And for my fellow Republicans who think that I am off the reservation or a “bad Republican” when I state that our party has become the party of uncontrolled deficits, reckless spending, and intrusive big government, read this and weep:
Mr. Gingrich indicated some concern, though, about the current political circumstances of his party.
“I worry about uncontrolled spending, because we are the party of balanced budgets, smaller government and lower taxes,” he said. “I worry about any effort to flinch on ethics, because we are the natural reform party.”
If you want to brush that off as a mild warning, do it at your own expense. Gingrich is a die-hard partisan, and would never use stronger language to condem the GOP. This is as clear a shot across the bow as you are going to get from Newt.
We were the party of balanced budgets, smaller government, and lower taxes. Now all we have left is the lower taxes bit- and it isn’t going to be that way forever. Pretty soon, there is going to be a reckoning day- we simply can not keep taxes at the current level while continuing to expand government expenditures exponentially. In the not so distant future, taxes are going to have to go up- because we will be unable to pay the bills otherwise.
Right now we are behaving like a bunch of rabid environmentalists, who, upon inheriting a Cadillac Escalade, realize that the seats are pretty comfortable and that a V8 is a real pleasure to drive, so we put the pedal to the floor and forget everything we used to call principles. Someone made this analogy in the comments of a thread a while ago, and it fits.
And if you think there is going to be no backlash- you are wrong. I just saw a poll on MSNBC ( I will find the cite in a little bit when it comes out) that states that the majority of the American people now believe that taxes are unfair- not because of the flawed tax code- but because the higher income brackets are not paying enough. I am sure the usual suspects will tell us how flawed the poll is- me- I tend to trust the numbers.
In other words- it looks like us ‘fiscal conservatives’ are poised to lose the tax debate, and more people are going to agree with this vision of the Republican Party:
Bush’s policies have very little to do with laissez-faire (just ask the Cato guys) or any actual moment in the American past. Instead, it has everything to do with corruption and funneling money to friendly corporations and religious groups. It’s a kind of christian democrat vision, but more along the lines of tangentopoli than Germany. I think this is important, because it’s become obvious that many Democrats now have high hopes that the investigations into Tom DeLay’s dealings will provide a major political payoff. It’s my opinion that it only will if Democrats manage to actually tie this stuff in to a broader critique of Republican policies. They’re not free marketers who happen to take bribes on occassion. The policymaking is fully continuous with the corruption.
Unfair? Maybe. But if you are a real Republican, a true conservative, and really do care about smaller and less intrusive government and free trade, and you do care about the dangers of the excesses of the far left- this should leave your knees shaking. We are beginning to appear to many to be the goofy and unfair caricature that the Democrats have painted us as for years.
We are beginning to appear to many to be the goofy and unfair caricature that the Democrats have painted us as for years.
I agree with the sentiment, but I can’t agree that this is some sort of sui generis event that began when Jeb got his fingers in the Schiavo caselaw.
I haven’t seen anyone take you to task for pointing out the out-of-control spending, John. Most of us agree with you & are downright disgusted at the way the party in power has thrown our money away.
It’s just that the impending theocracy, mandated crucifixion tattoos and forced prayers haven’t happened yet. :)
Neither has the oncoming violence that was promised as a result of the death of Terri Schiavo.
Perhaps when the weather improves.
Well- There already have been arrests made, and hoepfully that will be all. IF I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. However, it did take several years for Tim McVeigh to act. DeLay and his ilk are still meting out the rhetoric, with Dobson today comparing the Supreme Court to the KKK.
Of course- that is just all a part of responsible checks and balances in Sav’s world.
There already have been arrests made
Other than the guy who sent the threatening e-mail who has been arrested?
that is just all a part of responsible checks and balances in Sav’s world.
It is? Well I’ll be damned! Talk about learning something about yourself you didn’t know.
And what does Tim McVeigh have to do with anything?
“the party of uncontrolled deficits, reckless spending, and intrusive big government”
I’m against all of those things too. And Republicans should be called to task for each of them.
OTOH, perhaps you haven’t noticed the changing clientele you’ve amassed. I mean Kimmitt’s always been here endlessly raving, but seriously have you noticed who you’re attracting these days? Does it tell you nothing?
So, who do you blame for Tim McVeigh’s murder of hundreds? What rhetoric do you point the finger at?
And how will you feel when/if someone decides to blame Balloon Juice if something untoward were to be directed at one of the subjects of your ire?
Look, I don’t want you to get me wrong. I feel just the same way as you do about the over the top rhetoric that we’ve seen. Not kinda, not sorta, the SAME as you. But, rhetoric is rhetoric.
Actions are actions.
What next, blaming it on rap music? Video games? Should the government step in and sanction the rhetoric since you seem to be saying that it has a direct correlation to violence?
I’m not trying to be obtuse or a jerk, I’m just saying that once you start assigning part of the blame to the words that someone else says, then you gotta admit that WORDS have a role…and then that slippery slope gets pretty steep.
have you noticed who you’re attracting these days?
I’m sure he has.
I have reluctantly supported Bush for the last two Presidential elections. It amuses me that the Democrats seem to think he’s some kind of right wing fanatic. If he’d shut up about abortion and change his registration, he’d mke a pretty good Democrat.
Bush is not a conservative. He is not a libertarian. Other than respond with some vigor to 9/11, Bush has drifted. His spending is about what a Gore or Kerry regime would spend. The southern border is wide open and both sides are selling out the country for the Hispanic vote. Republicans can’t win this because Democrats will promise anything regardless of cost.
The Democrats own the media, the universities and the bureaucracy. They cheat and steal without conscience ( see Washington Governor’s election ). They attack DeLay for breaking a rule that they don’t even have. I’m no fan of our Congressional leadership, but Pelosi and company run the Caucus with all the sincerity and character of the Mafia.
We may indeed be the stupid party. We certainly give away our natural advantages. Maybe somewhere there’s a smart Republican. Maybe somewhere, there’s an honest Democrat. Maybe they can work it out. Doubtful, since neither would ever reach the leadership.
If he’d shut up about abortion and change his registration, he’d mke a pretty good Democrat.
You have a deep and abiding misunderstanding of the principles and policies of the Democratic Party.
Not to be smarmy, but you get what you get. Bush said he beleived in faith-based initiatives…what were you expecting? He has always had a religious angle from the beginning. Bush says (and does) what he means. It’s just that no one wants to beleive it until its too late. Now is the time the Reps have got to reign in their boy in the White House. He’s one many – you’re what a couple million? (400+ in congressional representatives)
[I’m up too early, & wow am I cranky.]
“We were the party of balanced budgets, smaller government, and lower taxes.”
The Republicans haven’t been in 25 years, since the Reagan administration.
“In the not so distant future, taxes are going to have to go up- because we will be unable to pay the bills otherwise.”
Inflation is an alternative. The W. Bush administration is likely to try to replace Alan Greenspan (whose term on the FRB is up early next year) with someone more compliant.
Sympathies, guy. On the left we’ve been having our ideals co-opted by complete bastards for a long time. No fun, no fun at all.
the friendly grizzly
Republicans haven’t been Republicans for decades. Who gave us affirmative action, wage and price controls, the ADA, the EPA, and other such crap? Nixon and Bush Sr. George Wallace was right: there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties when it comes to pocketbook or freedom issues. It’s just that the GOP (Gawd’s Ordained Party) throws in some old time religion and fear of homosexuals to keep from being completely boring.
Ron Paul for President!
> the principles and policies of the Democratic Party.
It has some?
OK, OK, apart from “we’re not Republicans”.
Did my questions not even warrant a response, John?
…Have you seen who you’ve been attracting…
He seems to be attracting Americans like me: Moderate, able to cross the aisle to either side when someone comes up with a good idea. You know…those “swing” voters who don’t truly identify with either “party platform” but wish there were an actual “Party of Common Sense”.
I believe you accurately describe yourself, Christie S. You could vote for either party so long as they were substantively different than they currently are. Hmmm… But where does that leave you right now?
But then again, some of the others who seem new here don’t even fit that loose description.
As a long-time independent, my viewpoint is that the Republicans have become dependent on the backing of some of the nastiest political factions in our society: the religious right, the borrow-and-spenders, the warmongers, the racists. (And before you decide I am not an independent, let me point out that the Southern racist faction used to be Democratic.) On balance, the Democrats, though very much head-in-the-sand, are less destructive. (This is when one tosses the radical right description of them, of course.)
I want to stress that in a system of geographic coalitions like ours, ideology is less important than who can be gotten to vote for a particular party, so the parties dance across the geography and political factions of the USA, and change their ideologies as their supporting regions and national factions change.
As an independent, the national issues that are most important to me are environmental, geopolitical, and those of social liberties and there are people in both parties interested in addressing these issues; this is a time of great change and risk in the world, and I would prefer to see us get on with the work of meeting those challenges, rather than waiting until they come to us, making demands, as they did on 9/11.
OK, OK, apart from “we’re not Republicans”.
Heh. The Party does have a Platform, you know.
You mean the one that endorses the patriot act? That platform?
Birkle, you bring up my quandry very succinctly. Where does that leave me? Pretty much out in the cold trying to fashion a life for my family where I can be proud of my government. I wish I could be proud of my government.
Notice that I’m proud of my country, just not happy or satisfied with either camp of would-be extremists who seem to be trying to depth-charge her.
The party that adhers to those OLD republican values is the Democratic Party.
They are the party who balanced the budget.
I would very much like to know how you know so much about racists in the South. Do you live in the South? Which part? Have you done extensive polling on this topic? Read somebody else’s extensive polling?
A LITTLE QUIZ
Where were the largest race riots during the Civil Rights movement? (ANSWER: Boston) Which city in the US is most racially segregated? (ANSWER: Detroit) Which state has the greatest number of KKK members? (ANSWER: Ohio) Second most KKK members? (ANSWER: Michigan)
Now then, you were saying about racism and the South?
Perhaps you should read Arthur Chrenkoff’s roundup of positive news out of Afghanistan and Iraq. There’s a lot of stuff out there that might make you proud.
“[The Democrats] are the party who balanced the budget.”
No, not really. The GOP Congress of the 90’s deserves credit, as does President Clinton. History will judge which party was leading the parade, but in all, the balanced budget handed to Shrub was a bipartisan effort.
The GOP Congress of the 90’s deserves credit,
Absolutely not. Not a single GOP Congressman or Congresswoman voted for the ’93 tax increases which made the balanced budget possible. Federal outlays declined at the same rate during the years in which the Democrats controlled both houses and during the years in which the Republicans controlled the House. source: CBO
Now then, you were saying about racism and the South?
Question: Which states had Jim Crow laws?
Yeah, Northern cities were nasty places to be African-American. But come on, seriously.
Birkel, yes, there was racism throughout the USA; that’s a separate issue. In party politics, though, there’s the history of the Dixiecrats and the Republican Southern Strategy. Prior to 1964-8, the Democrats had a racist wing comprised of the Southern states. In 1968, this wing was led by Richard Nixon and Strom Thurmond into the Republican Party, winning the election. (Look in Wikipedia if you want more information and cites.) This was a predictable move; such a large faction, however repugnant, would be of interest to both parties, and President Johnson had alienated the Dixiecrats by backing the desegregation of the South.
So the Dems lost the South in 1994 and you want to blame that on racism. Fine, feel free to explain how the Dems were the party of racism ’til 1994.
Oh! What was that? You thought the South was lost before 1994? Well… you were wrong. And now I’d like you to explain how the Dems were the racist party ’til 1994 but are now the anti-racist party.
I’ll just wait here for my explanation.
The undisputable facts show your worn-out talking points assertion to be based on fallacies.
Now, to answer a previous question:
Talk about your slow fastballs: the states run by Democrats.
I’ll take the absence of any response to be an official “punt” to any of the questions or even the gist of the rebuttal.
Damn, I hate typos. Sorry.
Talk about your slow fastballs: the states run by Democrats.
Ooh, nice goalpost-moving. But also a provable falsehood.
I think the 1948 election tells the story. There was a mainstream Democratic candidate (Truman) who won across the country. There was a racist Dixiecrat candidate who won Southern states. And there was a Republican candidate who won a lot of those urban enclaves you so loathe (among other places).
Why, it’s almost as though the narrative about racist Democrats leaving the Party over civil rights issues has some grounding in historical fact. Amazing.
The awesome part was when Truman called the Republican Congress to pass Civil Rights legislation in 1948, and it turned out that the Republican Platform which endorsed that legislation was a complete sham.
Anyway, I hope this puts to rest the canard that there was no split between the Dixiecrats and the rest of the Democratic Party, or that there was not a qualitative difference between the racist politics of the Deep South and the racism which prevailed elsewhere.
If by almost you mean not at all except you’ve got an anecdote, then I agree Kimmitt.
Please identify how you know racists in the South are different than racists everywhere else.
And how did the South stay a Democratic bastion until 1994?
Democrats–the party of racism until 1994. And after that it all changed.
Except, on the state level Dems do quite well in the South. It is for federal offices that Republicans so dominate.
So maybe this slogan will work:
Democrats–The party of racism on the local level but not on the national level.
But I prefer this explanation for the sloppy thinking you so eloquently parrot:
By accusing Southerners of being racist (or different and worse sort of racists–an interesting twist) people in other parts of the country can explain their electoral losses while maintain their own perceived moral/ethical superiority. Thus, you get the benefit of being “the good” without having to notice your own shortcomings.
Kinda convenient. And wrong. But who’s counting?
And how did the South stay a Democratic bastion until 1994?
The local Parties were very much out of step with the National Party, and Nixon took advantage of that starting in 1968. This is evidenced by the Presidential results from:
1968, where the Dixiecrat Wallace ran in opposition to Humphrey.
(1972 was a landslide for Nixon and tells us nothing; in 1976, the Dems kept the Dixiecrats in line by running a popular Southern governor).
In 1980, Carter won his home state and a few Northern states.
1984 was a landslide for Reagan.
In 1988, we see the South come out in full force for the Republican candidate over the course of his convincing win.
I think that was probably the last gasp of the Democratic Party in the South; we ran a popular Southern governor, and he took six of the thirteen states of the Confederacy. Hardly the Solid South at that point, though.
The results from 1968 are especially dispositive — the deep Southern states were so disgusted with the national Democratic Party that they defected to an independent candidate — and most of the rest of the South went Republican. The Southern Democratic Party — e.g. the Dixiecrats — show their independence very strongly in 1948 and 1968. They’re yours now. They’re not hard to hold on to; just keep opposing affirmative action and gay-bashing, and they won’t ask for difficult things like health care or education for their kids. They’ve got their priorities and they vote on them.
Dang, link error on that sucker; the long link there should refer to 1992.
Thus, Clinton’s signing of the DOMA explains his popularity among gays.
Oh wait a minute.
Let’s be honest, Kimmitt. The Dems do as much “gay-bashing” as the Reps when it suits them politically.
And if you think southerners generally sit around worrying about affirmative action, then I’d question whether you’ve even met a southerner.
As if I’m supposed to forget that after a full year of waiting you went out and came up with TWO NAMES.
You’re getting away with nothing. Zilch.
George Wallace didn’t speak at the GOP convention in ’76 (IIRC), it was the DNC convention.
Dixiecrat. Speaking at the Democratic convention.
Flush. Fish in a barrel. Slow fastball.
Every time you try the same thing it’s going to get put right back at you, Kimmitt. The link I provided blows away your pitiful (gosh, that was PATHETIC) attempt at going back to 1948…wasn’t Robert Byrd still in the KKK, then?…when 1996 is staring you in the face.
Of course, those are facts & some tend to swing towards emotions. And we all know what type that is.
“We will not hire/admit based on race, gender, creed, religion or national origin”. One party can’t say “yes” to that basic concept. The DNC.
Too much to ask, based on my experience.
Again, is it your contention that when 90% of the African-American population votes Democratic, is it because they are too stupid to vote for their interests?
You think 52% of Americans voted against their own interests now don’t you?
But good job changing the subject. If I was an idiot I’d’ve fallen for it.
Back to your explanation of race moving the Southern vote…
…racism moving the Southern vote…
As to which party…I can only stress, yet again, that any large block of voters, however repugnant, will be courted by both parties, because most power in the US system goes to the majority.
At this time the Democrats are by far my preferred party; it’s the Republicans who have taken in the the wingnuts.
Birkel, I explained, in so many words, that the Democrats had the votes of the Southern racists until 1964. This is my point; this is why I am an independent.
You think 52% of Americans voted against their own interests now don’t you?
Not really, no — I think that a lot of folks are violently homophobic and voted those interests, I think a lot of upper-middle-class voters do better on a lousy economy but with much lower taxes, and I think that many other folks share a basic policy disagreement on how to deal with Islamic terror. Add to this a few folks who I do think were bamboozled, the lunatic protofascist fringe, and the fact that the guy who owns the vote-counting machines is a rabid Bush fan, and there you have it.
But this isn’t about a single election. This is about every election, every time, and 90% of a community. Is it your opinion, RW and Birkel, that black people are overwhelmingly far too stupid — and have been far too stupid for thirty years plus — to see their own interests?
Anyways, I’m gonna let you have the last word on this subject; I presented my argument and my support for it. You find it weak, which is hardly surprising. I hope that others reading this thread found my arguments and support for those arguments interesting.
Translation: those who aren’t racists are homophobes. Forget that the most homophibic group in America are those who 90% vote Democrat (go ahead, argue THAT).
Yet again, we see the emotional excuses from the losing side. When there’s nothing else to fall back on, call the opposing side names and haul ass.
See you next month, when you try it again, Kimmitt.
Point of order.
The link (and evidence within) I provided proves that such a contention is based on fallacy. I mean, other than the voters voting for Democrats as recently as 1995, that is.
RW, Zell Miller, Democratic governor of Georgia in 1996, is now a Democratic senator from Louisiana, and was a speaker at the Republican National Convention in 2004. What you have proven is that some of the state Democratic parties were “Dixiecrat” in 1996; the national party has not been since 1968.
The parties go where the votes are.
Birkel, it was 31% of the population, not 52%. The 2004 election turned on turnout, and it is possible that shorter lines at the polls in Ohio and Florida would have changed the outcome. Even of the 60% who managed to vote, many, like our host, are now wondering just what they have voted for.
It seems to me that our electoral system is, as it often has before, giving us the worst of both liberal and conservative programs.
So whats with ol newt ginrinch? who would trst a guy who pretends to bo a conservative and is named for a lizard?
Don’t be a jerk by pointing out the percentage of the population when you fully understood my point. Such pettiness is unbecoming.
And don’t be purposefully obtuse by not recognizing that there were more Democratic Senators and House Members in Congress in 1994–from the South.
The Dems were the party of racism, according to your argument (which is bunk but I’m playing along) until 1994.
Please expalin how it changed in 1994.
Kimmitt you are putting words in my mouth. You sir, are beneath my contempt. Good day.
Zell Miller is retired and now in the private sector, Randolph.
Ah, I see.
My apologies for assuming that you were unlike Kimmitt and logic and facts, instead of emotional hyperbole (any Democrat who disagrees with you is a “Dixiecrat”, even the ones who were the keynote speakers at the 1992 Democratic convention) , mattered.
It will not happen again. Have a nice life. Mine’s too short for this sort of stuff.
Birkel, the difference between 30% and 52% is nearly 70 million votes; it is not to be ignored. Turnout is a big part of the story in US politics, and I insist on including it in any accounting.
From 1964 onward, the racist wing of the Democratic party was increasingly marginalized, just as the liberal wing of the Republican Party is at this time. Over the years, the Southern racists in Congress have either resigned, or changed their Party affiliation–Zell Miller was the one of the most dramatic of these; I hadn’t known he had declined to run again. He has gone on to become, I think, a lobbyist with the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge, thought to have very good access to W. Bush. See, in particular,
The article notes McKenna’s connection to the Bush administration and also the Georgia Democratic Party, exactly as I have been saying.
Neither major US party is the “party of racism”; both parties are the parties of whatever their ruling coalitions happen to be at the time, and the state parties are very independent of the national parties. But the Southern racists are a large number of Republican votes in national elections: in Presidential elections since 1964, in Congressional elections, you say, since 1994. Add to them the Religious Right and the anti-homosexual people and you have quite a noticeable number of voters, especially since many of these people live in disproportionately influential rural states. Looking at the W. Bush administration, it’s easy to find both personnel and policy choices which satisfy these constituencies, and Bush himself is reported to be religious right.
Which is where we came in. In all the study of politics I have done in the past years I am struck by how undemocratic our system is at this time. We are not getting anything like what we want and on top of that we are, as a public, appallingly misinformed. Surely we can do better than this?
Nice Dodge, RF.
Democrats were the majority party in the South ’til 1994 in the Senate and House.
Democrats continue to control a majority of state and local offices in the South.
Now please square that with claims that racists tend to be Republicans that switched party allegiance in 1964. (As you claimed above.)
And then explain how the racists in Boston–where the largest riots occurred during the Civil Rights Movement–were unpersuaded by the racist tendencies of the Republicans. (Those would be the policies that moved racists from Dems to Reps in 1994.)
Best of luck with your explanation. Or you can admit that your nonsense claim is just that…
Don’t leave out that the most strident anti-homosexual group is the one that votes 90% Dem in national elections (blacks).
“Democrats were the majority party in the South ’til 1994 in the Senate and House.”
“Democrats continue to control a majority of state and local offices in the South.”
Some of these, like Zell Miller, are part of the good-old-boys network; others are elected by predominantly black districts.
“racists tend to be Republicans that switched party allegiance in 1964” I don’t know about all racists, or even all Southern racists. I have cited good historical evidence that it was racism that swung the electoral votes of the South to the Republican side.
I don’t understand what Boston has to do with anything and I despise being given orders in debate.
RW, you look really cute down there pounding on your chest.
Paraphrasing Mr. Fritz:
I’ve moved the goal posts and get to define who is a “good Democrat” and who is really a “good ole boy racist” and there’s nothing you can do to stop me!!
You have cited no evidence. You would have to distinguish all these factors:
1) How did racism affect Southern voters but not Northern voters. (Boston is clearly relevant because Bostonians demonstarted their racism in the busing riots. Why were those racists unaffected by Republicans’ racist attitudes?)
2) What took so long for the shift to happen between 1964 (signing of the CRA) and now. (Example: The SC legislature was Democratically held ’til 2003.)
3) How did/does incumbency affect who is still in office while you think the explanation boils down to racism?
4) What other factors (e.g. nationalism, strong defense) influence Southern voters but don’t affect Northeastern voters?
5) How would you explain the Mountain West’s strongly conservative position? The Central Plains states?
Look, if you think it’s racism that has moved the South to Republicans then you’ve got an awful lot of ‘splaining to do. And I know you can’t because it’s never been done by anybody, including serious social scientists.
But then I knew that well up the thread.
What your theories do (and they are widely shared amongst Democrats) is allow you to project your own moral superiority over Republicans who, oh btw, continue to win elections. You get to write off your political opponents and it makes you sleep better at night. But it’s still wrong.
And just because you don’t understand how Boston matters (and Detroit too) reflects your own ignorance. And the fact that you don’t like receiving orders from somebody who knows a heck of a lot more than you about this subject is, again, a personal failing on your end.
Why were those racists unaffected by Republicans’ racist attitudes?
They weren’t — they overwhelmingly voted Republican. They were just outnumbered by the folks who aren’t racists.
Proof of that?
Surely you can find a URL.
Hey, find one yourself; I’ve already provided weak support for my view. Provide some weak support for yours.
Actually, no, you’ve provided conjecture not facts.
I’ve pointed out inconsistencies in your hypothesis from known facts.
When you lose, it’s better to run the white flag up the pole and let the winner have their moment.
Kimmitt, you can’t find one serious social scientist who will support your POV. There’s a reason. And one of us (that would be me) knows this. The other (that would be you) probably knows it to.
Come back when you want to play big boy games. With, you know, facts and citations, not conjecture.
Oh, and just so you understand:
You’ve forwarded a hypothesis. I have not.
I have provided evidence that your hypothesis does not withstand scrutiny.
It is your job to support your hypothesis. Not mine.
It’s the advantage of being right. Tee hee hee.
The view’s even better from the winning side, where everyone thinks you’re cute.
Right you are, RW.
Or should I say right “we” are?
Either way Kimmitt’s wrong.