President Barack Obama talks on the phone in the Oval Office with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to express sympathy for families affected by the floods and to offer whatever federal assistance is needed to help families recover, Oct. 5, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
A few topics for your consideration:
- Still no drinking water in Columbia — Which is the one lasting effect of the flood for those of us who did not get washed out of our homes. For more, follow the link.
- McCarthy Quits Speaker’s Race, Leaving G.O.P. in Disarray — Because, you know, it was in such great shape before. I have a theory: The only reason the GOP hasn’t split into more than one party before now is that people today have been programmed to think in binary terms, to the point that they can’t imagine new parties. To them, you’re either left or right, Democrat or Republican, and nothing else is conceivable. Back in our pre-1860 politics, new parties would form in response to such disagreement. Which, you know, is how we got the GOP.
- Russian Missiles Fired at Syria Struck Iran, U.S. Says — Nice shooting there, Ivan. I mean, go ahead and pull somebody else into the fighting, why don’t you?
- Airman who helped stop French train attack is stabbed — Airman 1st Class Spencer Stone’s wounds were significant, but he’s in stable condition.
- New Diet Pepsi Leaves Some With a Bad Taste — Some? Some? Was there ever a Diet Pepsi bottled that did not leave a bad taste? I’ve got a suggestion for you, folks: If you don’t want the calories, drink water. (Unless, of course, you’re in Columbia this week.)
Related Posts
1. Been out of work all week because of the water issue. Apparently that’s the main reason the game was moved to Baton Rouge.
I read earlier today in of all places Huffington Post that Labrasca’s Pizza may close permanently. Tell me it’s not so.
Here’s the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/south-carolina-flood-insurance_56144d8ce4b021e856d2cad2
WIS did not renew John Farley’s contract. He seemed to be good at his job. I liked him and will miss him. I don’t really understand what motivates these decisions.
Perhaps they blame him for the flooding…
#2: How does this get resolved? The Republicans need to find someone who is acceptable to both the moderate plurality and to the Tea Party wing. Yet the Tea Party seems hell-bent on opposing anything the moderates want to do. Is there a precedent for this kind of situation? Are there enough adults left on Congress to fix this?
At some point I would hope that moderates on both sides would begin to work together in a sort of coalition government–Democrats supplying votes for a Speaker in exchange for compromises on future bills (like the debt ceiling).
Yes there is a precedent: the Dixiecrats.
Same radical, or reactionary, agenda out of step with the majority. The Democrats had to learn to deal with the Southern recalcitrance just as the Republicans will need to do with the Tea party. Given that, it might be solid strategy to not stand Pelosi for a reprise as speaker. The Democrats ought to make it as easy as possible for some Republicans to walk away from their caucuses nuttiness.
There’s the telling scenario. Calling the actions of more than a handful of Republicans “moderate” is quite a stretch. Even those with more “moderate” leanings have been intimidated by the right wing, most often by the threat of well-funded primary opposition from the extreme right.
More telling is considering the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to exchange for bills favored by Republicans. Paying the bills and protecting the credit of our country should never be used as a threat – but it is by today’s crop of right-wing Republicans. Why should paying our bills and obligations be seen as a Democrat issue. Most of the increase in the national debt has been the result of three factors, all pushed by Republicans – Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare part D (drugs), and Bush era tax cuts.
I always enjoy seeing y’all try to understand the inner-workings of the conservative mind. It’s like you’re dissecting an alien life form.
🙂
I’ve got no problem with the conservative mind. Some of my best friends are conservatives. 😉
What does trouble me is that there is a group of 40 or so Tea Party folks who are able to hold the business of governing hostage on issues like the debt ceiling because there is a reluctance to accept the help of the other party to pass legislation that needs to be passed. At the last impasse it would have been a simple thing to pass a bill if Boehner had been willing to accept passing it with the help of Democrats.
It’s this same group that has paralyzed the GOP in selecting a Speaker. If Boehner decides to go ahead and resign at the end of the month, it leaves the House without a Speaker. And then what? We’ve a helpless, hapless House, and the Tea Party wing–about 10% of the membership–gets what they want. I’m not sure that’s what the founders had in mind.
The Speaker does not have to be elected by only Republicans. Instead of looking for a Republican that’s can get all 40 of the Tea Party votes, find one that can get 40 or so Democratic votes.
Precisely, Norm. If the TEA party obstructionists can’t hold the Republican Party hostage they can’t hold the nation hostage. It is time for the Republican Party to cut the head off the monster it created by partnering with Democrats.
“It is time for the Republican Party to cut the head off the monster it created by partnering with Democrats.”
Partnering with the Democrats?
I mean, I guess I understand why you would want this, if you’re a Democrat. So somehow, striking deals with the Democrats is “just business” and “responsible governing”, but striking deals with the conservative Republicans is crazy and negotiating with hostage-takers. Okay….
Why isn’t the possibility of negotiating with the conservatives on the table as an option for the Establishment GOP?
If the GOP openly partners with the Democrats, then I’m not sure what the point of being a Republican is.
It bears repeating: The Tea Party is neither Conservative nor responsible.
If the Republicans are ready to take on the Tea Party, how is this any different then when the Democrats finally realized that they could not be the party beholden to labor unionism and began to marginalize that reactionary wing of the party?
“It bears repeating: The Tea Party is neither Conservative nor responsible.”
If spending less money at the federal level and reforming entitlement spending that continues to increase each year is defined as irresponsible, then I guess I’m irresponsible.
“If the Republicans are ready to take on the Tea Party, how is this any different then when the Democrats finally realized that they could not be the party beholden to labor unionism and began to marginalize that reactionary wing of the party?”
The establishment Republicans are *already* taking on the Tea Party. They don’t do anything the Tea Party/crazy/irresponsible/hostage-takers want to do. That’s why the Tea Party/crazy/irresponsible/hostage-takers have decided that they aren’t going to support their leadership anymore. That’s why McCarthy was never going to get the support of the Tea Party/crazy/irresponsible/hostage-takers. He’s just Boehner 2.0. He’s actually Boehner, but not as accomplished, which is the reason he was Boeher’s subordinate.
And if you’re a Tea Party/crazy/irresponsible/hostage-taker, what is it that you think is going to happen? Most of the country disagrees with you, so you’re never, ever going to get your way.
Continuing to make the country impossible to govern when your cause is hopeless is inexcusable.
Why isn’t the possibility of negotiating with the conservatives on the table as an option for the Establishment GOP?
Assuming you meant the Tea Party when you say “conservatives,” (there are plenty of conservatives who are more pragmatic than the Tea Party) then it’s not an option because the extreme right shows no appetite for negotiation or compromise. The Republicans are the majority party, and they have a responsibility to govern. This whole Speaker situation is a good example of their inability to do so as long as they depend on the Tea Party.
If the GOP openly partners with the Democrats, then I’m not sure what the point of being a Republican is.
The point of being a member of any party is to speak for those whose views you represent–to make sure that all get a fair hearing. The point of being a member of Congress is to govern in the best interests of the nation regardless of party affiliation.
Right. They don’t choose to work with anyone.
I disagree with that statement. For example, let’s assume you’re a conservative/Tea Party/crazy person/whatever you want to call it member of Congress. Let’s say you’re Rep. Mulvaney, for instance.
He was elected on a platform of inter alia cutting the federal budget. Whatever your opinion of that platform, that was his mandate from his constituents. So with that in mind, he’s been presented with multiple continuing resolutions that do nothing to accomplish his goals. Boehner negotiated deals and then brought it to the House. If you vote for the deal, then you’re a “good team player”. If you don’t vote for it, then you are unreasonable and crazy.
He’s also been presented with multiple debt ceiling increases. Keep in mind, he’s against spending more and more money. He’s being asked to vote for multiple debt ceiling increases – in exchange for exactly nothing. I would guess that Mulvaney would vote for debt ceiling increase if it was coupled with something that actually addressed future federal spending in some way. But he’s gotten nothing. Zero. So what’s his motivation? Remember, he doesn’t want to vote for it as his default position.
And he’s not alone. There are a whole bunch of elected representatives who have essentially been told that their priorities don’t matter – by their own party! Again, whether you agree or disagree with the idea of cutting government spending is not the issue here.
The problem is “working with people” has been defined as doing everything that other people want all the time and getting exactly nothing in return – ever. If I did that in my litigation practice, I’d be out of business.
So what I’m asking y’all to do here is try to see it from someone like Mulvaney’s perspective. I know you don’t agree with him, but put that aside for a moment. Try and see if you can understand where he and people like him are coming from. Maybe that’s not possible, I don’t know.
My dissatisfaction with the House is not limited to the extreme right, though I think they are the source of the dysfunction we’re witnessing. I lay equal blame on the establishment Republicans (Boehner) for kowtowing to that group. The last time the government shut down, it was solely because Boehner was unwilling to accept Democratic votes to keep it open.
Mulvaney and all members of Congress should vote their conscience. However, we have agreed on a system of government that allows for majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority. The de facto result of the Tea Party’s intransigence, and the establishment’s capitulation to them is minority rule.
To start with, they’re not conservatives…
Exactly, Bryan. If liberals and moderates want compromise, what are they willing to give back? Keystone Pipeline? Obamacare? Planned Parenthood funding? Tougher deportation? Liberals are just as radical and stubborn on those issues as Tea Partiers are on debt and spending. My strongly held principles are your “lunatic fringe”.
As Dr. Evil said, “Throw me a frickin’ bone here… “
“The problem is “working with people” has been defined as doing everything that other people want all the time and getting exactly nothing in return – ever. If I did that in my litigation practice, I’d be out of business.”
That’s not how I define it. My definition would start with:
Keep the government functioning. I mean, if you’re not willing to do that, you not only shouldn’t be in Congress, you should probably be in jail. That’s extreme malfeasance. And note that this is coming from someone who believes federal funding of Planned Parenthood is a national disgrace.
Another requirement would be, “Pass a budget every year.” Of course, there’s plenty of blame to go around on that one.
If Congress passes a budget that cuts spending and sends it to the President’s desk for signature, but he refuses to sign it because of one reason or another, and the government shuts down, who is to blame for the government not functioning?
The platform from the Tea Party.org:
15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
I believe in 3 and 6. So I’m not a very good Tea Partier. 14 is actually almost as funny as 2, English is the core business and diplomatic language in the world – let alone the U.S. It is amusing that the Tea Party would look for this sort of requirement – as a governmental fiat.
The point is, 2/3 of these are not reflective of responsible governance. So, you know, that’s sort of a problem. Of course, yes, the Republican and the Democratic platforms are nearly – if not as – whacky – as this one. But the point is – there really isn’t much here worthy of adherence. So I don’t know why Tea Partiers continue to rail against those who dismiss their claims to the one, true path.
“TeaParty.org” is an oxymoron, because it has “org” in it.
I agree with 1, 3 and 15. Of course, I have caveats on all three:
1. The statement is true by definition. Where we split is when we talk about how much we care about that, and what we want to do about it.
3. Yes. And we have a military for purposes other than lining the border with Mexico.
15. The operative word is “encouraged.” As opposed to “mandated” or something along those lines. Such values should inform policy, not necessarily BE policy.
Speaking of English being required, I don’t know what “Pro-domestic employment is indispensable” means. What were they trying to say before they tangled up that sentence?
Seeing 4 and 5 right next to each other — well, that’s the sort of thing that gives rational people who understand pluralism and the glories of the American Way the heebie-jeebies. I’m talking about 4. Having 5 follow it just adds to the creepiness. I know they love the English language, but do they know what “eliminated” means?
It’s the sort of thing that makes a person who has always honestly said, “I do not advocate confiscation of privately held guns” turn around and say, “Correction: I AM for rounding up THESE people’s guns…”
Of course, granted, “eliminate” means all sorts of things.
I eliminate you not…
I disagree with 3, 14, 15. 14 is trivial.
1,4,6,7,8 ,10, 13 are representative of my core values. There is nothing radical about any of those.
I don’t care about guns or gays. There should be no restrictions on either.
And yes, Doug, Democrats’ absolute worship of Planned Parenthood and all it stands for is indeed, radical, stubborn and extreme.
Any normal person would, all the other issues aside, think, “Oh, we’re funding a private organization? Why?”
Sometimes funding a private organization is a good call, but then the reasonable person who doesn’t have a dog in the fight either way would go, “Oh, and it’s an extremely controversial one and an affront to a huge portion of the public, to the extent that it’s undermining public respect for the entire government? Wow. Again, WHY?”
But Democrats have excised the parts of their brains that would allow them to follow that line of thinking.
Here’s a measure of how far gone we are in this country: The NRA and Planned Parenthood are two of the more highly admired organizations in the country — by their own particular, highly partisan pluralities.
Meanwhile, if you’re a moderate like me, you find both organizations appalling, and the division they represent a cancer on the body politic…
Not being a fan of Planned Parenthood, I will make mention of this: I’ve received a couple of glossy mailings funded by superpacs that say that Planned Parenthood is using federal tax dollars to fund abortions. This is not true. There is a law already in place that prevents federal dollars from going to abortions. My understanding is that PP receives “fee for service” federal dollars for basic healthcare services. Those clinics who do abortions receive funding for that service from other sources.
I feel it is important to be truthful about this or lose credibility about everything else.
Being the case that no Federal tax dollars are being used to pay for abortions, the budget fight over funding for Planned Parenthood is a red herring and just designed to shut down the government. I don’t see how payment for basic services can be refused.
For the same reason we fund the National Red Cross; it provides very needed services (pap smears, birth control, STD testing, and so on to those in need who cannot afford them.
It’s a favorite parlor game of us liberals, trying to figure out why a huge segment of American society supports policies that continue to fail. 🙂
Bryan: “I always enjoy seeing y’all try to understand the inner-workings of the conservative mind. It’s like you’re dissecting an alien life form.”
It turns out that if you open their heads, it’s mostly space filled with machinery, and a little, tiny guy who says that the galaxy is on Orion’s belt. Which, of course, makes no sense…
The GOP has been hoisted on it’s on petard. Not sure how the Democrats (or more importantly the nation) benefit by making it easier for Republicans to extricate themselves from this mess. The best outcome would be for the GOP to simply implode entirely and re-form as a more moderate party. The tea party elements could then join with the existing Libertarian Party, where they really belong in the first place, and become a more viable third party. The big tent approach hasn’t worked very well for the GOP and it’s probably time to just ratify the obvious.
Good points. Why, though, would they want to go with their soul-mate Libertarians when they can control their more politically powerful “RINO” allies with threats backed by their string-pulling money machine armed with Koch/Armey/Adelson money.
Did you know that the Constitution does not specifically require the Speaker of the House to be an actual member of the House? It always has been but it’s not technically required—that was news to me.
I agree with Harry—the ideological difference between the extreme Tea Party wing (those who brought down Boehner, whatever you want to call them) and the so-called “moderate” wing of the GOP is greatly exaggerated. I do think it’s a matter of pragmatism vs. “burn down the House”-mentality, but the goals are 95% the same on almost every issue. The GOP disagreement is over means, not ends. I’m old enough to remember REAL moderates in the GOP: names like Javits, Brooke, Mathias, Percy, Rockefeller, Whitman, Hatfield, Packwood, let’s even throw Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford in there too (by comparison to today’s GOP).
Yes, Nixon was a moderate. Or maybe “pragmatist” is a better term. Rockefeller, however, was a liberal…
Re Speaker of the House not required to be a member of the House
That’s interesting, Philip, and a little scary, too. Are they required to be elected by the public to any other office? Of course, since they also have to be elected by the minority party, it may not be as bad as it sounds.
When were things better? Back in the 70’s?
This chart on the Misery Index (inflation + unemployment) suggests the worst period of most of our lifetimes was from 1969 through 1992 with 1974-80 being the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
Do we forget the days of double digit mortgage rates from 1975-1985?
I think there is a lot of selective nostalgia on how beautiful things were in the old days when politicians walked into Congress arm-in-arm singing Kumbaya.
The worst rumor I read today: Republicans are considering bringing Newt Gingrich back as speaker.
“That’s impossible! With no Speaker of the House how will the
EmperorPresident maintain control without the bureaucracy?”“The Regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this
battle stationAdministration.”“Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin.” Oh, you mean Peter Cushing.
I didn’t know that character had a name…
Meanwhile…
I’m looking at the fourth or fifth release I’ve received from Chris Christie saying that no one CARES who the speaker of the House will be:
I guess he’s going to keep saying that over and over until some of the Trumpites pick up on it and go, “Hey, that Chris Christie is just as disgusted with it all as I am! He doesn’t care, either! Maybe I’ll vote for him instead of The Donald…”
At least, I assume that’s his plan. I can’t imagine any other reason that he keeps saying that…
I mean, seriously, what does he think is going to happen in the real world? Does he think members of Congress are going to say, “Oh, Christie doesn’t care who the speaker is! Let’s just stop trying to elect one, and go home…”
No, this is just a pose of alienation, trying to position himself as a fed-up outsider, like all those “regular folks” going for Trump and Carson…
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally. (Isn’t this a tautology?)
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable. (I don’t even know what this means.)
3. A strong military is essential. (Yes.)
4. Special interests must be eliminated. (I don’t think this is possible.)
5. Gun ownership is sacred. (Not sure it’s “sacred”. It’s just a right, like free speech. And y’all know me, I’m one of those crazy gun owners.)
6. Government must be downsized. (Kinda vague, but okay.)
7. The national budget must be balanced. (I’m okay with this, but I’m okay with going into debt responsibly.)
8. Deficit spending must end. (In the long term, eventually yes.)
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal. (Huh? I would have said they’re not always a good idea.)
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must. (Not necessarily.)
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory. (A good idea. Also, I thought is was interesting that they used “mandatory” instead of “a must” like in the previous one. They mean the same thing.)
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens. (I think they maybe mean that campaigns should not be so expensive, but I’m not sure. Also, if that’s the intent, I’m not sure you can do anything about this unless you start passing laws restricting donations.)
13. Intrusive government must be stopped. (This seems repetitive of #6, but I guess with more of a Rand-Paul spin.)
14. English as our core language is required. (As a practical matter it is. Legally, it’s not. To me, this is a dumb, symbolic issue.)
15. Traditional family values are encouraged. (Kind of a judgment call on what those values are, no? Also, doesn’t this conflict with #13 and #6?)
Where you said, “4. Special interests must be eliminated. (I don’t think this is possible.)”…
I’d feel better if you’d add, “… or desirable in a free society, which after all is what these liberty-lovers are supposed to be about.”
I will stipulate to your additional proposed language.
Also, where you say, “As a practical matter it is. Legally, it’s not. To me, this is a dumb, symbolic issue,” I would have said, “…is the kind of dumb, symbolic nonissue you get from xenophobes who don’t know that English already dominates the WORLD and is in no sense endangered.”
But mostly, you and I agree on things. And you see the problem with their extremism. To take but one, their ridiculous insistence that something they don’t like — bailouts and stimulus plans — are ILLEGAL. If you enter the halls of Congress believing THAT, and that “Special interests must be eliminated,” there’s no way you can a positive, contributing member of the body…
Questiton: Could you reduce your debt if people kept reducing your income? Here in SC we’re seeing the results of the determination to reduce taxes no matter what the cost. Our bridges and roads have been deteriorating for some time. But we kept cutting taxes, rather than raising them to fund repairs. Now disaster has struck (as it strikes many if not most people at some time or another) and we are left with a heck of a lot more to pay for. If we don’t raise taxes we won’t have the income to pay for it unless we go farther into debt.
Do you have any evidence that taxes have been cut? In aggregate, not just certain taxes. And please include fees. Spending at the state and local level hasn’t been cut. The problem is where they spend the money.
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally. (Duh. Propose a workable policy.)
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable. (Huh?)
3. A strong military is essential. (Duh. All major parties agree on this.)
4. Special interests must be eliminated. (Include political parties as special interests, and I’m with you. In the real world, there will always be special interests.)
5. Gun ownership is
sacreda right that must be protected.6. Government must be downsized. (Meh. Get specific.)
7. The national budget must be balanced. (Be careful what you ask for. A balanced budget will likely increase your taxes.)
8. Deficit spending must end. (Why? Reduce it, but why end it?)
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal. (Huh?)
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must. (Meh.)
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory. (Meh.)
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens. (Legally, they are. Perhaps you want government to intrude to level the playing field to make political office more accessible?)
13. Intrusive government must be stopped. (No, I guess you don’t want government to intrude…)
14. English as our core language is required. (English is our core language.)
15. Traditional family values are encouraged. (Who defines those values?)
Norm makes a fantastic point here, something that points to the CORE problem with these kinds of extremists:
“Government must be downsized. (Meh. Get specific.)”
One big reason I call these folks nihilists, advocates of mindless destruction, is that they say things like that. They believe, as a non-negotiable item, that whatever “size” the government is, it’s too big. They believe this on the federal level, where a rational argument can almost be made for their position, and they believe it on the state level, which in South Carolina is ridiculous.
I say a rational argument can almost be made on the federal level because there is no such thing as government that is “too big” or “too small” until you get to extremes that we have never seen in this country. Greece — there’s an example of a place where government is too big, because their economy is incapable of sustaining it.
This side of such extremes as that, I don’t care what “size” the government is. “Size” isn’t even a coherent concept to me. Basically, we need to do what it is we think (and this is decided through the process of representative democracy) government should do, figure out how much that costs, and then finance it via taxes that are fair, stable (for instance, you don’t fund fundamental services via a highly volatile tax such as a sales tax) and which have a minimal impact on economic activity.
If you’re one who looks at the aggregate and believes government overall is too “big,” then decide which particular government services should not be funded, and work to build majorities that will agree to defund those things.
Do NOT try to reduce overall government revenues in an attempt to starve out the things you don’t like, but can’t assemble consensus to do away with. That’s absurdly destructive. The programs you don’t like won’t go away as a result. What will happen is that government overall will lack sufficient funds to do the things it is assigned by law to do, and do them well. Everything suffers, including the things you care about (such as a strong military).
When one simply advocates for shrinking government, then your aim becomes clear: You are a destructive person along the lines of Grover Norquist. You simply hate government — which means you hate civilization — and want to be able to drown it in a bathtub…
This, of course, is where this movement went from the rails — when it became opposed to government qua government.
In the Reagan era, and for a decade or two thereafter, the “revolutionaries” were simply anti-tax. They didn’t like taxes, didn’t want to pay them, so they objected to any expansion of government n that basis. Rather selfish and immature of them, but rational.
Then came the Mark Sanfords, the Grover Norquists. They didn’t care where the money to run government came from — it could fall from the sky, or be laid by a golden goose — they didn’t want the government to have the money, because of their vague, nonspecific objection to government — that is to say, civilization — itself.
It took me awhile to understand that this was where these people were coming from, because it was such an absurd proposition.
And so we got such destructive, irrational behavior as Sanford trying to turn away from his state stimulus money that was gong to be spent SOMEWHERE, based on his personal ideological objection to the existence of state government services.
More recently, we had the Republicans who run the State House — by now in thrall to the Sanford types — objecting to Medicaid expansion that the Feds would fund entirely for three years, and at 90 percent thereafter.
This, of course, is irrational behavior based in an ideology that makes no practical sense.
This is fun. I’ll give my 2 cents
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally. (As others have mentioned this is a meaningless tautology. Specifics please. Is “meaningless tautology” a tautology?)
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable. (I read that 5 times trying to understand what it means. Apparently I’m not the only one confused. Perhaps this is an anti-trade statement.)
3. A strong military is essential. (No, an ADEQUATE military is essential. A STRONG military wastes money and causes problems.)
4. Special interests must be eliminated. (Whose special interests? The NRA? The military industrial complex? Besides, wouldn’t that actually violate all sorts of sacred constitutional freedoms since force would be required to eliminate them)
5. Gun ownership is sacred. (Does this mean people who don’t own guns are blasphemous?)
6. Government must be downsized. (How? Seems to conflict with number 3)
7. The national budget must be balanced. (Absolutely not. It should be in deficit or surplus as needed to properly manage the economy)
8. Deficit spending must end. (Isn’t that the same as 7? Perhaps one of these refers to the national debt and not the annual budget.)
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal. (Illegal? You could find these things undesirable but illegal is the type of extreme statement that is so off-putting. As for me some bailouts and some stimulus plans are necessary)
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must. (Again, why this absolute language? Just say it would be a good thing to reduce income taxes because of x, y, z. Besides if we reduce taxes AND keep military spending (3) high achieving 7 and 8 would become very difficult. Reagan found that out.)
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory. (Same comments as 10)
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens. (Like others I missed the memo saying this was not already the case. It is difficult to run for office but this could be facilitated with public funding of elections which of course conflicts with 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11)
13. Intrusive government must be stopped. (This is such a throw away comment. Who is in favor of intrusive government? How do they propose to accomplish this? Of course this conflicts with 3 big time)
14. English as our core language is required. (Everyone here recognizes this as just plain dumb)
15. Traditional family values are encouraged. (Who gets to decide what is a “family value”? Who does the encouraging? This clearly conflicts with 4 and 13. And depending on how much “encouraging” is done that could also cost money and conflict with 7,8, 10, 11)
I could have probably saved a lot of typing just by saying what seems obvious: The devil is in the details. Take 15. If, for example, they want to “encourage” prayer in public schools just say that and not resort to weasel wording.
The clear take-away here is that an educated populace is of central importance to a civil society.
Tea Party.org (at least) fails miserably in demonstrating critical thinking proficiency. Their must have, non-negotiable core “values” are nothing more than populist bunk. This is not an ideology worthy of, or capable of handling, major political power. The Boston Patriots had what the Tea Party does not, a clear, concise and rational reason for being: No taxation without representation. That “core value” is politically persuasive, relevant, and powerful. It remains so today. Those four words are so much more sophisticated and nuanced than the entire 15 point, rambling and ill-formed Tea Party diatribe ever could be; even if rewritten to soundly articulate the ideals they strive to promote.
So why should not the sensible Republican majority reach across the aisle to forge a socially responsible majority with some centrist Democrats that repudiates this inept ideological construct known as the Tea Party? if they want to govern, the Tea Party must make the case for that responsibility; through rational articulation, not by bullying. They haven’t; and frankly, cannot ever do so – which is why they resort to the antics they employ.
Anyone dare to come up with a list of core values for Democrats? I’m sure it will be just as laughable as those of the Tea Party.
I’d suggest the cure values can be stated in one word: Gimme!
Actually, no. Most of the liberals I know are passionate about providing services to people other than themselves.
When a group of people wants something for THEMSELVES or people they perceive to be like themselves, THAT’S an interest group, not a party.
Instead of Democratic core values how about liberal core values instead:
1. Reduce the size of the military to a sustainable level adequate to defend the American borders.
2. Increase the oversight of large and dangerous corporations so that they cannot control the health and welfare of the American people in order to enrich a tiny handful of plutocrats.
3. Reform the tax code to eliminate loopholes for everyone but especially the rich and powerful. Start by eliminating favored tax status for dividends and carried interest.
4. Devote vastly greater resources to improving the nations infrastructure.
5. Abolish capital punishment.
6. Adopt single payer healthcare to replace the failed private sector based approach.
7. Proscribe tough environmental standards to protect against global warming and other assaults by corporate greed on our precious planet.
8. Pass tough laws to send corporate power brokers to jail for destroying the economy rather than merely fine corporations for transgressions.
9. Limit tax deductibility for executive compensation to $200k/year.
10. Liberalize immigration polices. Start with the dream act.
You did a little better than the Tea Party.org platform. At least I understood what you were driving at with each of your points.
I could still only support your 3,4,7, and 8. But that’s a doubling of points vs the Tea Party for me.
1. Reduce the size of the military to a sustainable level adequate to defend the American borders. (No. We have the resources and ability, and therefore the moral obligation, to defend those who can’t defend themselves.)
2. Increase the oversight of large and dangerous corporations so that they cannot control the health and welfare of the American people in order to enrich a tiny handful of plutocrats. (Meh. Pass laws to protect individuals and manage the economy. Send violators to jail. “Large and dangerous corporation” is pretty nebulous.)
3. Reform the tax code to eliminate loopholes for everyone but especially the rich and powerful. Start by eliminating favored tax status for dividends and carried interest. (End this one after the word everyone, and I’m with you.)
4. Devote vastly greater resources to improving the nations infrastructure. (I’m in.)
5. Abolish capital punishment. (I’m in.)
6. Adopt single payer healthcare to replace the failed private sector based approach. (I like single-payer, but I think a hybrid approach would work as well.)
7. Proscribe tough environmental standards to protect against global warming and other assaults by corporate greed on our precious planet. (Use tax policy to encourage the growth of clean energy and discourage the use of fossil fuels. Gradually.)
8. Pass tough laws to send corporate power brokers to jail for destroying the economy rather than merely fine corporations for transgressions. (Similar to #2.)
9. Limit tax deductibility for executive compensation to $200k/year. (No.)
10. Liberalize immigration polices. Start with the dream act. (I’m good with the Dream Act. Still want to hear workable policies on immigration.)
Nothing about abortion, gay marriage, education, safety net programs, voter suppression, affirmative action, or women’s pay equality? Punishing a few murderers by killing them is more important than all those?
Abortion and gay marriage are settled issues. The safety net becomes less important if the other issues are adopted. Voter suppression is still important but can really only be overcome at the grassroots level. I generally agree with conservatives on the affirmative action issue. Women’s pay equality issue is real but greatly exaggerated by liberals. And yes, capital punishment is one of my top issues. It goes to what makes us “exceptional”. And not in a good way.
“Abortion and gay marriage are settled issues.”
These are settled issues because….why?
Same reason slavery is.
Which is…?
Well, they’re not settled issues. But with same-sex marriage in particular, it would be rather silly for Democrats to go on about it NOW, after they’ve just gotten their way on it. (Not through an actual political solution, to be sure, but they might have won if it had come to that — which makes it very different from abortion. It’s impossible to imagine a political result that would have been anything remotely like the absolutism of Roe v. Wade.)
For them, something like income inequality or some such is still a battle to be fought.
I disagree. It was totally a political solution. The majority of those opposed simply stopped fighting it. Just like with the Confederate flag coming down – just through a different venue.
Most people came to the realization, the acceptance, that the reasons to support gay marriage were stronger than the opposing rationales. The reality is not that there was not a political solution agreed to by all, but that some state politicians were more interested in ducking and letting the courts handle it. So they did. Because, really, we should have one set of laws for this land and those laws should be inclusive of all people. That’s people, btw, so don’t jump down the (fetal) rabbit hole.
Check the DNA of said fetus. We’re most certainly talking about a human — not, say, a rabbit…