveling into the city, and seeing friends mugged, property values dwindled, and agressive bums and the lefties who defend them come out in force.
But the main thing is the economy. Somehow, an economy owned by the Democrats got blamed on Republicans. The Republicans need to change that perception, first and foremost.
Lurker, whether the GOP is hurting among those groups (which often prove crucial in states with large urban populations, or large numbers of Hispanics like in the Southwest) due to perceptions or policies, what's undeniable is that they're clearly weak among these groups and losing a number of elections because of it. While they scored some important recent victories (congressional elections in the '90s, and the elections of the first half of this decade), much of this has to do with shifts in the South which overshadowed the slide in the northeast and west. It's been a few decades since California was a GOP base, but now it's as far from their grasp as Massachusetts. (Interestingly, both states recently had--and CA still does have--GOP governors, but they had to govern in a manner far out of sync with the party nationally) That slide in the Northeast and West is the biggest obstacle to majority status.
Sure, there's hope for the GOP, namely if the Democrats screw things up so badly in the coming years that voters would happily elect tree stumps if it meant getting the bums out--and of course Pelosi et al seem intent on doing just that--but it'd be nice to see a new and improved GOP that could compete among all demographics and regional groups.
"whether the GOP is hurting among those groups (which often prove crucial in states with large urban populations, or large numbers of Hispanics like in the Southwest) due to perceptions or policies, what's undeniable is that they're clearly weak among these groups and losing a number of elections because of it."
2 elections thus far. They need to shift into different gears, agreed. I think we're disagreeing on where they need to go. Rush argued that we tried the moderate guy---McCain--and he lost as people painted him as Bush. And Bush was far from right wing on many key issues (spending being # 1). There may be more truth than people want to admit that when Republicans run as right-wingers, they win; when they go center, they lose.
One key fight the republicans have seemingly abadoned is abortion, which, surprisingly for me and many, is the one area I've heard commentary on where young people are exactly the same (as opposed to left wing) of their parents. McCain barely spoke of it, even though Obama is far left wing on the issue, believing live babies should be killed *after delivery* and that abortion shouldn't be *rare at all* and that government should *encourage* abortion and that children are *punishment.* FOCA, too, was largely back burner, even though it was Obama's # 1 cause (paraphrasing him). I would love to see someone seriously get out there on that, rather than gay marriage, social fight de jour; many pro-lifers Dems who were for Obama never knew about his extremism on the issue.
Hispanics, blacks, and liberal Catholic white voters all are more swingable. With MLK's daughter as a voice against abortion, as well as many black religious voices, it's a big weapon they aren't deploying.
"Rush argued that we tried the moderate guy---McCain--and he lost as people painted him as Bush. And Bush was far from right wing on many key issues (spending being # 1). There may be more truth than people want to admit that when Republicans run as right-wingers, they win; when they go center, they lose."
McCain lost b/c nobody with an "R" after their name was going to be able to escape Bush's drag. As far as running "right" or "moderate", I don't think the voting public really pays attention enough to know who is "right" and who is "left" except for issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty. They have no clue or don't care about economic issues.
Johnson, McCain was beating Obama at the polls just prior to the economic collapse. Food for thought.
Basic, you're talking about the economic collapse that is all Obama's fault, right?
nope. I'm talking about the economic collapse NotMyPresident has lengthened and worsened intentionally to drive his agenda.
Basic, it's interesting how you can see 1, 5, 10 even 50 years into the future. If you donate $50 to the RNC, do they now enroll you in a free online astrology course?
immigrants and young professionals have long gone blue
Lurker, I resent that. Um... that, and no longer being young, too :-)
I figure people tend to think of different professions when they say "professionals"...
Ditto
fair enough.
I'm not even sure where to start. Even if you know nothing about the details of CDOs and CDSs, the simplest explanation for how this financial disaster happened is that a lot of financial companies bet that house prices could never fall and used this assumption in models which therefore predicted profits into the far future and allowed them to take risks that now look incredibly stupid. It can be argued who was most responsible for the deregulation that allowed these firms to do this - both Democrats and Republicans subscribed to the low regulation mindset. That said, it was a almost a mantra for Republicans. House prices peaked between August 2005 and 2006, before the congressional elections allowing the Democrats to regain majorities in Congress. Blaming the last Congress for the recession displays a deep lack of understanding of what actually happened.
"the simplest explanation for how this financial disaster happened is that EVERYONE bet that house prices could never fall..."
There, fixed that for you. No charge.
To pretend that there was not greed and fraud at every level of the economy from the top right down to the liar loans at the bottom is disingenuous at best.
It was obvious years before this came crashing down on our heads that everyone was cheating outrageously and just hoping to not be left holding the bag. Sadly, even when it did come crashing down none of the responsible parties were (or are ever) going to be held accountable. Instead, the rest of us who didn't recklessly speculate and commit outright fraud will be picking up the tab.
how this financial disaster happened is that a lot of financial companies bet that house prices could never fall and used this assumption in models which therefore predicted profits into the far future and allowed them to take risks that now look incredibly stupid
.
I really wish everyone would stop repeating that, as if doing so makes it true. It was a bubble. Investors (institutional and otherwise) bought on the way up, figuring they'd sell on the way down.
.
Bubbles burst all the time. There are losses, layoffs, and reallocations and then the next one starts. We used to call them "economic cycles," until the transaction cost of trading approached zero and we went from millions of trades per day to billions. Now, everything happens much quicker and emotion gets involved.
.
And THAT'S what caused the crisis (IMHO). Everyone who bought on the way up assumed they could sell on the way down, but when the bubble burst, the effective price for MBS's went directly to zero and stayed there (i.e., no one was able to sell any of their assets - hence the term "toxic").
.
Watching the portfolio dwindle to zero without being able to sell positions and reallocate the assets - that's what the financial companies couldn't predict. Not a fall in housing prices. Just about everyone knew that was coming (even if they didn't know when...).
I'm not even sure where to start. For one thing, this was not a problem caused by lack of regulation. The banking industry has got to be the most heavily regulated industry outside of medicine. The root of the problem is there were factions within the government pumping up the bubble. The government pushed banks to lend to deadbeats as a remedy for the wholly imaginary "redlining" supposedly going on. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a market for garbage paper by buying up paper private sector companies wouldn't touch (oh, sure, the GSEs are private companies. Hahahahahaha.)
Sure, CDSs should have been regulated as insurance, because that's what they are. But this isn't the case of regulations being removed - CDSs were never regulated. The idea deregulation was any sort of genesis for that bubble is a fantasy subscribed to by people who think the government should run everything.
Nope. This can't be dumped on Fannie and Freddie. They started to pull out 4 years before the onset of the crisis. See here, here and here for relevant data.
There should be no dispute in this issue by now. The crisis was caused to a great extent due to specific deregulation (not "deregulation" as a general term) that allowed bank ownership of financial institutions, making banks "too big to fail", lack of regulation in adjustable-rate mortgages, and lack of oversight of the very "creative" securitization instruments that spread risk through the global economy.
The only thing that Arlen Spector knows is that to win in Pennsylvania, it helps to be a Democrat. That's it.
The sixties generation saw politics as theater. There are no conservatives. Everyone, Toomey and his enthusiasts exempli nongratia, is into theater now.
Specters now calling for an uprising against the Club for Growth.
Grover, get ch'yer gun cause Arlan ain't gonna kiss your ring no more. (Gotta be a mournful-mountain ballad in all this.)
Bet Specter's wanted to drop that load for a long, long time.
I'm sure, at this point, he will get all the consideration he's due.
Well, the GOP certainly deserved this. When they were in power, they totally abandoned the small government philosophy that got them there in the first place. I'm not so sure the American people will be better off with a united Democratic government though.
Instant analysis: this is probably not a good sign for the future of the Republican party, not because Arlen Specter is so crucial to its ideological or political integrity, but simply because he's a seasoned politician from a swing state, and what does he know that other Republicans don't?
Absolutely nothing. He just knew that he barely squeaked by Toomey in the 2004 Rep Primary when a popular President Bush was campaigning for him, and that there was no way he was going to win the Rep Primary in 2010.
It will be amusing to see if some Democrats challenge him in the 2010 Democrat Primary. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't challenge him, after all.
The truly amusing part about this is that Specter is doing this to preserve his seat, but will be gone with the next election anyway.
PA repbulicans won't vote for him and the democrats, faced with a choice between him and a 'real' democrat, won't either.
He should have gone out actually standing for something.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. I'm sure that there many PA Dems who'd like the seat. A Spector Dem opponent could run against him simply based on the fact that the hypocrite switched parties only because things were looking grim in the Rep primary.
Megan, talk to Tyler Cowen, Will Wilkinson and the rest of your friends. The country needs you guys.
The GOP is crumbling. The world is watching honorable Congressmen humiliate themselves and their country with interventions like this and this. To this day, I don't know if Bachmann and Boehner are being ignorant or demagogues, but this is truly beyond the pale. It's shameful.
There are honest economic policy differences between the GOP and the Dems, but why must liberals put up with stuff like intelligence design, climate change denial, homophobia, zygote fundamentalism and immigration delusions? Not to mention the attitude of a 5 year-old when it comes to diplomacy and foreign relations.
Somehow, the GOP has come to represent the party of retrograde anti-science and reality denial. Modern libertarians should seize the moment to present themselves as a credible opposition.
Excellent suggestion.
"climate change denial"
Talk about anti-science reality denial! :-)
1: The climate changes, all the time. Not because of human actions, but because nature is not static.
2: The world's temp increased 1 degree C from 1900 to 1950, it dropped 1/2 degree C from 1950 - 1970, and rose .3 degree C from 1970 - 1998. It's changed 0 degrees C from 1998 to 2008. Exactly how do you extract "mankind is altering the climate, we're all doomed" from that?
"homophobia"
Gee, you mean that the GOP proudly agrees with the majority of Americans that marriage involves a man and a woman? As opposed to the left-wing extremist position that marriage means nothing more than you happen to be having sex with this person?
"zygote fundamentalism"
People have been experimenting with embryonic and adult stem cells this entire decade. How many research successes have happened using human ESC? How many have happened using non-human ESC? How many have happened using human adult stem cells?
I realize that the fanatically pro-abortion are in love with hESC because they think it helps them politically. Putting that aside, is there any real world evidence that spending money on hESC research is actually the most productive use of our research dollars?
"immigration delusions"
That would be the belief that the US should actually guard its borders? That letting in lots of poor and unskilled workers depresses wages for the poor and unskilled workers who already live here? That we owe more to our fellow American citizens than we do to Mexican citizens?
There IS a reality disjunction here. But you're the one on the wrong side of it.
Greg Q, I could kiss you, but we are not in Iowa.
There's the ignorance. I couldn't ask for a nicer illustration of the point I was making.
Given the high annual variations, it's stupid to handpick dates and analyze the temperatures over 10 year periods. Read this to find out exactly why.
In addition to the already registered increase in temperature, climate change contains has inertia and positive feedback processes. Here's an excerpt of an interview with Steven Chu.
"...climate scientists feel that if all humans shut off carbon emissions today, it will still glide up by about 1 degree centigrade. In the business-as-usual scenarios, Nicholas Stern says there's a 50 percent chance we may go to 5 degrees centigrade. We know what the Earth was like 5 or 6 degrees centigrade colder. That was called the Ice Ages. Imagine a world 5 degrees warmer. The desert lines would be dramatically changed. The West is projected to be in drought conditions. And certain tipping points might be triggered. We can adapt to 1 or 2 degrees. More than that, there is no adaptation strategy."
Now, another problem with your response is that you probably didn't click on the links of my post. If you had, you'd see representative Bachmann and minority leader Boehner defending that CO2 emissions are harmless.
And why are they harmless? They don't dispute greenhouse effects. Oh no. In fact, they act as if they never heard of them. Incredibly, they say that CO2 is harmless because you can breath it without becoming poisoned,it's not a carcinogen and it's a natural gas that already exists in the atmosphere. The implication is that environmental scientists are trying to deceive the public into thinking that CO2 is bad for ya, who knows for what evil intentions.
If you don't already know about CO2 and greenhouse effects, the smallest amount of research, like, say, 5 minutes in Wikipedia, is really all you need to avoid this kind of embarrassment. But Bachmann and Boehmer didn't even bother. They just went ahead and addressed Congress and television. Why would you choose to talk about an issue you know nothing about and not prepare in advance? Don't these people have a staff?
This is not just a ill-informed anti-science stance. It's a case of contempt for the American people, of relying so much on general ignorance that they think they can get away with anything. And they are partially right: just look at Lurker and Greg Q! But they are fortunately, mostly wrong.
I liked the "proudly". Well, most people (52%) are still homophobic bigots. By the way, it looks like some courts are supporting the "left-wing extremist position". As it's been pointed out, most people were against interracial marriage in the 80s.
There's really not much to be concerned about here, and not much the GOP can do. Public opinion will inevitably change when they realize that gay couples aren't a threat, and not allowing gays to have a civil marriage amounts to treat them as 2nd class citizens.
I see you have been inspired by Bachmann and Boehner in talking about stuff you know nothing about. There's already been a lot of progress in many areas of basic biology using embryonic stem cells. Some scientists even migrated to European labs just to not fall behind in some areas. If by progress you mean something miraculous like the treatment of spinal injuries or Parkinson, we're still a little far from that point. But the overwhelming odds are we'll get there a lot faster with ESTR than without it.
Nope. It's not that.
Not that either. Although I must point out that, if the immigrants were to be legalized, the low wages pressure would be alleviated.
Aaand it's also not that. That makes 3 attempts.
I'm talking about the extreme right-wing in the GOP characterizing the path to legalization of some of the 12 million illegal aliens already in the country as "shamnesty". And the idea that you can engage in some type of persecution and mass deportation of illegal aliens. These are the immigration delusions.
Hey, and what about intelligent design? You forgot that one.
In sum: anti-science, backwards, reality denying stances. The country surely needs some libertarians to replace this crows.
The question on harmful/harmless is not whether C02 has climate-changing effects. It is whether Congress intended, when it was drafting the Clean Air Act of 1990, to include nth-order effects instead of direct harm.
Given that the "greenhouse effect" was already well known and covered extensively in the media in 1990, it seems pretty obvious that Congress, if it had wanted to include gasses that cause global warming in the legislation, it could and would have done so directly. Accordingly it is reasonable to conclude that it did not intend the definition of harm to include malaria caused by mosquitoes caused by flooding caused by rising seas caused by melting icecaps caused by warming caused by increasing CO2 concentrations.
Of course that didn't stop activist lawyers and activist judges from imposing their own policy preferences into the law, but then, nothing actually does, except what side of bed Justice Kennedy gets up on in the morning. We were supposed to have a government of laws, not men; instead we got a government of judges, not elected officials.
Lunatic
What you're saying is that they're not being that stupid. Rather, they're being disingenuous by adopting definition of harm that considers, not the degree of certainty with which harm will ultimately be caused by increasing carbon dioxide concentration, but the number of intermediary causal agents.
By the same reasoning, rats are not a health hazard, only the diseases they carry.
Fortunately, the EPA had the good sense to rule that greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide endanger human health and welfare.
Reality has a known right-wing bias, kiddo. But delusion---that's a left wing stronghold.
A real Democrat should run against Specter in the primary, and I don't think the party can do anything to prevent it. I wouldn't bet on Specter even making to the general election in 2010.
That's my suspicion as well. I'm not sure it matters much, though. The guy is 79, right? Realistically, how much longer is he going to be a senator of either party?
I don’t really see this as a bad thing for the GOP, other than it gives Obama a filibuster-proof Senate majority (which means that instead of driving the country off a cliff at 55 mph, maybe he can get it up to 60 and crash it a little more quickly). It seems to me that the biggest problem Republicans had while they controlled Congress was out-of-control spending (which the Democrats have already outdone them) in general and pork-barrel spending in particular and Specter was usually on the wrong side of that issue. It’s worth nothing that Pennsylvania Republicans were rejecting him for the right reason, i.e. his support for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Generational Theft Act, which is a hopeful sign for those who want a fiscally conservative alternative.
In what universe could the Republican party present itself, with a straight face, as fiscally conservative?
Any universe where it stood next to the Democratic Party.
Or more specifically – any universe that had to endure Barack Obama as President, Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
Hiyo!
Hah hah. How much longer do you think anyone will get the Ed McMahon jokes?
We had a young President elected on a combination of fatigue and frustration with a Republican who was running large deficits, on a theme of change, by an electorate that perceived him as a moderate. Then, early on, this President made a major policy initiative that was perceived as solidly left-of-center. As a result, the President's popularity plummeted; by April, Gallup was polling lower first-April approval numbers for him than it recorded for Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush. The President went ahead and tried to push a health care initiative forward, while denouncing Rush Limbaugh.
In the next election, the President's party lost control of both houses of Congress and the nation's agenda.
But hey, take heart. Obama's a whole percentage point more popular than Clinton was in April 1993. I'm sure the Republicans won't figure out any way to turn the tea parties into a Contract With America II . . . .