Current or modern politics in the United States

[9876543210]

blueballsdc,

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

My friend, you forget that people have very short memories.

No, I haven't forgotten, I just wish you were wrong (even though you're not). So, to help people not forget, I guess we'll have to make sure we keep calling him Gov. Ultrasound. Kind of catchy, don't you think? It'll be harder to forget if the name sticks.

His views were well known before the election (along with Ken Cuccinelli who is even worse) yet lots of women voted for him for governor. A lot of women supported him through the ultrasound nonsense and continue to support him now. If he spends the next couple of years campaigning, as I believe he will, people will forget (or ignore) what he has said and done before.

Again, Gov. Ultrasound cannot be forgotten. Women in Virginia may have supported him but I think his chances with the national womens vote will be more difficult. And I'm sure Rachel Maddow won't forget about him. She's invited him on her show many times but he's too much of a coward to show up.

Of course, a lot will depend upon who else decides to run. I expect Rick Perry will throw his hat in the ring again (and probably miss) along with Paul Ryan. Marco Rubio is clearly being groomed for bigger and better things, although he may choose to wait a few years longer. I also have a sneaking suspicion that Ted Cruz may try his hand at a presidential campaign.

Its really early but there's only one Republican I think has a chance in a general election - Chris Christie. But I also don't think he has a chance in a primary as the religious right (who vote in the primaries) doesn't like him. And he doesn't seem to like them very much. So, getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but nationally, I really don't think Gov. Ultrasound has much of a chance. Too much of a "god-botherer".

[9876543210]

blueballsdc,

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

The Republican party is far from dead. Just look at their control of Governorships, state legislatures, and local municipalities.

Agreed. They have all three houses in my state (Wisconsin) right now but I think they'll lose some of those in the next election as they've done some things people really don't like. Probably like that in other states as well.

I'm not saying that the party won't change. I could very well imagine a split between the religious elements, the conservative elements, and the moderate elements of the party. There are many Republicans that are fiscal and social conservatives but not very religious.

There aren't a lot of Republicans where I live but I know a few outside of the area. Most are old school; fiscal conservatives who would prefer smaller government (something I understand and agree with). Most all of these people just don't understand what is happening with the party and they're becoming very uncomfortable. How long will they continue to support the party? Don't know. Stay tuned.

Seems to me they will have to change eventually. But I don't see them doing it right now. Just look at that vote for Sandy aid relief. An interesting article from the Palm Beach Post:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ne...-hurric/nWCyk/

With a couple of quotes:

"A majority of Florida’s congressional delegation claimed to have voted against the Hurricane Sandy aid bill on fiscal principle. They are from the wrong state to cast such a vote on such a flimsy principle.

The $51 billion aid package, most of it for New York and New Jersey, cleared the Senate Monday by a vote of 62-36. All the no votes came from Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. On Jan. 15, the legislation passed the House 241-180. Thirteen of Florida’s 16 House Republicans voted no. The exceptions were Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami and Bill Young of St. Petersburg. All nine Democrats voted for the relief bill."

Maybe people would believe Republicans were fiscal conservatives except the Bush administration spent like raped apes and wouldn't put the cost of two wars on the books. Fiscal conservatives? Yeah right. When pigs fly.

I can't see things ending up as multi-party because the politics in the USA are really only set up for two big parties.

Well, things can change. Maybe its best they do as the current Republicans seem to be in real trouble. The Brits seem to do OK with a multi-party system. We can probably do as well.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

I can't see things ending up as multi-party because the politics in the USA are really only set up for two big parties.

One of the advantages of the US "Two-Party" system is that it forces the parties to address all the issues and to at least attempt to appeal to the majority of the population. It keeps the one-issue extremists out of positions where they can force the shut-down of the government or a collapse of a "ruling coalition".

[MisterMacky]

Originally Posted by DTravel

One of the advantages of the US "Two-Party" system is that it forces the parties to address all the issues and to at least attempt to appeal to the majority of the population. It keeps the one-issue extremists out of positions where they can force the shut-down of the government or a collapse of a "ruling coalition".

You really believe what you have just written?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Maybe people would believe Republicans were fiscal conservatives except the Bush administration spent like raped apes and wouldn't put the cost of two wars on the books. Fiscal conservatives? Yeah right. When pigs fly.



Well, things can change. Maybe its best they do as the current Republicans seem to be in real trouble. The Brits seem to do OK with a multi-party system. We can probably do as well.

Britain has a sort of two-and-a-bit party system. Our Liberal Democrat Party is really a "none of the above" box. That's why I vote for them. I was a bit disappointed when they got into government, though actually I think they've cramped the Tory style and that's a damn good thing. I dread the idea of Cameron in office without a coalition partner; he's bad enough when he's got a coalition partner.

I wonder if history will remember George W Bush as a Republican at all. He was more like a Whig. He saw himself as a moderniser, when in reality he was promoting an archaic economic model; the Reaganomics trickle down theory. His education policies were pietistic, promoting religious contamination of science, the so-called creationism, intelligent design, dogmas which were taught in Sunday school before Charles Darwin published; ignorance and bullshit taught to kids who deserve to be taught verifiable truth. This was some sick re-wind from Inherit the Wind. Eisenhower and Nixon would have stamped out this crap from their administration. It was Reagan who first sucked up to the religio-fascist right in the form of the Reverend Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority.

Fiscal conservatives in todays world should vote Democrat. In fact, most of them probably did.

[9876543210]

DTravel,

Originally Posted by DTravel

It keeps the one-issue extremists out of positions where they can force the shut-down of the government or a collapse of a "ruling coalition".

Not sure what you mean here. Newt Gingrich and his ilk shut down the federal government back in, what was it, 1994? I don't think that did the Republicans much good as I think they lost pretty badly in the next election.

And I won't exactly be surprised to see another shutdown at the end of March as I think thats what the extreme right really wants. They have just enough members, and the threat to primary others, that they have just enough influence to pull that off it they want. Where it will lead them is probably to no good. Probably the same as Gingrich.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Britain has a sort of two-and-a-bit party system.

Maybe you could better explain "two and a bit" and how well that works. It wouldn't surprise me to see a large Democratic party, a very small Republican party consisting of a few moderates and fiscal conservatives and then a "god botherer" party which only appeals to those people. But if that does happen the Republicans and "god botherers" may never win another general election.

Our Liberal Democrat Party is really a "none of the above" box.

None of the above? Meaning they're better than nothing?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

scoundrel,

Maybe you could better explain "two and a bit" and how well that works. It wouldn't surprise me to see a large Democratic party, a very small Republican party consisting of a few moderates and fiscal conservatives and then a "god botherer" party which only appeals to those people. But if that does happen the Republicans and "god botherers" may never win another general election.

None of the above? Meaning they're better than nothing?

In general our politics conform to the two-party model. We have a significant third party, the Lib-Dems; they are the fraction in the "two and a bit". The Lib-Dems are routinely characterised as a "wasted vote" in national politics because the last time they mustered a majority in a general election was in 1910. The history of the Liberals (as they used to be called) is complicated. They used to be the natural party of opposition and the reformers when in power: their greatest leaders were William Gladstone, then Herbert Asquith, then finally David Lloyd-George. Their bedrock support came from the 1870 Reform Act, which gave the vote to all men over 21; they were an interesting alliance of urban working class men, usually factory workers, and their bosses, the mill owners. Even way back then, industrial relations were difficult and strikes were not unusual; yet man and maister had a lot of mutual respect and agreed about a lot of stuff, including the need for local government, schools and infrastructure, and that being governed by landed gentry suited neither of them. The Liberal Party was a middle class party with a lot of shared interests with the respectable working poor.

Eventually the Liberals lost their working class support when the Labour Party became a national force. The Liberals were wiped out in the 1924 general election, with only middle class professionals and industrialists supporting them. By the 1970s they were the party of academia and the liberal intelligentsia, the rural working class (who distrusted the urban workers, not without just cause) and the Celtic fringe; in 1957 they were down to five MPs and it was said they could hold meetings in the back of a taxi.

They regained some status and influence after first allying themselves and then merging with the anti-socialist Labour dissident faction, the Social Democrat Party in the 1980s. Their re-emergence reflects a lot of British alienation from the extremist positions of Labour under Michael Foot and the Tories under Margaret Thatcher. Since then, Labour and the Tories have adopted more centre-leaning positions, but the Liberal Democrat attract support from voters who have no confidence in either of them not to revert to type when they have control of the steering wheel. This support is likely to be severely dented next time due to unpopular decisions they have supported when sharing power; when you accept responsibility for making decisions, you are pretty nearly bound to get some of them wrong.

If the Republican split, it will make it more complex for a President of any party to get legislation enacted in Congress; but it might make it more feasible. The ability to work with Congress will be more important than ever, but there will be opportunities for a Democrat president to play off one Republican faction against another. A Republican president, if elected, would need to gain support from Democrats in the house, almost certainly needing to create an alliance of fiscal conservative Republicans (or whatever they decide to call themselves) and mainstream Democrats against socially conservative Republicans to pass budgets and pass social reforms, for example the statutory enforcement of the First Amendment by forbidding the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools, and probably to frustrate attempts to enact anti-abortion legislation and interfere with the personal freedom of American women. I think that if the Republicans ever were to split, they would never reunite. One faction would become dominant and regain the second/first party position. The other faction would fade away gradually like the Whigs, but like the Whigs, their philosophical ideas would continue to influence the debate generations later.

[blueballsdc]

Down but not out:

Tagg Romney considering running for Massachusetts Senate
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02...ate-84821.html

Mitt Romney's son Tagg (yes, it is a stupid name as discussed in other threads) is considering a run to take the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry.

I wonder if there is a Kennedy available to run against him?

[MisterMacky]

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Down but not out:

Tagg Romney considering running for Massachusetts Senate
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02...ate-84821.html

Mitt Romney's son Tagg (yes, it is a stupid name as discussed in other threads) is considering a run to take the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry.

I wonder if there is a Kennedy available to run against him?

Is that really his name?

Dad, why is my name Tagg?
Because I am an asshole.