The Decline and Fall of the GOP

That's what a number of commentators are predicting, mostly based on the fact that a bunch of conservative "outsiders" swooped into NY-23 to support Doug Hoffman, thereby forcing pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-stimulus, liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava to drop out and throw her endorsement to the Democrat.  The conservatives have thrown the race to the Democrats, they complain.  This, and the Specter primary challenge, will just encourage the few remaining Republicans in the northeast to leave the party entirely.

What's interesting is that most of this wailing comes from Obama voters.

Socially, Scozzafava is certainly closer to my positions than Hoffman.  Fiscally, it's more of a toss up--Scozzafava is too soft on government spending, but what little I've read about Hoffman suggests that his approach to government is at best ham-fisted.  Nonetheless.  I am not a North Country voter, and I am not deluded into thinking that what I want, is what will make the Republican party electorally viable in the future.

Rural Western New York, where my mother is from, is a little different from the northern region of the state, but the politics are similar enough that I can promise you this:  Hoffman is not going to lose the party any votes because he betrays the region's historical affinity for gay marriage, of which there is none.  The region isn't as socially conservative as the south, but that doesn't mean that they like pro-choice, pro-marriage equality candidates.  It means that the issues don't have much electoral salience either way. 

Gay people growing up in either upstate region are even more likely to do what most people do anyway:  leave.  Thanks to the downstate influence, and a hefty dose of yankee farmer practicality, abortion will be legal in New York even if Roe gets struck down.  It's an issue that's on the radar of urban activists who spend a lot of time worrying about what happens in Alabama, and ardent pro-lifers.  Neither group is going to vote in NY-23.

As for the alleged pernicious influence on the party at large, I remember hearing--indeed, I think, saying--such things about the Netroots attempts to drive their party left in the earlier part of the decade.  And as I contemplate the wreckage of the Democratic party, barely holding on to 37 seats . . .

Pardon me, I seem to have become trapped in Karl Rove's fantasy world.  Not my finest hour as a political prognosticator.

It is true that this turned out badly in the cases of Lieberman and Specter.  But they were both popular incumbents, and the senate gives individual legislators quite a bit of power, especially when the numbers hover close to 60.  In general, I don't think that you can credibly say that pushing progressive items like health care and climate change to the forefront of their party's policy agenda has turned out badly for the Democrats.

Now, that's not to say that the Democrats will succeed in passing these things.  Arguably, what they've succeeded in doing is creating more space for ideological purity in the Republican party--the less centrist and reasonable your opponents sound, the less you have to fear becoming the crazy ideologue in the race.  Once they get into office, even the most ideologically committed legislators become keenly alive to the dangers of losing their seat . . . unless they're in a safe district that agrees with them.

But moving their agenda left has not cost them.  And I don't see any empirical reason to believe that it is going to cost the Republicans.  Either Hoffman will lose, in which case the strategy of policing the party will lose some of its appeal, or he will win, in which case Blue Dog democrats and Republicans in squishy states will probably tack right--a critical win during the health care debate.

In the long term, the Republican party still has big problems.  But as devoutly as I would like to believe that their problem is loudmouthed television and radio hosts who just aren't sophisticated about public policy . . . well, I've yet to see any evidence that the American polity is avid for more sophisticated public policy discussion.  Frankly, they seem a lot more interested in plausible enemies and improbable free lunches, which is the level on which both parties are mostly campaigning.

Comments

Jasper November 3, 2009 11:39 AM

Frankly, they seem a lot more interested in plausible enemies and improbable free lunches, which is the level on which both parties are mostly campaigning.

No, not both parties, not the Democratic party. Carbon taxes and mandate penalties and Medicare Advantage cuts and Cadillac plan excise taxes and millionaire surtaxes are real measures that will bring real pain. Sure they many not all get enacted. And even if they do they may not guarantee that CBO projections will come to pass. But it seems to me disingenuous, or just plain sloppy, to paint both parties with the same broad brush stroke when it comes to leveling with the voters. The Democrats have proposed real specifics with price tags and revenue mechanisms. It is the Republicans who are mostly campaigning on fairy tales.

Colin (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 12:16 PM

Comedy. Are you really so naive as to think Medicare cuts on the scale necessary to make this thing fiscally neutral will actually happen? It's creative math at its finest.

Republicans are campaigning that current legislation will make health care worse and expand an already gargantuan deficit. They are correct on both counts.

blighter (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 12:20 PM

Jasper is exactly right. The Democrats are responsibly forcing us to face up to real costs.

But only those of us who make above $250K a year, the rest of us won't have our taxes raised one single cent.

We might face a few fees, surcharges and mandated purchases, but those aren't taxes, those are just the Democrats forthrightly forcing us to face up to the true costs of the benefits they are providing for us.

I join Jasper in delighting that we finally have the responsible, honest political party in charge. Things are going to be so good when they get done implementing their policy that there won't even be a need for the Republican liar's (but I repeat myself...) party.

movertyperguy (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 1:01 PM

ObamaCare is DOA.

A majority of Democrats don't support federal funding of abortion. And Democrats can't support paying for the health care of illegal aliens. Their constituents just won't have their tax dollars going to foreigners in the country illegally during this time of economic strife.

Even the arch-liberal Washington Post is today reporting that a bloc of Democrats in the House will defeat Pelosi's ObamaCare health insurance tax. San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi has severely overreached and does not have the votes to pass a health insurance tax.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597521/ns/politics-washington_post/

Angst (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 4:00 PM

"We might face a few fees, surcharges and mandated purchases, but those aren't taxes ... "

Sing the praise brother! Just don't mention the 35% excise tax on ALL medical devices - QTips, eye contacts, artificial joints, etc. (Note, this is NOT a tax on profits - it is a tax that is added to the price of goods sold.)

And I'm not even going to mention the family of four with $55K income that will be REQUIRED to come up with $5,500 cash out of pocket a year for health insurance or face the wrath of the IRS unless their employer is kind enough to offer it.

Jasper (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 4:09 PM

And I'm not even going to mention the family of four with $55K income that will be REQUIRED to come up with $5,500 cash out of pocket a year for health insurance or face the wrath of the IRS unless their employer is kind enough to offer it.

So what? Many families with employer-provided health insurance come up with this already under the status quo -- or more than this -- especially if reduced wages are taken into consideration. $458/month is not, sadly, a particularly exorbitant sum to pay for health insurance in the America left to us by George W. Bush. Anyway, my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these out of pocket amounts by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 6:33 PM

"... my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these taxes by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk."

They'd better, because Barack Obama promised no new taxes if you make less than $250,000 a year. So, he'd have to veto any bill that contained those massive yearly taxes on poor people.

No worry though. There won't be a bill making it to Obama's desk for him to sign anyway. But don't take my word for it ... I read it in Time Magazine, where Harry Reid has announced he doesn't have the votes to pass a bill:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1934263,00.html?cnn=yes

Colin (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 12:16 PM

Comedy. Are you really so naive as to think Medicare cuts on the scale necessary to make this thing fiscally neutral will actually happen? It's creative math at its finest.

Republicans are campaigning that current legislation will make health care worse and expand an already gargantuan deficit. They are correct on both counts.

blighter (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 12:20 PM

Jasper is exactly right. The Democrats are responsibly forcing us to face up to real costs.

But only those of us who make above $250K a year, the rest of us won't have our taxes raised one single cent.

We might face a few fees, surcharges and mandated purchases, but those aren't taxes, those are just the Democrats forthrightly forcing us to face up to the true costs of the benefits they are providing for us.

I join Jasper in delighting that we finally have the responsible, honest political party in charge. Things are going to be so good when they get done implementing their policy that there won't even be a need for the Republican liar's (but I repeat myself...) party.

movertyperguy (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 1:01 PM

ObamaCare is DOA.

A majority of Democrats don't support federal funding of abortion. And Democrats can't support paying for the health care of illegal aliens. Their constituents just won't have their tax dollars going to foreigners in the country illegally during this time of economic strife.

Even the arch-liberal Washington Post is today reporting that a bloc of Democrats in the House will defeat Pelosi's ObamaCare health insurance tax. San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi has severely overreached and does not have the votes to pass a health insurance tax.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597521/ns/politics-washington_post/

Angst (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 4:00 PM

"We might face a few fees, surcharges and mandated purchases, but those aren't taxes ... "

Sing the praise brother! Just don't mention the 35% excise tax on ALL medical devices - QTips, eye contacts, artificial joints, etc. (Note, this is NOT a tax on profits - it is a tax that is added to the price of goods sold.)

And I'm not even going to mention the family of four with $55K income that will be REQUIRED to come up with $5,500 cash out of pocket a year for health insurance or face the wrath of the IRS unless their employer is kind enough to offer it.

Jasper (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 4:09 PM

And I'm not even going to mention the family of four with $55K income that will be REQUIRED to come up with $5,500 cash out of pocket a year for health insurance or face the wrath of the IRS unless their employer is kind enough to offer it.

So what? Many families with employer-provided health insurance come up with this already under the status quo -- or more than this -- especially if reduced wages are taken into consideration. $458/month is not, sadly, a particularly exorbitant sum to pay for health insurance in the America left to us by George W. Bush. Anyway, my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these out of pocket amounts by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 6:33 PM

"... my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these taxes by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk."

They'd better, because Barack Obama promised no new taxes if you make less than $250,000 a year. So, he'd have to veto any bill that contained those massive yearly taxes on poor people.

No worry though. There won't be a bill making it to Obama's desk for him to sign anyway. But don't take my word for it ... I read it in Time Magazine, where Harry Reid has announced he doesn't have the votes to pass a bill:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1934263,00.html?cnn=yes

movertyperguy (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 1:01 PM

ObamaCare is DOA.

A majority of Democrats don't support federal funding of abortion. And Democrats can't support paying for the health care of illegal aliens. Their constituents just won't have their tax dollars going to foreigners in the country illegally during this time of economic strife.

Even the arch-liberal Washington Post is today reporting that a bloc of Democrats in the House will defeat Pelosi's ObamaCare health insurance tax. San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi has severely overreached and does not have the votes to pass a health insurance tax.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597521/ns/politics-washington_post/

Angst (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 4:00 PM

"We might face a few fees, surcharges and mandated purchases, but those aren't taxes ... "

Sing the praise brother! Just don't mention the 35% excise tax on ALL medical devices - QTips, eye contacts, artificial joints, etc. (Note, this is NOT a tax on profits - it is a tax that is added to the price of goods sold.)

And I'm not even going to mention the family of four with $55K income that will be REQUIRED to come up with $5,500 cash out of pocket a year for health insurance or face the wrath of the IRS unless their employer is kind enough to offer it.

Jasper (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 4:09 PM

And I'm not even going to mention the family of four with $55K income that will be REQUIRED to come up with $5,500 cash out of pocket a year for health insurance or face the wrath of the IRS unless their employer is kind enough to offer it.

So what? Many families with employer-provided health insurance come up with this already under the status quo -- or more than this -- especially if reduced wages are taken into consideration. $458/month is not, sadly, a particularly exorbitant sum to pay for health insurance in the America left to us by George W. Bush. Anyway, my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these out of pocket amounts by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 6:33 PM

"... my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these taxes by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk."

They'd better, because Barack Obama promised no new taxes if you make less than $250,000 a year. So, he'd have to veto any bill that contained those massive yearly taxes on poor people.

No worry though. There won't be a bill making it to Obama's desk for him to sign anyway. But don't take my word for it ... I read it in Time Magazine, where Harry Reid has announced he doesn't have the votes to pass a bill:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1934263,00.html?cnn=yes

Jasper (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 4:09 PM

And I'm not even going to mention the family of four with $55K income that will be REQUIRED to come up with $5,500 cash out of pocket a year for health insurance or face the wrath of the IRS unless their employer is kind enough to offer it.

So what? Many families with employer-provided health insurance come up with this already under the status quo -- or more than this -- especially if reduced wages are taken into consideration. $458/month is not, sadly, a particularly exorbitant sum to pay for health insurance in the America left to us by George W. Bush. Anyway, my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these out of pocket amounts by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 6:33 PM

"... my guess is that Democrats will quite rightly reduce these taxes by increasing subsidies in the bill that actually makes it to Obama's desk."

They'd better, because Barack Obama promised no new taxes if you make less than $250,000 a year. So, he'd have to veto any bill that contained those massive yearly taxes on poor people.

No worry though. There won't be a bill making it to Obama's desk for him to sign anyway. But don't take my word for it ... I read it in Time Magazine, where Harry Reid has announced he doesn't have the votes to pass a bill:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1934263,00.html?cnn=yes

Hagios November 3, 2009 11:44 AM

Here is a useful heuristic: are they spitting rage or munching popcorn?

A year ago the left was munching popcorn as they pretended faux-concern over how to revive the Republican party. Now they are spitting rage.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Hagios) November 3, 2009 1:04 PM

"... are [Democrats] spitting rage or munching popcorn?"

That deafening silence you hear from the usual liberal suspects on this site I think answers this question nicely.

They're spitting rage because today their bosses - us conservatives - are firing their asses.

The 2010 midterms are looking better every day.

Pass the popcorn.

Can't wait.

Brian Despain (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 5:45 PM

Aren't you unemployed Mover?

movertyperguy (Replying to: Brian Despain) November 3, 2009 6:38 PM

Aren't you unemployed Mover?

I'm living the Barack Obama nightmare along with 20 million other people who can't find jobs in his crap economy.

He's got government checks to pay millionaires to buy fancy new electric cars. He's got government checks to pay rich people to buy brand new houses.

But he won't give a check to a businessman to pay him to hire someone. That's Barack Obama's America.

I've spent all my savings, had my house taken from me by state police officers who came to my house with guns drawn and am now living on the streets ... posting comments from the library to so I don't fucking freeze to death in all this glorious global warming we've been having lately.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Hagios) November 3, 2009 1:04 PM

"... are [Democrats] spitting rage or munching popcorn?"

That deafening silence you hear from the usual liberal suspects on this site I think answers this question nicely.

They're spitting rage because today their bosses - us conservatives - are firing their asses.

The 2010 midterms are looking better every day.

Pass the popcorn.

Can't wait.

Brian Despain (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 5:45 PM

Aren't you unemployed Mover?

movertyperguy (Replying to: Brian Despain) November 3, 2009 6:38 PM

Aren't you unemployed Mover?

I'm living the Barack Obama nightmare along with 20 million other people who can't find jobs in his crap economy.

He's got government checks to pay millionaires to buy fancy new electric cars. He's got government checks to pay rich people to buy brand new houses.

But he won't give a check to a businessman to pay him to hire someone. That's Barack Obama's America.

I've spent all my savings, had my house taken from me by state police officers who came to my house with guns drawn and am now living on the streets ... posting comments from the library to so I don't fucking freeze to death in all this glorious global warming we've been having lately.

Brian Despain (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 5:45 PM

Aren't you unemployed Mover?

movertyperguy (Replying to: Brian Despain) November 3, 2009 6:38 PM

Aren't you unemployed Mover?

I'm living the Barack Obama nightmare along with 20 million other people who can't find jobs in his crap economy.

He's got government checks to pay millionaires to buy fancy new electric cars. He's got government checks to pay rich people to buy brand new houses.

But he won't give a check to a businessman to pay him to hire someone. That's Barack Obama's America.

I've spent all my savings, had my house taken from me by state police officers who came to my house with guns drawn and am now living on the streets ... posting comments from the library to so I don't fucking freeze to death in all this glorious global warming we've been having lately.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Brian Despain) November 3, 2009 6:38 PM

Aren't you unemployed Mover?

I'm living the Barack Obama nightmare along with 20 million other people who can't find jobs in his crap economy.

He's got government checks to pay millionaires to buy fancy new electric cars. He's got government checks to pay rich people to buy brand new houses.

But he won't give a check to a businessman to pay him to hire someone. That's Barack Obama's America.

I've spent all my savings, had my house taken from me by state police officers who came to my house with guns drawn and am now living on the streets ... posting comments from the library to so I don't fucking freeze to death in all this glorious global warming we've been having lately.

market karma November 3, 2009 11:50 AM

On the local NY-23:

There was no primary. Local GOP leaders anointed Dede. If they had a primary, Hoffman would have been the GOP candidate, and talk of a Rep civil war would be non-existant.

Second, she was a candidate the press describes as a moderate, but based on everything I have read -- is left of the party on every issue of substance. I don't think you have to be a Republican ideologue to think that Dede wasn't the best choice.

Interestingly, the same folks describing the Republican "ideological purging" are blithely ignoring the threats from the net roots types to sponsor primary challenges to Blue Dogs who don't toe the party line.

Colin (Replying to: market karma) November 3, 2009 12:18 PM

Good post. Correct on every count. This isn't a case of Republicans eating their own, it's simple outrage over a non-democratic process that produced a RINO, whose actions in recent weeks have completely vindicated her detractors.

William H Stoddard (Replying to: Colin) November 3, 2009 12:44 PM

But "to the left of the party" is precisely the problem.

I'm a hard core free market libertarian. I would like to vote for Republicans who believed in market-favorable policies, and more generally in individualism. But for precisely that reason, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who isn't pro-choice, and I'm reluctant to support one who opposes same-sex marriage . . . because those are issues of individual liberty too. They've also been increasingly defined as "to the left of the party" by Republicans who think what their party is about is not individual rights, the Constitution, and free enterprise, but religiously based policy, and who reject secularism out of hand. Their dominance means that, to paint the picture with high contrast, I'm asked to choose between socialist authoritarians and theocratic authoritarians. Or, as I'm increasingly inclined to do, to say "A plague on both your houses."

I'm glad that the Democrats are facing some opposition. But it's not an opposition I can support. The Republicans' determination to define individual freedom of choice in private matters such as sexual conduct as "left wing", and the secularist outlook that supports this as un-American, means that I can't feel any real pleasure in Republican victories, or wish the party any success . . . because I'm sure that the core of the party as it now exists would condemn any candidate who shared my noneconomic values as a RINO, no matter how solidly pro-capitalist their economic positions were.

moqui (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:02 PM

I think you are lying about being a libertarian.

You are willing to throw out your professed free market principles over gay marriage? Society has survived for millennia without same sex marriage, but you are going to plant your flag on that issue because you think it can't wait another decade or two? Meanwhile, Leviathan's reach gets deeper and broader with each passing election.

If you are not lying, then you are just too stupid to see the forest for the trees.

FWIW, there are good reasons to despise the GOP (as I do), but your "argument" is so incoherent, it could only be made by a wolf (Dem) in sheep's (libertarian's) clothing.

market karma (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:07 PM

we go into hypotheticals, but had Dede been a social moderate but a strong fiscal conservative -- I predict Hoffman's third party candidacy would have been an afterthought, if it happened at all.

The problem was that fiscally, she was pretty left as well.

Hagios (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:22 PM

But for precisely that reason, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who isn't pro-choice, and I'm reluctant to support one who opposes same-sex marriage . . . because those are issues of individual liberty too.

The first and most important moral principle is to decide where you draw the line between in-groups and out-groups, between those who "Like Us" and "The Other". Liberty for me but not for thee is not liberty. Granting Bob a right to life does not take away Alice's liberty because she can no longer shoot him. As a pro-life conservative (And the libertarians for life website was what first crystallized my thinking) I don't think I'm restricting anyone's liberty by drawing a wide circle of moral consciousness that includes children who have not yet been born. Even if you disagree, is this position really that offensive?

Now let's take samesex marriage. No one wants anti-sodomy laws anymore. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. But wouldn't agree that all things being equal the best place for children is with their biological parents? Evolutionary psyche (see Homocide by Daly and Wilson) teaches that children about 70 to 100 times more likely to be killed by a non-biological parent and from an evolutionary perspective that makes perfect sense. Making costly investments into someone who does not share your genes is not generally rational. Children are no autonomous actors who can make their own decisions, but they are stakeholders in marriage. Even if you disagree, does preserving traditional marriage when gays have the right to live together, sleep together, become medical proxies for each other, and so on, is so offense?

JoshinHB (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 5:46 PM

Mr Stoddard as "...a hard core free market libertarian."

Just exactly which of Scuzzys positions or attributes make you support her:

Support for Card Check?

Support for the Stimulous?

Being Selected in the proverbial smoked filled room?

The fact that ACORN and asscoitated front goups endorsed her?

The endorsement by Daily Kos?

The fact that her husband is a union organizer?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Colin) November 3, 2009 2:37 PM

You are an idiot. She was appointed as per the laws of NY State. Owens was picked the same way by the local(NY-23) Democrats. And secondly, the local GOP ought to know who is the best fit for the district. So it is a jihad. You do realize that Obama won NY-23, right? So the district as a whole isn't as wingnutty as you'd love to believe. Another thing. If Hoffman is so damn popular in there, why is almost all his money(like 95%) from out of the district?

Angst (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 4:19 PM

Calvin, I think that you just proved Megan's point: "What's interesting is that most of this wailing comes from Obama voters."

You are right, she was appointed as per the laws of NY State. So what?

She saw her poll numbers approaching single digits and she dropped out. It really happens quite often.

Regarding out of district money to support Hoffman - isn't that also "as per the laws of NY State?"

movertyperguy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 6:42 PM

"... the local GOP ought to know who is the best fit for the district. So it is a jihad."

Dude, if it was a jihad, we would have beheaded her for stealing $900,000 from conservative donors.

People told pollsters they would never, ever vote for her, so like all Democrat loser pussies, since she couldn't win, she quit.

The jihad hasn't started yet, so save your wailing. It's coming soon enough.

Colin (Replying to: market karma) November 3, 2009 12:18 PM

Good post. Correct on every count. This isn't a case of Republicans eating their own, it's simple outrage over a non-democratic process that produced a RINO, whose actions in recent weeks have completely vindicated her detractors.

William H Stoddard (Replying to: Colin) November 3, 2009 12:44 PM

But "to the left of the party" is precisely the problem.

I'm a hard core free market libertarian. I would like to vote for Republicans who believed in market-favorable policies, and more generally in individualism. But for precisely that reason, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who isn't pro-choice, and I'm reluctant to support one who opposes same-sex marriage . . . because those are issues of individual liberty too. They've also been increasingly defined as "to the left of the party" by Republicans who think what their party is about is not individual rights, the Constitution, and free enterprise, but religiously based policy, and who reject secularism out of hand. Their dominance means that, to paint the picture with high contrast, I'm asked to choose between socialist authoritarians and theocratic authoritarians. Or, as I'm increasingly inclined to do, to say "A plague on both your houses."

I'm glad that the Democrats are facing some opposition. But it's not an opposition I can support. The Republicans' determination to define individual freedom of choice in private matters such as sexual conduct as "left wing", and the secularist outlook that supports this as un-American, means that I can't feel any real pleasure in Republican victories, or wish the party any success . . . because I'm sure that the core of the party as it now exists would condemn any candidate who shared my noneconomic values as a RINO, no matter how solidly pro-capitalist their economic positions were.

moqui (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:02 PM

I think you are lying about being a libertarian.

You are willing to throw out your professed free market principles over gay marriage? Society has survived for millennia without same sex marriage, but you are going to plant your flag on that issue because you think it can't wait another decade or two? Meanwhile, Leviathan's reach gets deeper and broader with each passing election.

If you are not lying, then you are just too stupid to see the forest for the trees.

FWIW, there are good reasons to despise the GOP (as I do), but your "argument" is so incoherent, it could only be made by a wolf (Dem) in sheep's (libertarian's) clothing.

market karma (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:07 PM

we go into hypotheticals, but had Dede been a social moderate but a strong fiscal conservative -- I predict Hoffman's third party candidacy would have been an afterthought, if it happened at all.

The problem was that fiscally, she was pretty left as well.

Hagios (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:22 PM

But for precisely that reason, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who isn't pro-choice, and I'm reluctant to support one who opposes same-sex marriage . . . because those are issues of individual liberty too.

The first and most important moral principle is to decide where you draw the line between in-groups and out-groups, between those who "Like Us" and "The Other". Liberty for me but not for thee is not liberty. Granting Bob a right to life does not take away Alice's liberty because she can no longer shoot him. As a pro-life conservative (And the libertarians for life website was what first crystallized my thinking) I don't think I'm restricting anyone's liberty by drawing a wide circle of moral consciousness that includes children who have not yet been born. Even if you disagree, is this position really that offensive?

Now let's take samesex marriage. No one wants anti-sodomy laws anymore. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. But wouldn't agree that all things being equal the best place for children is with their biological parents? Evolutionary psyche (see Homocide by Daly and Wilson) teaches that children about 70 to 100 times more likely to be killed by a non-biological parent and from an evolutionary perspective that makes perfect sense. Making costly investments into someone who does not share your genes is not generally rational. Children are no autonomous actors who can make their own decisions, but they are stakeholders in marriage. Even if you disagree, does preserving traditional marriage when gays have the right to live together, sleep together, become medical proxies for each other, and so on, is so offense?

JoshinHB (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 5:46 PM

Mr Stoddard as "...a hard core free market libertarian."

Just exactly which of Scuzzys positions or attributes make you support her:

Support for Card Check?

Support for the Stimulous?

Being Selected in the proverbial smoked filled room?

The fact that ACORN and asscoitated front goups endorsed her?

The endorsement by Daily Kos?

The fact that her husband is a union organizer?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Colin) November 3, 2009 2:37 PM

You are an idiot. She was appointed as per the laws of NY State. Owens was picked the same way by the local(NY-23) Democrats. And secondly, the local GOP ought to know who is the best fit for the district. So it is a jihad. You do realize that Obama won NY-23, right? So the district as a whole isn't as wingnutty as you'd love to believe. Another thing. If Hoffman is so damn popular in there, why is almost all his money(like 95%) from out of the district?

Angst (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 4:19 PM

Calvin, I think that you just proved Megan's point: "What's interesting is that most of this wailing comes from Obama voters."

You are right, she was appointed as per the laws of NY State. So what?

She saw her poll numbers approaching single digits and she dropped out. It really happens quite often.

Regarding out of district money to support Hoffman - isn't that also "as per the laws of NY State?"

movertyperguy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 6:42 PM

"... the local GOP ought to know who is the best fit for the district. So it is a jihad."

Dude, if it was a jihad, we would have beheaded her for stealing $900,000 from conservative donors.

People told pollsters they would never, ever vote for her, so like all Democrat loser pussies, since she couldn't win, she quit.

The jihad hasn't started yet, so save your wailing. It's coming soon enough.

William H Stoddard (Replying to: Colin) November 3, 2009 12:44 PM

But "to the left of the party" is precisely the problem.

I'm a hard core free market libertarian. I would like to vote for Republicans who believed in market-favorable policies, and more generally in individualism. But for precisely that reason, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who isn't pro-choice, and I'm reluctant to support one who opposes same-sex marriage . . . because those are issues of individual liberty too. They've also been increasingly defined as "to the left of the party" by Republicans who think what their party is about is not individual rights, the Constitution, and free enterprise, but religiously based policy, and who reject secularism out of hand. Their dominance means that, to paint the picture with high contrast, I'm asked to choose between socialist authoritarians and theocratic authoritarians. Or, as I'm increasingly inclined to do, to say "A plague on both your houses."

I'm glad that the Democrats are facing some opposition. But it's not an opposition I can support. The Republicans' determination to define individual freedom of choice in private matters such as sexual conduct as "left wing", and the secularist outlook that supports this as un-American, means that I can't feel any real pleasure in Republican victories, or wish the party any success . . . because I'm sure that the core of the party as it now exists would condemn any candidate who shared my noneconomic values as a RINO, no matter how solidly pro-capitalist their economic positions were.

moqui (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:02 PM

I think you are lying about being a libertarian.

You are willing to throw out your professed free market principles over gay marriage? Society has survived for millennia without same sex marriage, but you are going to plant your flag on that issue because you think it can't wait another decade or two? Meanwhile, Leviathan's reach gets deeper and broader with each passing election.

If you are not lying, then you are just too stupid to see the forest for the trees.

FWIW, there are good reasons to despise the GOP (as I do), but your "argument" is so incoherent, it could only be made by a wolf (Dem) in sheep's (libertarian's) clothing.

market karma (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:07 PM

we go into hypotheticals, but had Dede been a social moderate but a strong fiscal conservative -- I predict Hoffman's third party candidacy would have been an afterthought, if it happened at all.

The problem was that fiscally, she was pretty left as well.

Hagios (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:22 PM

But for precisely that reason, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who isn't pro-choice, and I'm reluctant to support one who opposes same-sex marriage . . . because those are issues of individual liberty too.

The first and most important moral principle is to decide where you draw the line between in-groups and out-groups, between those who "Like Us" and "The Other". Liberty for me but not for thee is not liberty. Granting Bob a right to life does not take away Alice's liberty because she can no longer shoot him. As a pro-life conservative (And the libertarians for life website was what first crystallized my thinking) I don't think I'm restricting anyone's liberty by drawing a wide circle of moral consciousness that includes children who have not yet been born. Even if you disagree, is this position really that offensive?

Now let's take samesex marriage. No one wants anti-sodomy laws anymore. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. But wouldn't agree that all things being equal the best place for children is with their biological parents? Evolutionary psyche (see Homocide by Daly and Wilson) teaches that children about 70 to 100 times more likely to be killed by a non-biological parent and from an evolutionary perspective that makes perfect sense. Making costly investments into someone who does not share your genes is not generally rational. Children are no autonomous actors who can make their own decisions, but they are stakeholders in marriage. Even if you disagree, does preserving traditional marriage when gays have the right to live together, sleep together, become medical proxies for each other, and so on, is so offense?

JoshinHB (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 5:46 PM

Mr Stoddard as "...a hard core free market libertarian."

Just exactly which of Scuzzys positions or attributes make you support her:

Support for Card Check?

Support for the Stimulous?

Being Selected in the proverbial smoked filled room?

The fact that ACORN and asscoitated front goups endorsed her?

The endorsement by Daily Kos?

The fact that her husband is a union organizer?

moqui (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:02 PM

I think you are lying about being a libertarian.

You are willing to throw out your professed free market principles over gay marriage? Society has survived for millennia without same sex marriage, but you are going to plant your flag on that issue because you think it can't wait another decade or two? Meanwhile, Leviathan's reach gets deeper and broader with each passing election.

If you are not lying, then you are just too stupid to see the forest for the trees.

FWIW, there are good reasons to despise the GOP (as I do), but your "argument" is so incoherent, it could only be made by a wolf (Dem) in sheep's (libertarian's) clothing.

market karma (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:07 PM

we go into hypotheticals, but had Dede been a social moderate but a strong fiscal conservative -- I predict Hoffman's third party candidacy would have been an afterthought, if it happened at all.

The problem was that fiscally, she was pretty left as well.

Hagios (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 1:22 PM

But for precisely that reason, I'm not going to vote for a candidate who isn't pro-choice, and I'm reluctant to support one who opposes same-sex marriage . . . because those are issues of individual liberty too.

The first and most important moral principle is to decide where you draw the line between in-groups and out-groups, between those who "Like Us" and "The Other". Liberty for me but not for thee is not liberty. Granting Bob a right to life does not take away Alice's liberty because she can no longer shoot him. As a pro-life conservative (And the libertarians for life website was what first crystallized my thinking) I don't think I'm restricting anyone's liberty by drawing a wide circle of moral consciousness that includes children who have not yet been born. Even if you disagree, is this position really that offensive?

Now let's take samesex marriage. No one wants anti-sodomy laws anymore. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. But wouldn't agree that all things being equal the best place for children is with their biological parents? Evolutionary psyche (see Homocide by Daly and Wilson) teaches that children about 70 to 100 times more likely to be killed by a non-biological parent and from an evolutionary perspective that makes perfect sense. Making costly investments into someone who does not share your genes is not generally rational. Children are no autonomous actors who can make their own decisions, but they are stakeholders in marriage. Even if you disagree, does preserving traditional marriage when gays have the right to live together, sleep together, become medical proxies for each other, and so on, is so offense?

JoshinHB (Replying to: William H Stoddard) November 3, 2009 5:46 PM

Mr Stoddard as "...a hard core free market libertarian."

Just exactly which of Scuzzys positions or attributes make you support her:

Support for Card Check?

Support for the Stimulous?

Being Selected in the proverbial smoked filled room?

The fact that ACORN and asscoitated front goups endorsed her?

The endorsement by Daily Kos?

The fact that her husband is a union organizer?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Colin) November 3, 2009 2:37 PM

You are an idiot. She was appointed as per the laws of NY State. Owens was picked the same way by the local(NY-23) Democrats. And secondly, the local GOP ought to know who is the best fit for the district. So it is a jihad. You do realize that Obama won NY-23, right? So the district as a whole isn't as wingnutty as you'd love to believe. Another thing. If Hoffman is so damn popular in there, why is almost all his money(like 95%) from out of the district?

Angst (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 4:19 PM

Calvin, I think that you just proved Megan's point: "What's interesting is that most of this wailing comes from Obama voters."

You are right, she was appointed as per the laws of NY State. So what?

She saw her poll numbers approaching single digits and she dropped out. It really happens quite often.

Regarding out of district money to support Hoffman - isn't that also "as per the laws of NY State?"

movertyperguy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 6:42 PM

"... the local GOP ought to know who is the best fit for the district. So it is a jihad."

Dude, if it was a jihad, we would have beheaded her for stealing $900,000 from conservative donors.

People told pollsters they would never, ever vote for her, so like all Democrat loser pussies, since she couldn't win, she quit.

The jihad hasn't started yet, so save your wailing. It's coming soon enough.

Angst (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 4:19 PM

Calvin, I think that you just proved Megan's point: "What's interesting is that most of this wailing comes from Obama voters."

You are right, she was appointed as per the laws of NY State. So what?

She saw her poll numbers approaching single digits and she dropped out. It really happens quite often.

Regarding out of district money to support Hoffman - isn't that also "as per the laws of NY State?"

movertyperguy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 6:42 PM

"... the local GOP ought to know who is the best fit for the district. So it is a jihad."

Dude, if it was a jihad, we would have beheaded her for stealing $900,000 from conservative donors.

People told pollsters they would never, ever vote for her, so like all Democrat loser pussies, since she couldn't win, she quit.

The jihad hasn't started yet, so save your wailing. It's coming soon enough.

blighter November 3, 2009 12:00 PM

"pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, pro-stimulus, liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava"

Don't forget pro-card check!

Scozzafava's dropping out of the race was a true blow for our country. She was exactly the kind of politician that would serve as a proper member of the opposition in a 1-party progressive utopia.

That is to say, she was pretty much exactly the same as the Democrat in the race. Which is, of course, a good thing. Until the completion of the transition to the promised progressive perfection obviates the need for even the appearance of multiple political parties, it is important that we keep up the illusion of competing parties while implementing solid, 1-party progressive rule.

Otherwise, the "voters" desperately clinging to the archaic traditions of "elections" and the like will revolt against their own best interests and prevent our brilliant elite from establishing the progressive golden age.

Yancey Ward (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 12:19 PM

Tom Friedman, is that you?

blighter (Replying to: Yancey Ward) November 3, 2009 3:47 PM

I wish!

Unfortunately, I have no obscenely rich wife and my garbled metaphors don't get on bestseller lists.

movertyperguy (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 1:10 PM

"... Don't forget pro-card check!

Yea, funny how nobody is mentioning that DoDo Scuzzyfava is against the founding principle of a democratic society - the secret ballot.

Republicans for the past oh 12 years have been pwned. Democrats have infiltrated the Republican Party and they're being run as candidates using conservative campaign donations. DoDo Scuzzyfava got $900,000 from Republicans and she's a Democrat (quitter) who just endorsed a Democrat.

This sort of crap ends now, or a third party will be created and Republicans can go eff themselves.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Third parties do so well. Just ask Ralph Nader!!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:29 PM

Or Abraham Lincoln!

mischief (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 1:48 PM

"I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating" Boss Tweed

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 2:39 PM

It sounds like you haven't a clue about the district. It sounds like you'd call McHugh a traitor too, despite the fact he got re-elected 7 times.

JoshinHB (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 5:57 PM

Calvin, you're thoughtlessly repeating the progressive line.
Here are the facts:

Scuzzy was the nominated republican candidate.

Hoffman ran as a third party candidate because he felt that he was represented by either major party.

The Republican national party supported Scuzzy to the tune of $1million.

Despite said support, and the local party apparatus and support from her union and ACORN buddies she was polling around 19% and sinking with a few days to go.

She voluntarily dropped out of the race to avoid the embarassment of finishing 3rd.

She was not purged, or forced out by any republicans.

Personally I think that she should have been, but she wasn't.

It says a lot about progressive that they are whining about her losing an election. Your problem isn't with republicans, its with the voters.

Yancey Ward (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 12:19 PM

Tom Friedman, is that you?

blighter (Replying to: Yancey Ward) November 3, 2009 3:47 PM

I wish!

Unfortunately, I have no obscenely rich wife and my garbled metaphors don't get on bestseller lists.

blighter (Replying to: Yancey Ward) November 3, 2009 3:47 PM

I wish!

Unfortunately, I have no obscenely rich wife and my garbled metaphors don't get on bestseller lists.

movertyperguy (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 1:10 PM

"... Don't forget pro-card check!

Yea, funny how nobody is mentioning that DoDo Scuzzyfava is against the founding principle of a democratic society - the secret ballot.

Republicans for the past oh 12 years have been pwned. Democrats have infiltrated the Republican Party and they're being run as candidates using conservative campaign donations. DoDo Scuzzyfava got $900,000 from Republicans and she's a Democrat (quitter) who just endorsed a Democrat.

This sort of crap ends now, or a third party will be created and Republicans can go eff themselves.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Third parties do so well. Just ask Ralph Nader!!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:29 PM

Or Abraham Lincoln!

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Third parties do so well. Just ask Ralph Nader!!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:29 PM

Or Abraham Lincoln!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:29 PM

Or Abraham Lincoln!

mischief (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 1:48 PM

"I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating" Boss Tweed

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: blighter) November 3, 2009 2:39 PM

It sounds like you haven't a clue about the district. It sounds like you'd call McHugh a traitor too, despite the fact he got re-elected 7 times.

JoshinHB (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 5:57 PM

Calvin, you're thoughtlessly repeating the progressive line.
Here are the facts:

Scuzzy was the nominated republican candidate.

Hoffman ran as a third party candidate because he felt that he was represented by either major party.

The Republican national party supported Scuzzy to the tune of $1million.

Despite said support, and the local party apparatus and support from her union and ACORN buddies she was polling around 19% and sinking with a few days to go.

She voluntarily dropped out of the race to avoid the embarassment of finishing 3rd.

She was not purged, or forced out by any republicans.

Personally I think that she should have been, but she wasn't.

It says a lot about progressive that they are whining about her losing an election. Your problem isn't with republicans, its with the voters.

JoshinHB (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 5:57 PM

Calvin, you're thoughtlessly repeating the progressive line.
Here are the facts:

Scuzzy was the nominated republican candidate.

Hoffman ran as a third party candidate because he felt that he was represented by either major party.

The Republican national party supported Scuzzy to the tune of $1million.

Despite said support, and the local party apparatus and support from her union and ACORN buddies she was polling around 19% and sinking with a few days to go.

She voluntarily dropped out of the race to avoid the embarassment of finishing 3rd.

She was not purged, or forced out by any republicans.

Personally I think that she should have been, but she wasn't.

It says a lot about progressive that they are whining about her losing an election. Your problem isn't with republicans, its with the voters.

wiredog November 3, 2009 12:00 PM

-such things about the Netroots attempts to drive their party left in the earlier part of the decade.
And yet, many people who comment here seem to think that the netroots became the mainstream of the Democratic party, and act, speak, and vote accordingly. I can see the tea baggers doing the same thing to the Republicans.

RobM1981 November 3, 2009 12:33 PM

"I've yet to see any evidence that the American polity is avid for more sophisticated public policy discussion. "

And you never will. The average voter is slightly above average, just by the fact that they are voting, and always will be. That's what average is. Lake Woebegone is fiction.

Without trying to pigeonhole a surprisingly diverse buncy of people, I believe that all conservatives are constructionists largely because documents like the Declaration and the Constitution are populist documents.

You don't have to be sophisticated to understand them; you don't have to be sophisticated to apply them.

"Sophisticated Policy Discussion" normally leads to sophisticated erosion of the freedoms found in these documents, couched in the soft words of paternalism.

And, as has been shown time and again, an unsophisticated populace is more than happy to go along with these discussions as long as they are wrapped in campaign promises of pork for the people, for the average voter is not only average: they are also sheep. Easily led.

I'm a libertarian, but I respect the fact that conservatives hammer the basic constructionist principals as "good enough," to a population that will never be sophisticated enough to understand much more.

gbarto (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 1:51 PM

Without trying to pigeonhole a surprisingly diverse bunch of people, I believe that all conservatives are constructionists largely because documents like the Declaration and the Constitution are populist documents.

You don't have to be sophisticated to understand them; you don't have to be sophisticated to apply them.

Were it otherwise, democracy would not be self-government; merely a choosing of one's masters.

I'm a libertarian, but I respect the fact that conservatives hammer the basic constructionist principals as "good enough," to a population that will never be sophisticated enough to understand much more.

Even our citizen legislators aren't sophisticated enough to understand much more; that's why they have their legislative aides' vouch for the bills they pass.

Our freedom thus boils down to the following: we have the freedom to decide whose assistants will tell us how to live and which lawyers and accountants to pay to tell us if we're succeeding in following the rules.

RobM1981 (Replying to: gbarto) November 3, 2009 2:49 PM

Good points, all. The last one is bitter, and clearly a result of "sophisticated political theories..."

Angst (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 4:33 PM

RobM1981,

Thank you for a thread of clarity. If only we had more of it.

derek (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 9:45 PM

I'll add that elections are lost, not won on principle or ideas.

Derek

gbarto (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 1:51 PM

Without trying to pigeonhole a surprisingly diverse bunch of people, I believe that all conservatives are constructionists largely because documents like the Declaration and the Constitution are populist documents.

You don't have to be sophisticated to understand them; you don't have to be sophisticated to apply them.

Were it otherwise, democracy would not be self-government; merely a choosing of one's masters.

I'm a libertarian, but I respect the fact that conservatives hammer the basic constructionist principals as "good enough," to a population that will never be sophisticated enough to understand much more.

Even our citizen legislators aren't sophisticated enough to understand much more; that's why they have their legislative aides' vouch for the bills they pass.

Our freedom thus boils down to the following: we have the freedom to decide whose assistants will tell us how to live and which lawyers and accountants to pay to tell us if we're succeeding in following the rules.

RobM1981 (Replying to: gbarto) November 3, 2009 2:49 PM

Good points, all. The last one is bitter, and clearly a result of "sophisticated political theories..."

RobM1981 (Replying to: gbarto) November 3, 2009 2:49 PM

Good points, all. The last one is bitter, and clearly a result of "sophisticated political theories..."

Angst (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 4:33 PM

RobM1981,

Thank you for a thread of clarity. If only we had more of it.

derek (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 9:45 PM

I'll add that elections are lost, not won on principle or ideas.

Derek

Peter November 3, 2009 12:37 PM

The only issue that should matter to Upstate voters is job creation, if any of them can still remember what a "job" is.

RobM1981 (Replying to: Peter) November 3, 2009 1:09 PM

Having lived there, I second your observation.

Buffalo is a prime example of what happens when the majority of non-government middle-class jobs leaves a region. I'm not sure if that's technically true - if more than 50% of the middle-class jobs are public - but if it's not true it's close.

What's the most pronounced building in the skyline? City Hall.

What are teacher's salaries, even though the schools are mediocre? Way, WAY above the national average - and there are plenty of teachers to keep the student/teacher ratios very low. Even though, again, Johnny can't read particularly well.

Police? Plenty, and highly compensated.

State job after state job. The largest college in the State System - SUNY Buffalo - is a huge employer. Even the most renowned hospitals in the area, including Roswell Park Cancer Institute, are 100% state owned and run. And these are all funded on the backs of tax payers.

The city actually went into receivership not that many years ago.

Buffalo was at one time the 6th largest city in the nation, for many good free-market reasons. The government infrastructure grew to match it and, like most governments will do when not watched, even added all of those wonderful extras. Layer upon layer of taxpayer funded "critical jobs."

When the bad times came, basically after WWII, the exodus began. The city population quite literally collapsed.

Did the government shrink along with it? Did all of those jobs that were critical to the taxpayers go away, when the taxpayers went away?

I'll pause here so you can compose yourself after laughing. Hopefully I didn't make your drink come out your nose.

Of COURSE NOT.

This isn't a case study; it's a Ph.D. dissertation in the making - and it will happen again and again as the exodus of the middle class from once-prosperous cities continues.

People want freedom more than they want civil "servants" on their backs.

Jasper (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 1:30 PM

Having lived there, I second your observation. Buffalo is a prime example of what happens when the majority of non-government middle-class jobs leaves a region. I'm not sure if that's technically true - if more than 50% of the middle-class jobs are public - but if it's not true it's close...People want freedom more than they want civil "servants" on their backs.

Maybe. But people and businesses also want the effective government and strong safety net that enable them to fully leverage the opportunities accompanying global capitalism (which also, of course, tends to be accompanied by volatility and economic insecurity). Illustrative of this situation is the thriving metropolis just over the border: Greater Toronto. Canada's largest urban area has emerged as a veritable boom-town of growth, creativity and gob-smacking wealth creation. And yes, it somehow manages to pull off this feat even though it's part of that socialist, dystopian, high-tax hell all right-thinking people know is Canada.

I doubt you'd find much difference in the contrasting prosperity levels of the two metro areas forty years ago. You sure can't say that about 2009.

Claudius (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 1:39 PM

OK--so what's your solution for the Greater Buffalo area?

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 2:34 PM

But people and businesses also want the effective government

And ponies. People want ponies, too.

Canada's largest urban area has emerged as a veritable boom-town of growth, creativity and gob-smacking wealth creation.

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

Most major U.S. cities are at $50K or higher.

RobM1981 (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 3:49 PM

Dave, you beat me to it. I was going to say "pour it on!" and you'll get *greater* Buffalo to equate with Toronto.

But you have to be careful. Greater Buffalo includes the towns where the Middle Class that remained fled to. Amherst, NY is essentially the economic hub of the Buffalo region.

And there is no denying, not by a long shot, that Toronto is a very thriving city (at least relative to Buffalo). Buffalo is nearly dead. If you want to see *fully* dead you have to visit Niagara Falls, NY, or Utica. Those cities are actually dead.

As for "what to do?" At this point I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done. The beast *will* collapse under its own weight at some point. You can't have *everyone* paid by the state, unless the tax burden is 50% (in which case you are paying your own wage in taxes).

30 years ago, tax cuts and caps could have made a difference.

The myth of "horrible Buffalo winters" is just that, a myth. Buffalo is no harsher than many other thriving places. It's not a question of weather - it's a question of taxes that go far beyond what you might imagine.

The sales tax is approximately 9.25%, and that includes clothing. You want to put socks on your kids feet, plan on kicking in another 9.25% for them.

Property values are low, but property taxes are - on a dollar basis - comparable to what you'd pay in New Jersey, and MUCH higher than what you'd pay in MA or RI or other comparable Northeast locales. Since your property values are low, this makes the effective property tax rate easily the highest in the nation.

Income taxes? High.

Gasoline and other product taxes? High.

Regulatory environment? This is NY we're talking about. It's onerous.

Why would any business person smart enough to start a real business be dumb enough to leave it in Buffalo?

You want the root of the problem? That's the root of the problem. And it's too late to fix it at this point.

No, the beast will collapse under its own weight, eventually. Probably never to recover. Like Utica, Ilion, Niagara Falls, and a host of other ghost towns that litter the NYS landscape.

Nice job, "social reformers." Your work here is almost done.

Jasper (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 4:03 PM

TallDave writes:

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

But TallDave leaves out this little tidbit prefacing the Wiki entry:

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page.

Gee, you think? When were the figures for Detroit and Toronto compiled, 1997?

Anyway, I'm shocked TallDave would cherrypick data in an attempt to make the absurd case that Detroit (tries to stifle uproarios laughter) is wealthier than Toronto. Simply shocked!

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 6:23 PM

Jasper,

Whoa, simmer down there and read the wiki. There's a column called "Year." It says "2005" for most cities.

Shockingly to people unfamiliar with the 20th century, socialism makes people poor.

RobM1981 (Replying to: Peter) November 3, 2009 1:09 PM

Having lived there, I second your observation.

Buffalo is a prime example of what happens when the majority of non-government middle-class jobs leaves a region. I'm not sure if that's technically true - if more than 50% of the middle-class jobs are public - but if it's not true it's close.

What's the most pronounced building in the skyline? City Hall.

What are teacher's salaries, even though the schools are mediocre? Way, WAY above the national average - and there are plenty of teachers to keep the student/teacher ratios very low. Even though, again, Johnny can't read particularly well.

Police? Plenty, and highly compensated.

State job after state job. The largest college in the State System - SUNY Buffalo - is a huge employer. Even the most renowned hospitals in the area, including Roswell Park Cancer Institute, are 100% state owned and run. And these are all funded on the backs of tax payers.

The city actually went into receivership not that many years ago.

Buffalo was at one time the 6th largest city in the nation, for many good free-market reasons. The government infrastructure grew to match it and, like most governments will do when not watched, even added all of those wonderful extras. Layer upon layer of taxpayer funded "critical jobs."

When the bad times came, basically after WWII, the exodus began. The city population quite literally collapsed.

Did the government shrink along with it? Did all of those jobs that were critical to the taxpayers go away, when the taxpayers went away?

I'll pause here so you can compose yourself after laughing. Hopefully I didn't make your drink come out your nose.

Of COURSE NOT.

This isn't a case study; it's a Ph.D. dissertation in the making - and it will happen again and again as the exodus of the middle class from once-prosperous cities continues.

People want freedom more than they want civil "servants" on their backs.

Jasper (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 1:30 PM

Having lived there, I second your observation. Buffalo is a prime example of what happens when the majority of non-government middle-class jobs leaves a region. I'm not sure if that's technically true - if more than 50% of the middle-class jobs are public - but if it's not true it's close...People want freedom more than they want civil "servants" on their backs.

Maybe. But people and businesses also want the effective government and strong safety net that enable them to fully leverage the opportunities accompanying global capitalism (which also, of course, tends to be accompanied by volatility and economic insecurity). Illustrative of this situation is the thriving metropolis just over the border: Greater Toronto. Canada's largest urban area has emerged as a veritable boom-town of growth, creativity and gob-smacking wealth creation. And yes, it somehow manages to pull off this feat even though it's part of that socialist, dystopian, high-tax hell all right-thinking people know is Canada.

I doubt you'd find much difference in the contrasting prosperity levels of the two metro areas forty years ago. You sure can't say that about 2009.

Claudius (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 1:39 PM

OK--so what's your solution for the Greater Buffalo area?

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 2:34 PM

But people and businesses also want the effective government

And ponies. People want ponies, too.

Canada's largest urban area has emerged as a veritable boom-town of growth, creativity and gob-smacking wealth creation.

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

Most major U.S. cities are at $50K or higher.

RobM1981 (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 3:49 PM

Dave, you beat me to it. I was going to say "pour it on!" and you'll get *greater* Buffalo to equate with Toronto.

But you have to be careful. Greater Buffalo includes the towns where the Middle Class that remained fled to. Amherst, NY is essentially the economic hub of the Buffalo region.

And there is no denying, not by a long shot, that Toronto is a very thriving city (at least relative to Buffalo). Buffalo is nearly dead. If you want to see *fully* dead you have to visit Niagara Falls, NY, or Utica. Those cities are actually dead.

As for "what to do?" At this point I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done. The beast *will* collapse under its own weight at some point. You can't have *everyone* paid by the state, unless the tax burden is 50% (in which case you are paying your own wage in taxes).

30 years ago, tax cuts and caps could have made a difference.

The myth of "horrible Buffalo winters" is just that, a myth. Buffalo is no harsher than many other thriving places. It's not a question of weather - it's a question of taxes that go far beyond what you might imagine.

The sales tax is approximately 9.25%, and that includes clothing. You want to put socks on your kids feet, plan on kicking in another 9.25% for them.

Property values are low, but property taxes are - on a dollar basis - comparable to what you'd pay in New Jersey, and MUCH higher than what you'd pay in MA or RI or other comparable Northeast locales. Since your property values are low, this makes the effective property tax rate easily the highest in the nation.

Income taxes? High.

Gasoline and other product taxes? High.

Regulatory environment? This is NY we're talking about. It's onerous.

Why would any business person smart enough to start a real business be dumb enough to leave it in Buffalo?

You want the root of the problem? That's the root of the problem. And it's too late to fix it at this point.

No, the beast will collapse under its own weight, eventually. Probably never to recover. Like Utica, Ilion, Niagara Falls, and a host of other ghost towns that litter the NYS landscape.

Nice job, "social reformers." Your work here is almost done.

Jasper (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 4:03 PM

TallDave writes:

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

But TallDave leaves out this little tidbit prefacing the Wiki entry:

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page.

Gee, you think? When were the figures for Detroit and Toronto compiled, 1997?

Anyway, I'm shocked TallDave would cherrypick data in an attempt to make the absurd case that Detroit (tries to stifle uproarios laughter) is wealthier than Toronto. Simply shocked!

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 6:23 PM

Jasper,

Whoa, simmer down there and read the wiki. There's a column called "Year." It says "2005" for most cities.

Shockingly to people unfamiliar with the 20th century, socialism makes people poor.

Jasper (Replying to: RobM1981) November 3, 2009 1:30 PM

Having lived there, I second your observation. Buffalo is a prime example of what happens when the majority of non-government middle-class jobs leaves a region. I'm not sure if that's technically true - if more than 50% of the middle-class jobs are public - but if it's not true it's close...People want freedom more than they want civil "servants" on their backs.

Maybe. But people and businesses also want the effective government and strong safety net that enable them to fully leverage the opportunities accompanying global capitalism (which also, of course, tends to be accompanied by volatility and economic insecurity). Illustrative of this situation is the thriving metropolis just over the border: Greater Toronto. Canada's largest urban area has emerged as a veritable boom-town of growth, creativity and gob-smacking wealth creation. And yes, it somehow manages to pull off this feat even though it's part of that socialist, dystopian, high-tax hell all right-thinking people know is Canada.

I doubt you'd find much difference in the contrasting prosperity levels of the two metro areas forty years ago. You sure can't say that about 2009.

Claudius (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 1:39 PM

OK--so what's your solution for the Greater Buffalo area?

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 2:34 PM

But people and businesses also want the effective government

And ponies. People want ponies, too.

Canada's largest urban area has emerged as a veritable boom-town of growth, creativity and gob-smacking wealth creation.

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

Most major U.S. cities are at $50K or higher.

RobM1981 (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 3:49 PM

Dave, you beat me to it. I was going to say "pour it on!" and you'll get *greater* Buffalo to equate with Toronto.

But you have to be careful. Greater Buffalo includes the towns where the Middle Class that remained fled to. Amherst, NY is essentially the economic hub of the Buffalo region.

And there is no denying, not by a long shot, that Toronto is a very thriving city (at least relative to Buffalo). Buffalo is nearly dead. If you want to see *fully* dead you have to visit Niagara Falls, NY, or Utica. Those cities are actually dead.

As for "what to do?" At this point I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done. The beast *will* collapse under its own weight at some point. You can't have *everyone* paid by the state, unless the tax burden is 50% (in which case you are paying your own wage in taxes).

30 years ago, tax cuts and caps could have made a difference.

The myth of "horrible Buffalo winters" is just that, a myth. Buffalo is no harsher than many other thriving places. It's not a question of weather - it's a question of taxes that go far beyond what you might imagine.

The sales tax is approximately 9.25%, and that includes clothing. You want to put socks on your kids feet, plan on kicking in another 9.25% for them.

Property values are low, but property taxes are - on a dollar basis - comparable to what you'd pay in New Jersey, and MUCH higher than what you'd pay in MA or RI or other comparable Northeast locales. Since your property values are low, this makes the effective property tax rate easily the highest in the nation.

Income taxes? High.

Gasoline and other product taxes? High.

Regulatory environment? This is NY we're talking about. It's onerous.

Why would any business person smart enough to start a real business be dumb enough to leave it in Buffalo?

You want the root of the problem? That's the root of the problem. And it's too late to fix it at this point.

No, the beast will collapse under its own weight, eventually. Probably never to recover. Like Utica, Ilion, Niagara Falls, and a host of other ghost towns that litter the NYS landscape.

Nice job, "social reformers." Your work here is almost done.

Jasper (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 4:03 PM

TallDave writes:

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

But TallDave leaves out this little tidbit prefacing the Wiki entry:

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page.

Gee, you think? When were the figures for Detroit and Toronto compiled, 1997?

Anyway, I'm shocked TallDave would cherrypick data in an attempt to make the absurd case that Detroit (tries to stifle uproarios laughter) is wealthier than Toronto. Simply shocked!

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 6:23 PM

Jasper,

Whoa, simmer down there and read the wiki. There's a column called "Year." It says "2005" for most cities.

Shockingly to people unfamiliar with the 20th century, socialism makes people poor.

Claudius (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 1:39 PM

OK--so what's your solution for the Greater Buffalo area?

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 2:34 PM

But people and businesses also want the effective government

And ponies. People want ponies, too.

Canada's largest urban area has emerged as a veritable boom-town of growth, creativity and gob-smacking wealth creation.

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

Most major U.S. cities are at $50K or higher.

RobM1981 (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 3:49 PM

Dave, you beat me to it. I was going to say "pour it on!" and you'll get *greater* Buffalo to equate with Toronto.

But you have to be careful. Greater Buffalo includes the towns where the Middle Class that remained fled to. Amherst, NY is essentially the economic hub of the Buffalo region.

And there is no denying, not by a long shot, that Toronto is a very thriving city (at least relative to Buffalo). Buffalo is nearly dead. If you want to see *fully* dead you have to visit Niagara Falls, NY, or Utica. Those cities are actually dead.

As for "what to do?" At this point I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done. The beast *will* collapse under its own weight at some point. You can't have *everyone* paid by the state, unless the tax burden is 50% (in which case you are paying your own wage in taxes).

30 years ago, tax cuts and caps could have made a difference.

The myth of "horrible Buffalo winters" is just that, a myth. Buffalo is no harsher than many other thriving places. It's not a question of weather - it's a question of taxes that go far beyond what you might imagine.

The sales tax is approximately 9.25%, and that includes clothing. You want to put socks on your kids feet, plan on kicking in another 9.25% for them.

Property values are low, but property taxes are - on a dollar basis - comparable to what you'd pay in New Jersey, and MUCH higher than what you'd pay in MA or RI or other comparable Northeast locales. Since your property values are low, this makes the effective property tax rate easily the highest in the nation.

Income taxes? High.

Gasoline and other product taxes? High.

Regulatory environment? This is NY we're talking about. It's onerous.

Why would any business person smart enough to start a real business be dumb enough to leave it in Buffalo?

You want the root of the problem? That's the root of the problem. And it's too late to fix it at this point.

No, the beast will collapse under its own weight, eventually. Probably never to recover. Like Utica, Ilion, Niagara Falls, and a host of other ghost towns that litter the NYS landscape.

Nice job, "social reformers." Your work here is almost done.

Jasper (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 4:03 PM

TallDave writes:

Canada is still poor. Toronto's GDP per capita is $39.3K. That puts them well behind that crown jewel of American splendor... Detroit, which is at $50.7K.

But TallDave leaves out this little tidbit prefacing the Wiki entry:

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page.

Gee, you think? When were the figures for Detroit and Toronto compiled, 1997?

Anyway, I'm shocked TallDave would cherrypick data in an attempt to make the absurd case that Detroit (tries to stifle uproarios laughter) is wealthier than Toronto. Simply shocked!

TallDave (Replying to: Jasper) November 3, 2009 6:23 PM

Jasper,

Whoa, simmer down there and read the wiki. There's a column called "Year." It says "2005" for most cities.

Shockingly to people unfamiliar with the 20th century, socialism makes people poor.

sbranda November 3, 2009 12:48 PM

I think its hilarious that people think abortion, gay-marriage, and the stimulus are actually issues of substance for the GOP. First, everyone, except maybe Ron Paul, supported the stimulus. All the hub-bub around it in both parties was just about re-election.

The issues gay-marriage and abortion are equally laughable. These are just the the issues that the GOP dangles around to get the religious and/or bigoted vote. Compare the amount of legislation that the GOP passed on either of these issues (at the state or federal level) during their 6 year reign with Dubya at the helm, with the amount of legislation they passed to help big business.

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bigbusiness.htm

I think it's pretty clear where most of their effort goes. Based on their BEHAVIOR, the substantive issues for the GOP (besides lining the pockets of Big Business) are taxes, regulation, gun-control, and smaller-government (sort of). On these issues she is very much a Republican.

http://themoderatevoice.com/50319/dede-scozzafava-the-real-record/

William H Stoddard (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 1:01 PM

Obviously lots of Republicans don't think so.

movertyperguy (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 1:17 PM

"... I think its hilarious that people think abortion, gay-marriage, and the stimulus are actually issues of substance for the GOP."

And that's exactly why the GOP is facing the prospect of the creation of a third party - the Conservative Party.

The Grand Old Party isn't for smaller government ... as evidenced by the fact that when they've had power they've expanded and grown government.

The GOP isn't for ending abortion ... as evidenced by the fact that when they've had the power to do it, they didn't pass a law against it.

The GOP was for the stimulus because ... hell, I don't think anyone could elucidate a cogent reason for socialist spending plans.

You're exactly right on all of these counts. The GOP isn't for these things ... but conservatives are.

Conservatives (and many Democrats) are against federal funding of abortion. Conservatives (and many Democrats including notably Barack Obama) are against gay marriage. They're against Obama's socialist agenda and they're for scaling back government by eliminating federal power.

All policies that would make excellent planks in a new third Conservative Party.

I can't wait to join the Conservative Party. Where do I sign up?

Ann (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 2:29 PM

"she is very much a Republican"

She promised the AFL-CIO that she would support card check! Eliminating the secret ballot is a far-left position that even moderate Democrats would surely hesitate to support.

If she's so Republican, why has she been supported in the past by ACORN (through one of their front groups, the Working Families Party)?

movertyperguy (Replying to: Ann) November 3, 2009 2:38 PM

If she's so Republican, why has she been supported in the past by ACORN ..."

And if she was so Republican, why was she endorsed by DailyKos founder and uber-liberal Marcos Moulitas?

They've infiltrated the Republican Party, folks. They're stealing our conservative campaign donations and using them to run their Democrat-In-Disguise candidates.

There's only two solutions: either burn these people out now, or start a new Conservative Party.

I for one vote for new party and am ready to write a check and canvass.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:08 PM

Hahahahahaha!! You've given me the best laugh I had all day. Kos endorsed her exactly because it would drive you nutjobs crazy. Do you always fall for the bait that easy?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Ann) November 3, 2009 2:56 PM

You sound like a Glenn Beck fan-girl. Keep up the good work!!

TallDave (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 2:36 PM

First, everyone, except maybe Ron Paul, supported the stimulus.

Support for Stimulus Package Falls to 37%

Apparently nearly 2/3 of the country is Ron Paul.

William H Stoddard (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 1:01 PM

Obviously lots of Republicans don't think so.

movertyperguy (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 1:17 PM

"... I think its hilarious that people think abortion, gay-marriage, and the stimulus are actually issues of substance for the GOP."

And that's exactly why the GOP is facing the prospect of the creation of a third party - the Conservative Party.

The Grand Old Party isn't for smaller government ... as evidenced by the fact that when they've had power they've expanded and grown government.

The GOP isn't for ending abortion ... as evidenced by the fact that when they've had the power to do it, they didn't pass a law against it.

The GOP was for the stimulus because ... hell, I don't think anyone could elucidate a cogent reason for socialist spending plans.

You're exactly right on all of these counts. The GOP isn't for these things ... but conservatives are.

Conservatives (and many Democrats) are against federal funding of abortion. Conservatives (and many Democrats including notably Barack Obama) are against gay marriage. They're against Obama's socialist agenda and they're for scaling back government by eliminating federal power.

All policies that would make excellent planks in a new third Conservative Party.

I can't wait to join the Conservative Party. Where do I sign up?

Ann (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 2:29 PM

"she is very much a Republican"

She promised the AFL-CIO that she would support card check! Eliminating the secret ballot is a far-left position that even moderate Democrats would surely hesitate to support.

If she's so Republican, why has she been supported in the past by ACORN (through one of their front groups, the Working Families Party)?

movertyperguy (Replying to: Ann) November 3, 2009 2:38 PM

If she's so Republican, why has she been supported in the past by ACORN ..."

And if she was so Republican, why was she endorsed by DailyKos founder and uber-liberal Marcos Moulitas?

They've infiltrated the Republican Party, folks. They're stealing our conservative campaign donations and using them to run their Democrat-In-Disguise candidates.

There's only two solutions: either burn these people out now, or start a new Conservative Party.

I for one vote for new party and am ready to write a check and canvass.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:08 PM

Hahahahahaha!! You've given me the best laugh I had all day. Kos endorsed her exactly because it would drive you nutjobs crazy. Do you always fall for the bait that easy?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Ann) November 3, 2009 2:56 PM

You sound like a Glenn Beck fan-girl. Keep up the good work!!

movertyperguy (Replying to: Ann) November 3, 2009 2:38 PM

If she's so Republican, why has she been supported in the past by ACORN ..."

And if she was so Republican, why was she endorsed by DailyKos founder and uber-liberal Marcos Moulitas?

They've infiltrated the Republican Party, folks. They're stealing our conservative campaign donations and using them to run their Democrat-In-Disguise candidates.

There's only two solutions: either burn these people out now, or start a new Conservative Party.

I for one vote for new party and am ready to write a check and canvass.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:08 PM

Hahahahahaha!! You've given me the best laugh I had all day. Kos endorsed her exactly because it would drive you nutjobs crazy. Do you always fall for the bait that easy?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:08 PM

Hahahahahaha!! You've given me the best laugh I had all day. Kos endorsed her exactly because it would drive you nutjobs crazy. Do you always fall for the bait that easy?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Ann) November 3, 2009 2:56 PM

You sound like a Glenn Beck fan-girl. Keep up the good work!!

TallDave (Replying to: sbranda) November 3, 2009 2:36 PM

First, everyone, except maybe Ron Paul, supported the stimulus.

Support for Stimulus Package Falls to 37%

Apparently nearly 2/3 of the country is Ron Paul.

MikeR November 3, 2009 1:04 PM

William H Stoddard, it seems to me that you should be very happy with what's happening. The Mad as Hell group isn't formed of social conservatives. It also has a whole lot of former independents who feel betrayed by a government that's lost any vestige of fiscal sanity.
I would imagine that the new barometer for who's "in the tent", is, Are you in favor of holding the government to a strict budget, no new deficit, paying off the old one, without raising taxes in a recession? I'd like to see every candidate answer it clearly, and be held accountable: Yes or no.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. I don't think it's an question of "moving to the right". It's very specific. We can continue to argue about other issues in the primaries, but any candidate who can't say yes to this question should be opposed.

Downpuppy November 3, 2009 1:49 PM

What's interesting is that most of this wailing comes from Obama voters.

Do you think "LOL" means "Lamenting our Lot"?

Popcorn & giggles are not wailing.

Hagios (Replying to: Downpuppy) November 3, 2009 2:32 PM

Did you read Frank Rich's op-ed? That was not popcorn and giggles. That was full-throated rage. He is more extreme than most, but it is broadly representative of what you expect from the left whenever Sarah Palin's name is involved in the story.

Downpuppy (Replying to: Hagios) November 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Why would anyone read Frank Rich?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Downpuppy) November 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Hagios is wrong. Full-throated rage? You are kidding, right?

Downpuppy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:54 PM

Foolishly, I took the dare. Somerby is right:

In that odd highlighted statement, Rich was performing as Columnist Feelgood again, telling us liberal readers the silly things we presumably long to hear. From know-nothing pseudos like Rich, this piffle substitutes for the kind of work which might build winning progressive frameworks, understandings and ideas. How can health reform be in the pitiful state it’s in, given the utterly ludicrous state of American health care? Simple. “Intellectual leaders” like Rich have kept liberal readers barefoot and clueless. Yesterday’s ridiculous column was the latest in a long, sorry line.
Frankly, Rich is the pits.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110209.shtml

Hagios (Replying to: Downpuppy) November 3, 2009 2:32 PM

Did you read Frank Rich's op-ed? That was not popcorn and giggles. That was full-throated rage. He is more extreme than most, but it is broadly representative of what you expect from the left whenever Sarah Palin's name is involved in the story.

Downpuppy (Replying to: Hagios) November 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Why would anyone read Frank Rich?

Downpuppy (Replying to: Hagios) November 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Why would anyone read Frank Rich?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Downpuppy) November 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Hagios is wrong. Full-throated rage? You are kidding, right?

Downpuppy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:54 PM

Foolishly, I took the dare. Somerby is right:

In that odd highlighted statement, Rich was performing as Columnist Feelgood again, telling us liberal readers the silly things we presumably long to hear. From know-nothing pseudos like Rich, this piffle substitutes for the kind of work which might build winning progressive frameworks, understandings and ideas. How can health reform be in the pitiful state it’s in, given the utterly ludicrous state of American health care? Simple. “Intellectual leaders” like Rich have kept liberal readers barefoot and clueless. Yesterday’s ridiculous column was the latest in a long, sorry line.
Frankly, Rich is the pits.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110209.shtml

Downpuppy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:54 PM

Foolishly, I took the dare. Somerby is right:

In that odd highlighted statement, Rich was performing as Columnist Feelgood again, telling us liberal readers the silly things we presumably long to hear. From know-nothing pseudos like Rich, this piffle substitutes for the kind of work which might build winning progressive frameworks, understandings and ideas. How can health reform be in the pitiful state it’s in, given the utterly ludicrous state of American health care? Simple. “Intellectual leaders” like Rich have kept liberal readers barefoot and clueless. Yesterday’s ridiculous column was the latest in a long, sorry line.
Frankly, Rich is the pits.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110209.shtml

AJ November 3, 2009 2:16 PM

Megan, have you changed your position to being in favor of gay marriage? The way you talk about gay marriage in this post makes it seem that way. Or do you still have no opinion on gay marriage, and you won't have one no matter how much you're baited? (As you said in your famous post of April 2, 2005.)

movertyperguy (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 2:41 PM

I'm sure Megan's position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's.

Barack Obama is against gay marriage and against gays in the military.

Barack Obama is a gay basher out to deny homosexuals their human rights.

AJ (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:22 PM

That would mean Megan has moved to the right on social issues since 2005. As I see it, Obama is against gay marriage. To my understanding, Megan has never said she's AGAINST gay marriage. She has just said she takes no position on the issue.

movertyperguy (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 6:44 PM

That means she's against it (but can't say so at work because ... shhhhhh .... she has to work near AIDS-infected Andrew Sullivan and he might spike her soda.)

Nimed (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 7:20 PM

movertyperguy, I don't complain much about comments crossing a line because I sometimes push it a bit myself.

But I'm sure you can see that Sullivan comment is in very, very bad taste. Please be more careful.

movertyperguy (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 2:41 PM

I'm sure Megan's position is exactly the same as Barack Obama's.

Barack Obama is against gay marriage and against gays in the military.

Barack Obama is a gay basher out to deny homosexuals their human rights.

AJ (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:22 PM

That would mean Megan has moved to the right on social issues since 2005. As I see it, Obama is against gay marriage. To my understanding, Megan has never said she's AGAINST gay marriage. She has just said she takes no position on the issue.

movertyperguy (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 6:44 PM

That means she's against it (but can't say so at work because ... shhhhhh .... she has to work near AIDS-infected Andrew Sullivan and he might spike her soda.)

Nimed (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 7:20 PM

movertyperguy, I don't complain much about comments crossing a line because I sometimes push it a bit myself.

But I'm sure you can see that Sullivan comment is in very, very bad taste. Please be more careful.

AJ (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:22 PM

That would mean Megan has moved to the right on social issues since 2005. As I see it, Obama is against gay marriage. To my understanding, Megan has never said she's AGAINST gay marriage. She has just said she takes no position on the issue.

movertyperguy (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 6:44 PM

That means she's against it (but can't say so at work because ... shhhhhh .... she has to work near AIDS-infected Andrew Sullivan and he might spike her soda.)

Nimed (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 7:20 PM

movertyperguy, I don't complain much about comments crossing a line because I sometimes push it a bit myself.

But I'm sure you can see that Sullivan comment is in very, very bad taste. Please be more careful.

movertyperguy (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 6:44 PM

That means she's against it (but can't say so at work because ... shhhhhh .... she has to work near AIDS-infected Andrew Sullivan and he might spike her soda.)

Nimed (Replying to: AJ) November 3, 2009 7:20 PM

movertyperguy, I don't complain much about comments crossing a line because I sometimes push it a bit myself.

But I'm sure you can see that Sullivan comment is in very, very bad taste. Please be more careful.

TallDave November 3, 2009 2:19 PM

That's what a number of commentators are predicting

I still haven't figured out what the heck Megan is reading. Must be from the sinestrosphere.

Meanwhile, the Dems' knife-fight over Obamacare is shredding that fragile 2006 tent built largely on angst over Iraq, as the voting public is becoming increasingly hostile to Dems the more they hear about it: Rasmussen now has LVs trusting the GOP more on eight of ten major issues.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:41 PM

Rasmussen? Hahahahahahaha!! While he's credible polling candidate races, he's not credible polling issues. After all, he doesn't wanna forfeit Republican money. Or did you forget that he did work for Bush/Cheney '04?

TallDave (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Sounding a little panicky there Calvin.

TallDave (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:54 PM

If you don't like Rasmussen...

September 30, 2009 More Independents Lean GOP; Party Gap Smallest Since '05

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the third quarter of this year, 48% of Americans identified politically as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party. At the same time, 42% identified as Republicans or as independents who leaned Republican. That six-point spread in leaned party affiliation is the smallest Gallup has measured since 2005.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:59 PM

Where did you get that? Link please!! And panicky? You're the one that's crapping your pants. Palin/Bachmann '12!!!!!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:34 PM

Since Calvin can't figure out Google:

click here

redfly (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 5:52 PM

You sound like a Keith Olbermann fan-boy, Calvin! Keep up the good work!

movertyperguy (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:44 PM

I'll say it again, ObamaCare is DOA.

A majority of Democrats do not support federal funding of abortions. And a majority of Democrats do not support using scarce funding to pay for the health care of illegal aliens.

The Washington Post has the real news of today:

House Democrats will not pass Pelosi's bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597521/ns/politics-washington_post/

Angst (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 4:51 PM

"tent built largely on angst over Iraq"

OK, but I will charge rent if they build a tent on me, and no I do not want to move to Iraq.

TallDave (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 6:24 PM

That was worthy of a ROFL.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:41 PM

Rasmussen? Hahahahahahaha!! While he's credible polling candidate races, he's not credible polling issues. After all, he doesn't wanna forfeit Republican money. Or did you forget that he did work for Bush/Cheney '04?

TallDave (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Sounding a little panicky there Calvin.

TallDave (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:54 PM

If you don't like Rasmussen...

September 30, 2009 More Independents Lean GOP; Party Gap Smallest Since '05

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the third quarter of this year, 48% of Americans identified politically as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party. At the same time, 42% identified as Republicans or as independents who leaned Republican. That six-point spread in leaned party affiliation is the smallest Gallup has measured since 2005.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:59 PM

Where did you get that? Link please!! And panicky? You're the one that's crapping your pants. Palin/Bachmann '12!!!!!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:34 PM

Since Calvin can't figure out Google:

click here

redfly (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 5:52 PM

You sound like a Keith Olbermann fan-boy, Calvin! Keep up the good work!

TallDave (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Sounding a little panicky there Calvin.

TallDave (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:54 PM

If you don't like Rasmussen...

September 30, 2009 More Independents Lean GOP; Party Gap Smallest Since '05

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the third quarter of this year, 48% of Americans identified politically as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party. At the same time, 42% identified as Republicans or as independents who leaned Republican. That six-point spread in leaned party affiliation is the smallest Gallup has measured since 2005.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:59 PM

Where did you get that? Link please!! And panicky? You're the one that's crapping your pants. Palin/Bachmann '12!!!!!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:34 PM

Since Calvin can't figure out Google:

click here

redfly (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 5:52 PM

You sound like a Keith Olbermann fan-boy, Calvin! Keep up the good work!

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:59 PM

Where did you get that? Link please!! And panicky? You're the one that's crapping your pants. Palin/Bachmann '12!!!!!

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:34 PM

Since Calvin can't figure out Google:

click here

redfly (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 5:52 PM

You sound like a Keith Olbermann fan-boy, Calvin! Keep up the good work!

movertyperguy (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:44 PM

I'll say it again, ObamaCare is DOA.

A majority of Democrats do not support federal funding of abortions. And a majority of Democrats do not support using scarce funding to pay for the health care of illegal aliens.

The Washington Post has the real news of today:

House Democrats will not pass Pelosi's bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597521/ns/politics-washington_post/

Angst (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 4:51 PM

"tent built largely on angst over Iraq"

OK, but I will charge rent if they build a tent on me, and no I do not want to move to Iraq.

TallDave (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 6:24 PM

That was worthy of a ROFL.

TallDave (Replying to: Angst) November 3, 2009 6:24 PM

That was worthy of a ROFL.

Bill Dalasio November 3, 2009 2:20 PM

So, Scozzafava was one of those pro-stimulus, pro-card-check fiscal conservatives. Doesn't that qualify as a liberal?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Bill Dalasio) November 3, 2009 2:42 PM

So you want Republican ideological purity? Have a long walk in the wilderness.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Um, its your candidates taking it up the ass today, bub.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:10 PM

My candidate? Which one is that? Sorry, bub, I don't have a candidate in the NY-23 race. I don't care who wins. After all, what will change because of it? Nothing! That is what! You have a lot in common with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothings

Megan McArdle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 4:59 PM

Hey! Knock it off.

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:35 PM

No, but a passing familiarity with our ideology would be nice.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Bill Dalasio) November 3, 2009 2:42 PM

So you want Republican ideological purity? Have a long walk in the wilderness.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Um, its your candidates taking it up the ass today, bub.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:10 PM

My candidate? Which one is that? Sorry, bub, I don't have a candidate in the NY-23 race. I don't care who wins. After all, what will change because of it? Nothing! That is what! You have a lot in common with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothings

Megan McArdle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 4:59 PM

Hey! Knock it off.

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:35 PM

No, but a passing familiarity with our ideology would be nice.

movertyperguy (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 2:45 PM

Um, its your candidates taking it up the ass today, bub.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:10 PM

My candidate? Which one is that? Sorry, bub, I don't have a candidate in the NY-23 race. I don't care who wins. After all, what will change because of it? Nothing! That is what! You have a lot in common with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothings

Megan McArdle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 4:59 PM

Hey! Knock it off.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 3:10 PM

My candidate? Which one is that? Sorry, bub, I don't have a candidate in the NY-23 race. I don't care who wins. After all, what will change because of it? Nothing! That is what! You have a lot in common with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothings

Megan McArdle (Replying to: movertyperguy) November 3, 2009 4:59 PM

Hey! Knock it off.

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle) November 3, 2009 3:35 PM

No, but a passing familiarity with our ideology would be nice.

jfxgillis November 3, 2009 2:37 PM

Megan:

And I don't see any empirical reason to believe that it is going to cost the Republicans.

Huh? The progressives pushed the Dems from the center-right to the center-left. The Tea Partiers are trying to push the GOP from hard right to batshit crazy.

There's an empirical difference between batshit and not-batshit. Most people can see that, even if you can't.

TallDave (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:44 PM

I'm not sure you understand that word, empirical.

TallDave (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:46 PM

I mean, progressives are pushing an AGW bill that will cost trillions when only 36% of people believe in AGW.

You do realize there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country, right?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:04 PM

You do realize there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country, right?

So why, on issue after issue, do people support the "liberal" position on most issues?

TallDave (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 6:25 PM

Obviously someone didn't read the Rasmussen link.

jfxgillis (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 4:52 PM

TallDave:

Sure I do. It means there's an observable, testable, demonstrable, experiential distinction that anyone capable of observing, testing, demonstrating and experiencing reality as it really is will affirm.

The Democrats got nudged to the center-left by their progressive wing and the Tea Partiers are batshit insane. That's an empirical observation.

TallDave (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 6:26 PM

Again, I don't think you understand what that word means.

movertyperguy (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:47 PM

batshit crazy?

No buddy, we're going for full on nucular war crazy. The kind of crazy that pushes people over the edge.

You should be very, very scared about what we're setting out to do to you.

Megan McArdle (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:50 PM

The center of American politics is not between the DLC and the netroots. It's between Obama and McCain.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Megan McArdle) November 3, 2009 3:00 PM

The only thing in the center of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos. Sounds like you are pining for an appearance on MTP with that drivel.

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Megan McArdle) November 3, 2009 3:37 PM

Megan:

So you are saying that Obama is as moderate a Democrat as McCain is a Republican? Really?

Megan McArdle (Replying to: Fraggle Rock) November 3, 2009 5:01 PM

No, probably John McCain is closer to the center than Obama--but Obama's not going to govern as a progressive, because the American political system won't let him, so practically, he's probably not much farther from the center than McCain.

market karma (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:51 PM

interesting definition of "bat shit crazy":

fiscal conservatism
no bailouts of private industry
no government ownership of private industry
smaller government

interestingly -- the whole tea party movement doesn't espouse a single social issue

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: market karma) November 3, 2009 3:02 PM

If you remember, Glenn Beck originally backed the bank bailout.

TallDave (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:44 PM

I'm not sure you understand that word, empirical.

TallDave (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:46 PM

I mean, progressives are pushing an AGW bill that will cost trillions when only 36% of people believe in AGW.

You do realize there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country, right?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:04 PM

You do realize there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country, right?

So why, on issue after issue, do people support the "liberal" position on most issues?

TallDave (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 6:25 PM

Obviously someone didn't read the Rasmussen link.

jfxgillis (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 4:52 PM

TallDave:

Sure I do. It means there's an observable, testable, demonstrable, experiential distinction that anyone capable of observing, testing, demonstrating and experiencing reality as it really is will affirm.

The Democrats got nudged to the center-left by their progressive wing and the Tea Partiers are batshit insane. That's an empirical observation.

TallDave (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 6:26 PM

Again, I don't think you understand what that word means.

TallDave (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 2:46 PM

I mean, progressives are pushing an AGW bill that will cost trillions when only 36% of people believe in AGW.

You do realize there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country, right?

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:04 PM

You do realize there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country, right?

So why, on issue after issue, do people support the "liberal" position on most issues?

TallDave (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 6:25 PM

Obviously someone didn't read the Rasmussen link.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 3:04 PM

You do realize there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country, right?

So why, on issue after issue, do people support the "liberal" position on most issues?

TallDave (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 6:25 PM

Obviously someone didn't read the Rasmussen link.

jfxgillis (Replying to: TallDave) November 3, 2009 4:52 PM

TallDave:

Sure I do. It means there's an observable, testable, demonstrable, experiential distinction that anyone capable of observing, testing, demonstrating and experiencing reality as it really is will affirm.

The Democrats got nudged to the center-left by their progressive wing and the Tea Partiers are batshit insane. That's an empirical observation.

TallDave (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 6:26 PM

Again, I don't think you understand what that word means.

TallDave (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 6:26 PM

Again, I don't think you understand what that word means.

movertyperguy (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:47 PM

batshit crazy?

No buddy, we're going for full on nucular war crazy. The kind of crazy that pushes people over the edge.

You should be very, very scared about what we're setting out to do to you.

Megan McArdle (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:50 PM

The center of American politics is not between the DLC and the netroots. It's between Obama and McCain.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Megan McArdle) November 3, 2009 3:00 PM

The only thing in the center of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos. Sounds like you are pining for an appearance on MTP with that drivel.

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Megan McArdle) November 3, 2009 3:37 PM

Megan:

So you are saying that Obama is as moderate a Democrat as McCain is a Republican? Really?

Megan McArdle (Replying to: Fraggle Rock) November 3, 2009 5:01 PM

No, probably John McCain is closer to the center than Obama--but Obama's not going to govern as a progressive, because the American political system won't let him, so practically, he's probably not much farther from the center than McCain.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: Megan McArdle) November 3, 2009 3:00 PM

The only thing in the center of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos. Sounds like you are pining for an appearance on MTP with that drivel.

Fraggle Rock (Replying to: Megan McArdle) November 3, 2009 3:37 PM

Megan:

So you are saying that Obama is as moderate a Democrat as McCain is a Republican? Really?

Megan McArdle (Replying to: Fraggle Rock) November 3, 2009 5:01 PM

No, probably John McCain is closer to the center than Obama--but Obama's not going to govern as a progressive, because the American political system won't let him, so practically, he's probably not much farther from the center than McCain.

Megan McArdle (Replying to: Fraggle Rock) November 3, 2009 5:01 PM

No, probably John McCain is closer to the center than Obama--but Obama's not going to govern as a progressive, because the American political system won't let him, so practically, he's probably not much farther from the center than McCain.

market karma (Replying to: jfxgillis) November 3, 2009 2:51 PM

interesting definition of "bat shit crazy":

fiscal conservatism
no bailouts of private industry
no government ownership of private industry
smaller government

interestingly -- the whole tea party movement doesn't espouse a single social issue

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: market karma) November 3, 2009 3:02 PM

If you remember, Glenn Beck originally backed the bank bailout.

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle (Replying to: market karma) November 3, 2009 3:02 PM

If you remember, Glenn Beck originally backed the bank bailout.

Basil November 3, 2009 3:29 PM

Megan, I would respectfully request that poster "wiredog" be immediately banned for the use of the profane slur "teabaggers" and that you announce that any posters using this term will suffer the same fate. Your blog, which I enjoy very much, needs to maintain its tone of respect and professionalism. Thanks!

Nimed November 3, 2009 4:18 PM

moqui

You are willing to throw out your professed free market principles over gay marriage? Society has survived for millennia without same sex marriage, but you are going to plant your flag on that issue because you think it can't wait another decade or two?(...)FWIW, there are good reasons to despise the GOP (as I do), but your "argument" is so incoherent, it could only be made by a wolf (Dem) in sheep's (libertarian's) clothing.

That's a pretty lousy argument. Human societies have survived for millennia, and prospered, without free-markets too. Or democracy. Or gender and racial equality. In fact, most of these things are extremely recent in human societies.

Being a liberal "wolf", as you put it, I don't agree with Stoddard most of the times. But I have to recognize that at least his beliefs are consistent. Unlike yours. So it's kind of ironic that you're the one making accusations of incoherence.

Hagios

But wouldn't agree that all things being equal the best place for children is with their biological parents? Evolutionary psyche (see Homocide by Daly and Wilson) teaches that children about 70 to 100 times more likely to be killed by a non-biological parent and from an evolutionary perspective that makes perfect sense.

Man, pop evolutionary psychology is so going to substitute Bible quoting in the next couple of decades.

What you have there is an argument against adoption. Not same-sex marriage (a couple can decide not to have children), not gay couples raising children (after all, one of the couple members can be a biological parent).

Of course, the argument for adoption is that, in general, it's far better for children to be adopted and raised in a home than growing up in an orphanage.

Dimitri Cavalli November 3, 2009 4:37 PM

Overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal. It will only let Congress and states pass restrictions and even bans on abortion.

If the electorate is overwhelmingly pro-abortion/pro-choice, then it should be a formality to get solid pro-choice majorities elected to Congress and to the 50 state legislatures and then re-elected every two years. Of course, if one has doubts... then keeping Roe will serve your interest.

M. Report November 3, 2009 8:09 PM

The Decline and Fall of the GOP

It is not the Fall, but the
sudden stop at ground level;
When the people of the US start hurting,
they look for a savior, and a scapegoat.

All old Pols know this, but dare not
admit ti to themselves. :>