GOP needs to be less old, white, and fat.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So says Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan's chief strategist during the 80s.

"It is a bunch of old white guys. Unfortunately, a lot of them are fat like me," he said. [Note: Rollins failed to mention senile.] "We need to basically broaden the base. We need to have more women. We need to have more Latinos. We need to have more African Americans."

If Rollins were picking the VP candidate for the pubs, he'd pick Rubio. "If we don't win Florida, we don't win the presidency. It would be an exciting choice."

"The modern GOP -- the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes -- is staring down its own demographic extinction," Jonathan Chait wrote earlier this year. But instead of compromising by moving to the center to attract independents, he argued, the Republican Party has moved further to the right. "It has appeared increasingly likely that the party's great all-or-nothing bet may land, ultimately, on nothing,"


And here we have Romney given a golden opportunity to win due the hangover of the The Great Recession, and he still finds ways to alienate potential pub votes in order to appease the most conservative wing of the party.

[Position Limit]

So says Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan's chief strategist during the 80s.

"It is a bunch of old white guys. Unfortunately, a lot of them are fat like me," he said. [Note: Rollins failed to mention senile.] "We need to basically broaden the base. We need to have more women. We need to have more Latinos. We need to have more African Americans."

If Rollins were picking the VP candidate for the pubs, he'd pick Rubio. "If we don't win Florida, we don't win the presidency. It would be an exciting choice."

"The modern GOP -- the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes -- is staring down its own demographic extinction," Jonathan Chait wrote earlier this year. But instead of compromising by moving to the center to attract independents, he argued, the Republican Party has moved further to the right. "It has appeared increasingly likely that the party's great all-or-nothing bet may land, ultimately, on nothing,"


And here we have Romney given a golden opportunity to win due the hangover of the The Great Recession, and he still finds ways to alienate potential pub votes in order to appease the most conservative wing of the party.

between old fat white guys, rubics cubes and hangovers it's no wonder this grand party cant find reality with two hands and a flashlight. it's a dying fuc*8ing breed. oh and vapid wives that avoid sex with their chubby azzes. SIGN ME UP!!!!!!! GOP needs a new lee atwater. yesterday. they mos def lack 1980's vintage of fear and loathing.

[olevetonahill]

So says Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan's chief strategist during the 80s.

"It is a bunch of old white guys. Unfortunately, a lot of them are fat like me," he said. [Note: Rollins failed to mention senile.] "We need to basically broaden the base. We need to have more women. We need to have more Latinos. We need to have more African Americans."

If Rollins were picking the VP candidate for the pubs, he'd pick Rubio. "If we don't win Florida, we don't win the presidency. It would be an exciting choice."

"The modern GOP -- the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes -- is staring down its own demographic extinction," Jonathan Chait wrote earlier this year. But instead of compromising by moving to the center to attract independents, he argued, the Republican Party has moved further to the right. "It has appeared increasingly likely that the party's great all-or-nothing bet may land, ultimately, on nothing,"


And here we have Romney given a golden opportunity to win due the hangover of the The Great Recession, and he still finds ways to alienate potential pub votes in order to appease the most conservative wing of the party.
So yer sayin become a ONE party system ? Make every one Dem?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So yer sayin become a ONE party system ? Make every one Dem?

I can't speak for Ed Rollins, but I'd say the pubs should emphasize the libertarian aspects more so than the cultural conservative aspects.

[Sooner5030]

I'm not that worried about being a certain age, color, or shape. But the GOP needs to be less authoritarian and more libertarian.

the "old, white, and fat" comment is good stuff for the same crowd/herd that still wears a team (dem/pub) logo on their shirt though.

[rock on sooner]

So yer sayin become a ONE party system ? Make every one Dem?

Hell, Vet, my thots exactly. When I read that, one giant
Democratic party flashed before my eyes!

[rock on sooner]

I can't speak for Ed Rollins, but I'd say the pubs should emphasize the libertarian aspects more so than the cultural conservative aspects.

SJS, that'll never happen cause the Pubs don't want individual
thinking and ideas...

[sappstuf]

I Googled the first couple of lines from the OP. The only hit it got was on this exact board in this exact thread.


So says Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan's chief strategist during the 80s. "It is a bunch of old white guys. Unfortunately, a lot of them are fat like me," he said.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=So+says+Ed+Rollins%2C+Ronald+Reagan's+chief+stra tegist+during+the+80s.++%22It+is+a+bunch+of+old+wh ite+guys.+Unfortunately%2C+a+lot+of+them+are+fat+l ike+me%2C%22+he+said.+&oq=So+says+Ed+Rollins%2C+Ronald+Reagan's+chief+str ategist+during+the+80s.++%22It+is+a+bunch+of+old+w hite+guys.+Unfortunately%2C+a+lot+of+them+are+fat+ like+me%2C%22+he+said.+&gs_l=hp.12...2152.2152.0.19770.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0. 0...0.1.0I7EFcxXGdo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b4c92a2d29177826&biw=1366&bih=643

[virginiasooner]

So says Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan's chief strategist during the 80s.

"It is a bunch of old white guys. Unfortunately, a lot of them are fat like me," he said. [Note: Rollins failed to mention senile.] "We need to basically broaden the base. We need to have more women. We need to have more Latinos. We need to have more African Americans."

If Rollins were picking the VP candidate for the pubs, he'd pick Rubio. "If we don't win Florida, we don't win the presidency. It would be an exciting choice."

"The modern GOP -- the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes -- is staring down its own demographic extinction," Jonathan Chait wrote earlier this year. But instead of compromising by moving to the center to attract independents, he argued, the Republican Party has moved further to the right. "It has appeared increasingly likely that the party's great all-or-nothing bet may land, ultimately, on nothing,"


And here we have Romney given a golden opportunity to win due the hangover of the The Great Recession, and he still finds ways to alienate potential pub votes in order to appease the most conservative wing of the party.

Can't believe I agree with Ed Rollins (who can be a bit of a blowhard). The GOP needs to give up their war on women (and kick the anti-abortion nutcases to the curb), quit the homophobia, and drop all the other red meat social issues that are nothing but divisive. Maybe if the GOP would stop with the anti-voting laws they're pushing through state legislatures, they'd get more non-white people to vote for them. At first, I thought Romney was being a stand-up guy by speaking to the NAACP convention. But it's clear now that he played the crowd, insulting them by calling the ACA "Obamacare". Romney was speaking to people who weren't there -- who would hear him being booed, and would vote for him because he stoood up to the NAACP.

[jkjsooner]

So yer sayin become a ONE party system ? Make every one Dem?

That's an odd comment considering the part you posted. Are you saying that Republicans have no desire to appeal to these demographics or that the only way to do so is to turn into a Republican?

[olevetonahill]

SJS, that'll never happen cause the Pubs don't want individual
thinking and ideas...

Naw thats jes funny

What the Dems want?
Oh yea Mo folk with they hand out wanting free stuff

[KantoSooner]

I can't speak for Ed Rollins, but I'd say the pubs should emphasize the libertarian aspects more so than the cultural conservative aspects.

ding ding ding. Winnah! The republican party long ago left its roots as the party of small and unintrusive government (the party of Goldwater, for example) and became the party of the Church Lady. It'll have to go back to its roots....or it will go away permanently.

[LiveLaughLove]

This is nothing new. Every election cycle since I can recall (40 years app.) We have been told that we must move left our perish.

When we do, we lose. McCain was a media darling before running against Obama, and he got trounced.

Moving left doesn't work. If a conservative truly states the case for individual liberty and freedom from government he can win today just as in the past. It he sounds like democrat lite, he will get beat. There's no outdoing the handouts the democrats can do.

If minorities wish to remain shackled to the soft slavery of a nanny state then they need to keep right on voting for their slave masters, the democrats.

[virginiasooner]

ding ding ding. Winnah! The republican party long ago left its roots as the party of small and unintrusive government (the party of Goldwater, for example) and became the party of the Church Lady. It'll have to go back to its roots....or it will go away permanently.

Do you want the "unintrusive government" that would fit inside all women's reproductive organs?

[KantoSooner]

No, I want the unintrusive government that leaves management of women's reproductive organs to, um, the women in possession of said organs.
Y'know, 'unintrusive' as in 'unintrusive'. As in 'butting out'. Or 'doing as little as it can possibly get away with'. Or 'not imposing upon'. Or 'staying the hell out of private individuals' business'.
That sort of of 'unintrusive'. See Also: New England Town Hall Democracy; Conscience of a Conservative; On Liberty; etc.

[LiveLaughLove]

Do you want the "unintrusive government" that would fit inside all women's reproductive organs?

Nah, just one that protects the right of the individual to life. You know, like the constitution says.

[marfacowboy]

It's too bad a third party really has no chance in our system, because both of these parties are largely failures. The Republicans, for reasons that are obvious, but the Democrats, as well.
The Democrats are compromised by big business nearly as much as the Republicans, and they seem to be equally hawkish. I can't say a lot for ttheir environmental record, either. Obama has largely been a disappointment to the left.
More than anything, we need some good people in office. People that are willing to do the right thing, and that really care about solving problems. Problem is, I'm not sure anyone like that can win an election, because it takes big money and the money is controlled by organizations and individuals that expect results after they write the checks.
The whole goddamn country is held hostage by money and greed.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I Googled the first couple of lines from the OP. The only hit it got was on this exact board in this exact thread.



https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=So+says+Ed+Rollins%2C+Ronald+Reagan's+chief+stra tegist+during+the+80s.++%22It+is+a+bunch+of+old+wh ite+guys.+Unfortunately%2C+a+lot+of+them+are+fat+l ike+me%2C%22+he+said.+&oq=So+says+Ed+Rollins%2C+Ronald+Reagan's+chief+str ategist+during+the+80s.++%22It+is+a+bunch+of+old+w hite+guys.+Unfortunately%2C+a+lot+of+them+are+fat+ like+me%2C%22+he+said.+&gs_l=hp.12...2152.2152.0.19770.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0. 0...0.1.0I7EFcxXGdo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b4c92a2d29177826&biw=1366&bih=643


Google is a tricky thing. Key words: old white fat ...

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=old+white+fat&oq=old+white+fat&gs_l=hp.3...1607.3791.0.4259.13.10.0.3.3.0.203.115 6.4j5j1.10.0...0.0.Fyd7om0BU_0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=c4e208f746d57a1b&biw=1280&bih=793


In any case, here is the Rollins interview on Fox News :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/ed-rollins-republican-party-old-white-guys_n_1663304.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

[KantoSooner]

Marfa, I think you underestimate the power of the groups on the 'left'. The unions, Public Interest Research Groups, etc., etc.
Although money makes it easier to get heard if your numbers are small, it is really persistence, rather than money that gives a group influence. And the 'left' is easily as persistent as the right.
We actually have a system that is fairly open to partisans of one issue or another. The problem is that those of us who are not ready to engage in jihad tend to get shouted out because we like to vote and then get back to real life....meanwhile, the zealots keep going and going and going.
If those of us who want mellower government are serious, we will be required to get involved with local political party orgs. It's what the religious nutbags did starting in the late 1960's when Nixon illadvisedly invited them into the big tent. And now we have a republican party that somehow conflates church attendance with 'conservatism'.

[badger]

The Democrats in this state are old, white and fat. I say that because the Democrats used to be the majority, so people that still cling to be Demmies tend to be old. A majority of Oklahoma's population is white, so they tend to be white also. And let's face it --- the entire state of Oklahoma should be on a treadmill right now, so we're all fat, too.

Old, white, and fat. I guess that describes Oklahoma Republicans as well in some cases, but especially Oklahoma Democrats. If you don't believe me, just show up to a Dem Party get together in some county some time. They'll be old, because only old people attend partisan party events (and once again, because Dems used to be everywhere in Oklahoma and only the old ones are left), they'll be white, because that's just what most people in Oklahoma are, and they'll be fat, because that's what all people are in Oklahoma*

*Ok, everyone except you.

[marfacowboy]

Marfa, I think you underestimate the power of the groups on the 'left'. The unions, Public Interest Research Groups, etc., etc.
Although money makes it easier to get heard if your numbers are small, it is really persistence, rather than money that gives a group influence. And the 'left' is easily as persistent as the right.


I agree to a point. I think it's much more of a war of attrition with the left, whereas the right tends to operate with money and outright power. We haven't had a long enough period of time to observe and accurately judge the effects of Citizens United. It might take ten years for us to know the real outcome, but I don't see it as being something the helps the left very much, if any.
But again, the biggest issue I see right now is the lack of reasonable people that are willing to sit down at the table and compromise. The House, for example, went through this ridiculous charade trying to overturn the law again, even though it won't pass the Senate and Obama will veto it. It's completely counterproductive. The whole nation is being held hostage by these nitwits. Talk about running the government like a business, well, it's sure as hell not these clowns that are going to get it done. If I ran my business like Congress runs, I'd be out of business.

[virginiasooner]

Nah, just one that protects the right of the individual to life. You know, like the constitution says.

Please cite the article and clause in the Constitution that says what you say it says.

[KantoSooner]

For better or worse, we had, nationally, for a long time a baseline consensus of who was going to sit at the big table.
That fell apart in the 1960's with a radical expansion of both voting rights and grass roots participation. Good things, to an extent. It obliterated the traditional 'gatekeepers' in the major parties, however. it's going to require an effort on the part of the party hierarchies to reassert dominion much like they did in the 1880's, before we get back to any semblance of 'orderly' legislative process.

[Sooner5030]

Please cite the article and clause in the Constitution that says what you say it says.

It's actually in the second paragraph of the dec of indy not in the constitution.....to be fair to LLL most of us have the little handy book that includes both.

[LiveLaughLove]

It's actually in the second paragraph of the dec of indy not in the constitution.....to be fair to LLL most of us have the little handy book that includes both.

Correct, I consider them almost to be the same. My bad. The point still stands. The individual has the right to life. If we can't protect that then nothing else matters.

who else won't be worthy of life? The old? The infirm? Downs syndrome babies?

For societies sake, where do we draw the line?

[sappstuf]

I agree to a point. I think it's much more of a war of attrition with the left, whereas the right tends to operate with money and outright power. We haven't had a long enough period of time to observe and accurately judge the effects of Citizens United. It might take ten years for us to know the real outcome, but I don't see it as being something the helps the left very much, if any. But again, the biggest issue I see right now is the lack of reasonable people that are willing to sit down at the table and compromise. The House, for example, went through this ridiculous charade trying to overturn the law again, even though it won't pass the Senate and Obama will veto it. It's completely counterproductive. The whole nation is being held hostage by these nitwits. Talk about running the government like a business, well, it's sure as hell not these clowns that are going to get it done. If I ran my business like Congress runs, I'd be out of business.

Is that anything like the charade of Obama once again calling for a tax increase on everyone making over $250K a year even though it has no chance in the House and Harry Reid won't even allow a vote on it because the outcome would embarrass Obama??

[TitoMorelli]

Can't believe I agree with Ed Rollins (who can be a bit of a blowhard). The GOP needs to give up their war on women (and kick the anti-abortion nutcases to the curb), quit the homophobia, and drop all the other red meat social issues that are nothing but divisive. Maybe if the GOP would stop with the anti-voting laws they're pushing through state legislatures, they'd get more non-white people to vote for them. At first, I thought Romney was being a stand-up guy by speaking to the NAACP convention. But it's clear now that he played the crowd, insulting them by calling the ACA "Obamacare". Romney was speaking to people who weren't there -- who would hear him being booed, and would vote for him because he stoood up to the NAACP.

What pathetic tripe.

It's a sign of desperation when the "other side" now must spin to try to convince people that a candidate intentionally tried to get booed.

[marfacowboy]

Is that anything like the charade of Obama once again calling for a tax increase on everyone making over $250K a year even though it has no chance in the House and Harry Reid won't even allow a vote on it because the outcome would embarrass Obama??

I'm not familiar with that effort, but I've been highly critical of Obama from day one. I'm not a fan, mostly because he's too hawkish for my tastes, too close to Wall Street money (although he's got to have money coming from somewhere, I suppose), and he's been weaker than what I wanted on the environment.

[virginiasooner]

What pathetic tripe.

It's a sign of desperation when the "other side" now must spin to try to convince people that a candidate intentionally tried to get booed.

Especially when Romney says he knew what he was in for and knew he was going to get booed. Who's desperate and pathetic now?

[sappstuf]

Especially when Romney says he knew what he was in for and knew he was going to get booed. Who's desperate and pathetic now?

Knowing is different than intentionally trying to get booed.

[badger]

Is that anything like the charade of Obama once again calling for a tax increase on everyone making over $250K a year even though it has no chance in the House and Harry Reid won't even allow a vote on it because the outcome would embarrass Obama??

To be fair, it's not a tax increase per se, it's letting existing tax increases expire. I know, I know, TECHNICALITY!!!!! But still, that matters because they can stand by and do nothing and it'll have the same effect: Taxes will go back up for the $250k group.

Of course, if they do nothing-nothing, taxes will go up for the rest of us under-$250k'ers too...

[rock on sooner]

Knowing is different than intentionally trying to get booed.

Yea, but Sapp, you gotta know that Romney was in front of a
notoriously demonstrative audience and had to expect a full
range of emotions from that audience. It's kinda like being
in Phiadelphia, where they boo Santa Claus...

[TitoMorelli]

Especially when Romney says he knew what he was in for and knew he was going to get booed. Who's desperate and pathetic now?

Of course he knew he wasn't in for a love-fest, since the NAACP leadership (classic oxymoron there) is so blindly obedient to its plantation owners while furthering the exploitation of those whose interests it pretends to serve.

And even though most of the lamestream media apparently want to ignore it, he apparently received a standing ovation at the end of his speech. I suppose you believe he planned that out as well.

But it's quite a stretch from "expected a less than enthusiastic response" to "intentionally tried to muster some boo's from the audience." But you keep right on guzzling the kool-aid provided by Nancy Pelosi and MSNBC. Of course there's no way at all that your eternally honest and benevolent left-wing compatriots would claim such a thing in order to deflect attention away from the classless people who actually did the booing.

[KantoSooner]

For societies sake, where do we draw the line?

That's precisely it. And, in our society, the line is largely drawn by the Supreme Court...who've taken a very hard issue and drawn a line. The line drawn satisfies fully absolutists on neither side of the debate; that, in itself, is pretty fair evidence that the court reached an equitable compromise.

[badger]

Of course he knew he wasn't in for a love-fest, since the NAACP leadership (classic oxymoron there) is so blindly obedient to its plantation owners while furthering the exploitation of those whose interests it pretends to serve..

Isn't it amazing how one-party black voters tend to be, whereas many other groups, from whites, to women, to Hispanics (in Texas, in Florida...) do not ally overwhelmingly with one party?

[SCOUT]

Especially when Romney says he knew what he was in for and knew he was going to get booed. Who's desperate and pathetic now?
Saying what you think is right, even if it is going to receive an unpleasant response, isn't the definition of desperate and pathetic. Some might even call it principled.

[LiveLaughLove]

That's precisely it. And, in our society, the line is largely drawn by the Supreme Court...who've taken a very hard issue and drawn a line. The line drawn satisfies fully absolutists on neither side of the debate; that, in itself, is pretty fair evidence that the court reached an equitable compromise.

Thankfully, we as a people get to continue to voice our concerns and politically fight on issues that we disagree on.

I mean Hillary care became Obama care. It didn't just die.

Things get brought before Congress and the supreme court all of the time they have been ruled on in the past.

Enough on that though. I get your side of it. I will just never ever agree, and you probably won't with me.

To the original point, republicans will never out democrat democrats.

[marfacowboy]

who else won't be worthy of life? The old? The infirm? Downs syndrome babies?

For societies sake, where do we draw the line?

This is the classic abortion, slippery slope argument first postulated (http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Human-Race-Revised/dp/0891072918/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342119201&sr=1-1&keywords=francis+schaeffer+whatever+happened) by the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, probably the greatest Christian philosopher of our time. Intellectually, he's more important than C.S. Lewis;however, he's wrong in assuming abortion will lead to widespread euthanasia and infanticide.
I studied him extensively in late '70's and early 80's and found him to be highly interesting and extremely intelligent. Never bought his arguments, though.
I think it's fascinating to contrast the Christian right's views on abortion and the "right to life" with their views on capital punishment, ecocide and preemptive, unilateral war.

[virginiasooner]

And even though most of the lamestream media apparently want to ignore it, he apparently received a standing ovation at the end of his speech.

Romney got the same sort of standing ovation that Elie Kazan got at the Academy Awards in 1999 -- a lot of people sat on their hands.

[Sooner98]

Do you want the "unintrusive government" that would fit inside all women's reproductive organs?

If it means fewer unborn human beings getting murdered in cold blood, I am all for more intrusive government.

[okie52]

Romney got the same sort of standing ovation that Elie Kazan got at the Academy Awards in 1999 -- a lot of people sat on their hands.

What an open minded group.

[Sooner98]

Can't believe I agree with Ed Rollins (who can be a bit of a blowhard). The GOP needs to give up their war on women (and kick the anti-abortion nutcases to the curb), quit the homophobia, and drop all the other red meat social issues that are nothing but divisive. Maybe if the GOP would stop with the anti-voting laws they're pushing through state legislatures, they'd get more non-white people to vote for them. At first, I thought Romney was being a stand-up guy by speaking to the NAACP convention. But it's clear now that he played the crowd, insulting them by calling the ACA "Obamacare". Romney was speaking to people who weren't there -- who would hear him being booed, and would vote for him because he stoood up to the NAACP.

Whatever.

You mean the "red meat social issues" that liberals would (and do) blow a gasket over whenever the electorate or the courts don't decide the way that they want them to? Why don't the left just give up on these same issues and quit being so divisive over them?

[badger]

however, he's wrong in assuming abortion will lead to widespread euthanasia and infanticide

Abortion's pretty common in the most populous country in the world (yes, China).

[KantoSooner]

Thankfully, we as a people get to continue to voice our concerns and politically fight on issues that we disagree on.

I mean Hillary care became Obama care. It didn't just die.

Things get brought before Congress and the supreme court all of the time they have been ruled on in the past.

Enough on that though. I get your side of it. I will just never ever agree, and you probably won't with me.

To the original point, republicans will never out democrat democrats.

Thank you and congratulations to both of us. We managed to make our opposing points without descending into argumentative brutality.

While I agree that the Dems tend to be more the party of pander, I think the Reps could be far more inclusive if they returned to their historic roots in limited, hands off government and left the social issues to non-governmental groups.

[okie52]

Abortion's pretty common in the most populous country in the world (yes, China).

Evidently its usually used to abort women.

[okie52]

Thank you and congratulations to both of us. We managed to make our opposing points without descending into argumentative brutality.

While I agree that the Dems tend to be more the party of pander, I think the Reps could be far more inclusive if they returned to their historic roots in limited, hands off government and left the social issues to non-governmental groups.

Panderers...He11 the dems are doormats.

Reps could let go of a lot of social issues...except for illegals...but that's really a national security issue.

[Sooner98]

Thank you and congratulations to both of us. We managed to make our opposing points without descending into argumentative brutality.

While I agree that the Dems tend to be more the party of pander, I think the Reps could be far more inclusive if they returned to their historic roots in limited, hands off government and left the social issues to non-governmental groups.

Again, why do Republicans need to leave their hands off social issues, while the Democrats get to shamelessly cram their social issues agenda down America's throat?

[XingTheRubicon]

Old, white, fat....don't forget employed.

[KantoSooner]

Again, why do Republicans need to leave their hands off social issues, while the Democrats get to shamelessly cram their social issues agenda down America's throat?

My view? Because government, fundamentally, should not be involved in telling me what to eat, what to wear, what to read, who to sleep with (and what we do)(yes, yes, consenting adult humans, fine), which direction I point when thinking deep thoughts (and whether I should be required to think thusly)....and lots of other things. And I believe deeply that a party that championed such a government would do fantastically well at the polls.

It's an approach that has the virture of not having been tried....at least not for a long long time.

[Sooner98]

My view? Because government, fundamentally, should not be involved in telling me what to eat, what to wear, what to read, who to sleep with (and what we do)(yes, yes, consenting adult humans, fine), which direction I point when thinking deep thoughts (and whether I should be required to think thusly)....and lots of other things. And I believe deeply that a party that championed such a government would do fantastically well at the polls.

It's an approach that has the virture of not having been tried....at least not for a long long time.

A) The government should tell you what to eat.
B) The government should tell you what to wear.
C) The government should tell you what to read.
D) The government should tell you who to sleep with (and what to do between consenting adults).
E) The government should tell you which direction to point when thinking deep thoughts (and whether you should think thusly).

The GOP does not believe in any of these things, as you are implying. And as despicable as the Democratic Party is, I don't think they believe in any of these either. This is a classic example of a strawman.

[marfacowboy]

Again, why do Republicans need to leave their hands off social issues, while the Democrats get to shamelessly cram their social issues agenda down America's throat?

Who's saying your party should stay out of social issues? I think what liberals are saying is stay out of my bedroom and out of my personal healthcare decisions. Everything is ultimately a "social issue."

[KantoSooner]

A) The government should tell you what to eat.
B) The government should tell you what to wear.
C) The government should tell you what to read.
D) The government should tell you who to sleep with (and what to do between consenting adults).
E) The government should tell you which direction to point when thinking deep thoughts (and whether you should think thusly).

The GOP does not believe in any of these things, as you are implying. And as despicable as the Democratic Party is, I don't think they believe in any of these either. This is a classic example of a strawman.

I think you need to go back and review comments by Ms. Bachman and Mr. Santorum who most definitely DO feel that our national government should dictate in vast areas of one's private life.

The GOP today spends far too much of its time on 'gay marriage' (and 'gay' anything), bickering over 'proper' gender roles, sweating over an idiotic prohibition of choice of intoxicants, wading through the mire of somehow 'defending' religious 'rights' (as though 'religion' in a country where no one could be elected to any office without public genuflection and where it seems like a large portion of every corporation and every downtown is owned by churches is in any way threatened) and on and on. All of these issues are a) not the province of government and, b) ultimately a massive waste of the time and energy of legislators.

I'm a lifelong Republican and I hardly recognize the party. It has become a social-activist organization seeking to impose the supposed standards of some Ozzie and Harriet NeverLand....and it would enjoy much greater success if it would drop the social engineering and try working toward good/small government...as it once championed.

[XingTheRubicon]

Who's saying your party should stay out of social issues? I think what liberals are saying is stay out of my civil unions and pay for my personal healthcare decisions. Everything is ultimately a "social issue."

fixed

[Sooner98]

Who's saying your party should stay out of social issues?

Kanto and virginiasooner did.


I think what liberals are saying is stay out of my bedroom

What Republican is pushing legislation to regulate what people do in their bedroom?


and out of my personal healthcare decisions.

If one of your "healthcare decisions" involves killing another person, then it is my moral responsibility to try and see to it that you can't.


Everything is ultimately a "social issue."

Amen to that, although it sounds like some here disagree with you.

[cleller]

Kinda bugs me that everyone wants to pile on the old white guys now, even their own party.

I get what he means, but its now a standing joke like the old dead presidents. Ha Ha. Lots of old white guys, some dead some not, put this country in the position for us to all to be sitting in our air conditioned McMansions with our fancy computers and high speed internet pithy-mouthing the topic.

[marfacowboy]

I think what Kanto is saying is your party would be better served if it focused more on real issues and quit allowing the theology of the far right to dictate its platform.
What difference does it make if two gay people want to marry? Again, this is allowing theology to influence public policy.
As for abortion, it's another example of how the GOP has given religious beliefs, as opposed to science, too much influence on its platform.
Then again, I'm not sure how many actual Republican politicians really give a damn about abortion or gay marriage. They pretend like they do to win votes and donors, but what they're really interested in is power and money.

[okie52]

I think what Kanto is saying is your party would be better served if it focused more on real issues and quit allowing the theology of the far right to dictate its platform.
What difference does it make if two gay people want to marry? Again, this is allowing theology to influence public policy.
As for abortion, it's another example of how the GOP has given religious beliefs, as opposed to science, too much influence on its platform.
Then again, I'm not sure how many actual Republican politicians really give a damn about abortion or gay marriage. They pretend like they do to win votes and donors, but what they're really interested in is power and money.

I wish the pubs would get off of the gay issue too although wasn't the unevolved Hussein against it until a few months ago?

I'm procoice because I'm sick of the issue being a litmus test for a candidate but it's hardly about "science".

So you believe dems are the party of science?

[Sooner98]

I think what Kanto is saying is your party would be better served if it focused more on real issues and quit allowing the theology of the far right to dictate its platform.
What difference does it make if two gay people want to marry? Again, this is allowing theology to influence public policy.
As for abortion, it's another example of how the GOP has given religious beliefs, as opposed to science, too much influence on its platform.
Then again, I'm not sure how many actual Republican politicians really give a damn about abortion or gay marriage. They pretend like they do to win votes and donors, but what they're really interested in is power and money.

So, why doesn't the Democratic Party just focus on "real issues" and quit allowing the theology of the radical left to dictate ITS platform?

Most Pubs have taken the side of upholding the marriage laws that have been in place for the vast majority of the country for 236 years - not exactly an extreme position to have.

As far as abortion goes, no quack "scientist" will ever convince me that what I saw on my wife's ultrasound was anything other than a human being, who therefore deserves a chance at life.

[TitoMorelli]

Romney got the same sort of standing ovation that Elie Kazan got at the Academy Awards in 1999 -- a lot of people sat on their hands.

Good point, Va.

[marfacowboy]

So, why doesn't the Democratic Party just focus on "real issues" and quit allowing the theology of the radical left to dictate ITS platform?

What "theology" is that?


Most Pubs have taken the side of upholding the marriage laws that have been in place for the vast majority of the country for 236 years - not exactly an extreme position to have.

Well, a lot of "pubs" probably supported slavery and withholding the rights of women to vote. We had slavery for nearly 250 years. What's your point?


As far as abortion goes, no quack "scientist" will ever convince me that what I saw on my wife's ultrasound was anything other than a human being, who therefore deserves a chance at life.

I don't really care for abortion. I wouldn't personally want to be a party to it, but I'm not going to tell another human being what they can do or what they can't do with their own body.

[I Am Right]

Yeah, leave it to the left to hate someone based on someones age, color of skin and weight. It is called Hate, however, heaven forbid you don't want to hear about the truth and freedom and the condition of someones heart. No, you want Skin Color and Age and their health. GEEEZ!

[Sooner98]

What "theology" is that?

I don't know, I guess the theology of whatever god it is that the radical left follows (themselves?)


Well, a lot of "pubs" probably supported slavery and withholding the rights of women to vote. We had slavery for nearly 250 years.

If a state not recognizing a marriage between two homosexuals was anywhere near the same vicinity as actually buying and selling people as property, and keeping them under complete oppression with no rights whatsoever, you would have a good point.

It isn't. You don't.


I don't really care for abortion. I wouldn't personally want to be a party to it, but I'm not going to tell another human being what they can do or what they can't do with their own body.

Neither am I. It's the body of the human being that is being murdered as a result of an abortion, that I am more concerned about.

By the way, slavery was just another black eye in the long, sad history of the Democratic Party. Just thought I'd clear that up.

[marfacowboy]

I don't know, I guess the theology of whatever god it is that the radical left follows (themselves?)

Agnosticism and humanism are not religions, so there isn't a "theology" associated with being an agnostic or a humanist.



If a state not recognizing a marriage between two homosexuals was anywhere near the same vicinity as actually buying and selling people as property, and keeping them under complete oppression with no rights whatsoever, you would have a good point.

It isn't. You don't.

Nice try. The point is overwhelming support in "publications" doesn't make something right. There was a lot of popular support for Hitler in Germany at one point...



By the way, slavery was just another black eye in the long, sad history of the Democratic Party. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Good lord.

[okie52]

Agnosticism and humanism are not religions, so there isn't a "theology" associated with being an agnostic or a humanist.




Nice try. The point is overwhelming support in "publications" doesn't make something right. There was a lot of popular support for Hitler in Germany at one point...




Good lord.

Did you vote for Hussein before he "evolved" on gay marriage?

I must've missed your answer....do you believe the dems are the party of science?

[Serge Ibaka]

The 2 party system is destroying our culture. It's rubbish.

Tear it all down.

[okie52]

The 2 party system is destroying our culture. It's rubbish.

Tear it all down.

You might be right...it may be time for a strong 3rd party.

[olevetonahill]

Wait just a dayum minute here

If The Pubs throw out all the Old ,Fat white dudes . and the Dems just want the LW loonies,Blacks, Browns and Yellows and Illegals, Just where in hell am I posed to go?

[okie52]

Wait just a dayum minute here

If The Pubs throw out all the Old ,Fat white dudes . and the Dems just want the LW loonies,Blacks, Browns and Yellows and Illegals, Just where in hell am I posed to go?

:disturbed:

Where is the love?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yeah, leave it to the left to hate someone based on someones age, color of skin and weight. It is called Hate, however, heaven forbid you don't want to hear about the truth and freedom and the condition of someones heart. No, you want Skin Color and Age and their health. GEEEZ!


I don't think any reasonable person would consider Ed Rollins a member of the left. And he didn't say anything about hating anyone.

[okie52]

I don't think any reasonable person would consider Ed Rollins a member of the left. And he didn't say anything about hating anyone.

Rollins is part of the doormat club...he should be a dem. You can step all over me as long as I get your vote.

[pphilfran]

Good thing I am skinny...

[olevetonahill]

Good thing I am skinny...
Lucky bastage, **** em I aint going on a diet

[KantoSooner]

So, why doesn't the Democratic Party just focus on "real issues" and quit allowing the theology of the radical left to dictate ITS platform?

Most Pubs have taken the side of upholding the marriage laws that have been in place for the vast majority of the country for 236 years - not exactly an extreme position to have.

As far as abortion goes, no quack "scientist" will ever convince me that what I saw on my wife's ultrasound was anything other than a human being, who therefore deserves a chance at life.

Thought I'd put my oar back in the water...

The Democrats focus on a lot of things that are not appropriate arenas for government action because they believe:
1. That the collective is superior to the individual and that the rights of the collective must always supercede those of the individual.
and
2. That the government should have THE central role in society.
Thus, nothing is off limits to government in the mind of a Democrat.

Ah, argumentum ex senilios. We've had lots of laws that were enforced for years, and then scrapped as being rampant nonsense. Slavery, for one. Killing of indians who 'follow too closely for more than 3 days' (real Texas law). Prohibition. Feeding one's servants lobster more than three times a week (Boston Statute). Irrational terror of gay people having and publically sanctioning marriages is just another in a long string of beliefs that are coming to be seen in the same light as leprechauns.

And, bully for you on abortion. Don't get one. Don't enable your wife or daughter to get one. For people who, for whatever reason, believe differently than you do, and act within the laws of the country, get out of the way. (and that includes, if you're successful in restricting the procedure, getting out of the way when people desirous of the practice get on a plane to Europe or drive to Canada.)

That government is best which governs least. Fight hard to restrict our government in whatever way you can.

[OULenexaman]

Good thing I am skinny... old,bald and white.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Rollins is part of the doormat club...he should be a dem. You can step all over me as long as I get your vote.

I guess Reagan was a doormat then, since he selected his chief rival for the nomination, George Bush, to be his running mate -- all in the name of balancing the ticket to get votes and win the damned election.

Doormat Reagan didn't select someone from the conservative wing to be his running mate.

[okie52]

I guess Reagan was a doormat then, since he selected his chief rival for the nomination, George Bush, to be his running mate -- all in the name to balance the ticket and get votes.

Doormat Reagan didn't select someone from the conservative wing to be his running mate.

Reagan was a doormat for illegals...Rollins obviously didn't learn the lesson of 25 years ago.

[LiveLaughLove]

I don't think any reasonable person would consider Ed Rollins a member of the left. And he didn't say anything about hating anyone.

Ed Rollins is not a conservative. He's always been a middle of the road guy.

He's about winning elections, not standing for something.

In fact, he has been a political adviser to Democrats in the past.

[rock on sooner]

Wait just a dayum minute here

If The Pubs throw out all the Old ,Fat white dudes . and the Dems just want the LW loonies,Blacks, Browns and Yellows and Illegals, Just where in hell am I posed to go?

Don go anywhere...stay on yer hill...git couple more guns...make
some more juice.n I'll stop by....these yahoos are all fulla hot air.

[olevetonahill]

Don go anywhere...stay on yer hill...git couple more guns...make
some more juice.n I'll stop by....these yahoos are all fulla hot air.

What Ima Thinkin **** em
Got the juice stashed in neighbors barn :cheerful:

[KantoSooner]

It's hilarious to consider that Reagan would be pilloried mercilessly today for being a 'damn liberal'.

[okie52]

It's hilarious to consider that Reagan would be pilloried mercilessly today for being a 'damn liberal'.

Well he was a disaster on illegals. Of course we are talking about 4 times that disaster now.

[Midtowner]

The Democrats focus on a lot of things that are not appropriate arenas for government action because they believe:

1. That the collective is superior to the individual and that the rights of the collective must always supercede those of the individual.
and
2. That the government should have THE central role in society.
Thus, nothing is off limits to government in the mind of a Democrat.

I think that statement (bolded) is applicable to both parties. Republicans want to control who you can marry (DOMA and many states restrict this). Particularly in the social area, Republicans (at least a majority of them) support extreme intrusion of the government into what ought to be the private lives of citizens, particularly women in the name of what? Enforcing some regimented and unshared moral stance? Republicans also (at least a majority of them) support a drug war which has been a total failure, costed billions of dollars and thousands of lives and is by and large responsible for a lot of the corruption and crime in some of our neighboring countries to the south. I would say that it's not a stretch to claim that both parties carry the power of the federal government to extremes when they see opportunities to advance their parties' respective goals, which probably have more to do with enriching special interests (the poor for Dems, private prisons for Repubs being two examples) than anything moral or right or whatever.

As far as collectives being superior, not to get too meta on you, but that's kind of at the heart of the concept of the Republic. Individual wills are taken into account, but we leave it to the "experts" to guide the collective. When you get to some legitimate aims of the governmental exertion of power, it's hard to admit that a collectivist approach is a far better use of shared resources than we could ever accomplish individually. Imagine if instead of the EPA, we simply relied on private citizens to bring nuisance complaints in the courts. I don't think industry or the citizenry would appreciate that very much.

Imagine an individualistic approach to the protection of endangered species. Can't do it? Me neither.

Health care is the debate de jour, but I think every other peer country having some sort of socialized medicine, which results in cheaper and similar outcomes is pretty telling as to whether the collectivist approach is the best approach for most of the people. I think it's funny when I see or hear someone over 65 who is receiving Medicare bitching about the horrors of Obamacare and socialism. You think that sort of display would be pretty uncommon, but go to your local Tea Party rally. Those folks really have to do some serious mental gymnastics to justify their stances.


That government is best which governs least. Fight hard to restrict our government in whatever way you can.

The stockholders of JP Morgan would beg to differ. I'll bet they're in favor of a better regulated Wall Street at this point.

[TitoMorelli]

Yeah, those seniors who have spent 40+ years paying into Social Security and funding Medicare are just a bunch of selfish bastards for expecting others to foot at least part of the bill for a change.

[rock on sooner]

Mid, your post (#82) is a darn good one. Interestingly, both parties drive
some issues to the extreme, the motives for which are as diverse as possible.
One point you missed that I think is important is the drive by the Pubs for
voter ID laws in so many states, under the guise of avoiding voter fraud, which,
more realistically is Karl Rove speak for cutting into the Dems power base.

An even bigger issue that has just surfaced for Romney is the SEC reports that
Romney continued to run Bain for up to two years later than he claimed. Of
course, Romney's camp screams inaccuracies, etc. I'm sure the Dems are going
to the EXTREME on this one.

[rock on sooner]

Yeah, those seniors who have spent 40+ years paying into Social Security and funding Medicare are just a bunch of selfish bastards for expecting others to foot at least part of the bill for a change.

Tito, I'm one of those seniors (52 years working, 48 of 'em paying into
the system). I'd just be happy if the gov't would pay back all they've
"borrowed" over the years (1.6 trillion or so).

[virginiasooner]

If you want to truly make sure that Social Security is solvent until the end of time, REMOVE THE CAP ON EARNINGS. As an example, why should President Obama get a FICA holiday? He pays nothing into Social Security starting in May (for the math challenged: presidential salary is $400,000. Social Security earnings cap is $106,500).

[badger]

If you want to truly make sure that Social Security is solvent until the end of time, REMOVE THE CAP ON EARNINGS. As an example, why should President Obama get a FICA holiday? He pays nothing into Social Security starting in May (for the math challenged: presidential salary is $400,000. Social Security earnings cap is $106,500).

I do not really care (yet) how SS is calculated, but if they paid more in, wouldn't they be entitled to receive more after retirement? Doesn't the cap mean that SS doesn't have to pay as much out to those individuals eventually?

For SS to be 100 percent solvent, they need to only pay out what people pay in, but is that ever going to happen? Not as long as old people are the biggest, most dependable voting populace

[rock on sooner]

If you want to truly make sure that Social Security is solvent until the end of time, REMOVE THE CAP ON EARNINGS. As an example, why should President Obama get a FICA holiday? He pays nothing into Social Security starting in May (for the math challenged: presidential salary is $400,000. Social Security earnings cap is $106,500).

I have been arguing this for YEARS! I'm convinced that over a 4 year phase
in period that moves the cap to, say 25 million, to cover all the elite athletes,
CEO's, lottery winners, etc. the system would be self sustaining for perpetuity.
The complaint of paying too much is bunk, cause the size of those people's
SS checks would allow them to live VERY comfortably in their golden years.

[Midtowner]

Mid, your post (#82) is a darn good one. Interestingly, both parties drive
some issues to the extreme, the motives for which are as diverse as possible.
One point you missed that I think is important is the drive by the Pubs for
voter ID laws in so many states, under the guise of avoiding voter fraud, which,
more realistically is Karl Rove speak for cutting into the Dems power base.

I really don't have a problem with the Voter ID laws. There's no evidence that fraud is a big deal, but then again, there's no evidence that fraud isn't a big deal. We know that fraud happens as dead folks have been documented to cast votes from time to time. As to whether that matters, consider the recent Tulsa election which was thrown out after the recount showed a 1-2 vote win for the (R), but then 4 ballots favoring the (D) were found gummed up in a machine. Even one vote of fraud can change the outcome of some elections, so maybe it's a solution in search of a problem, maybe the champions of the cause have less than pure motives, but heck, if you're too dumb to get one of the dozens of alternative forms of ID and bring it with you, you're too dumb to be choosing our elected leaders.


An even bigger issue that has just surfaced for Romney is the SEC reports that
Romney continued to run Bain for up to two years later than he claimed. Of
course, Romney's camp screams inaccuracies, etc. I'm sure the Dems are going
to the EXTREME on this one.

That investigation is ongoing. I won't prejudge the outcome or whether voters are going to care. You could run a felon against Barack Obama and about half of the country would probably still vote for the felon. Doncha love the 2-party system?

[rock on sooner]

I really don't have a problem with the Voter ID laws. There's no evidence that fraud is a big deal, but then again, there's no evidence that fraud isn't a big deal. We know that fraud happens as dead folks have been documented to cast votes from time to time. As to whether that matters, consider the recent Tulsa election which was thrown out after the recount showed a 1-2 vote win for the (R), but then 4 ballots favoring the (D) were found gummed up in a machine. Even one vote of fraud can change the outcome of some elections, so maybe it's a solution in search of a problem, maybe the champions of the cause have less than pure motives, but heck, if you're too dumb to get one of the dozens of alternative forms of ID and bring it with you, you're too dumb to be choosing our elected leaders.



That investigation is ongoing. I won't prejudge the outcome or whether voters are going to care. You could run a felon against Barack Obama and about half of the country would probably still vote for the felon. Doncha love the 2-party system?

Careful how you phrase that , Mid, there is some talk that what
Romney is a crime.:cheerful:

[rock on sooner]

Actually, I tried to say "What Romney did is a crime.:cheerful:

[KantoSooner]

Midtowner,
I had a great reply to you, and the damn hotkeys ate it.

In brief,
I don't think the extention of government power by both parties is especially related to corruption. It is, instead, simply a natural function of any large organization to acquire more and more power over time. I don't even find it very menacing in general until the attempt is made to justify the power as some sort of right of the central authority. That increases in danger as time passes.

The key question any political philosopher must answer is that of the role of the individual vs. the collective. If the individual came before the collective, then his grant of power to the group is limited and what is not granted is retained and the collective has no right to usurp that. If, on the other hand, you posit the collective as prior to the individual, then membership is something that must be begged and no prior existing rights are necessarily still possessed by the individual.

It is on this basis that I see major differences between Democrats, who are essentially collectivists and Republicans, who are basically individualists. To the former, there is no necessary limitation to the exercise of government authority. Any mellowing of complete government power to the collectivists is a grant or act of kindness on the part of a perfect, all powerful central authority.

And that is why it is so sad to see the Republicans drifting ever closer to accepting an instrusive, micro-managerial state.

A republican form of government should not be confused with this philosophical argument. It is merely a mechanism through which the daily managerial impossiblities of direct democracy are handled. We can't vote on every issue, so we delegate. It is arguable that this act of delegation implies a retention of authority in the individual and thus supports an individualist characterization of our government more than a collectivist one.

Further, acting in concord to resolve issues of the commons in no way challenges the innate authority of the individual. People may choose to work together, and to make this choice through the agency of their delegated representatives without any diminution of those powers. I am sure that the shareholders of ill-managed companies are sorry that the federal government didn't catch their foolish managers in illegal activities and stop them. To wish this, however, says nothing whatsoever about those shareholders' choice to be more or less free actors in a society.

Or something to that effect. God damn, if I could find the bastard who invented 'hotkeys', I swear, I'd do very illegal things to him.

[Midtowner]

Actually, I tried to say "What Romney did is a crime.:cheerful:

What he allegedly did or didn't do. The CNN reports and factcheck reports are saying there's nothing here. CNN has an interesting editorial comparing this to Bush I's Willie Horton ads, arguing that this is a small nail in a large coffin being built by the Obama campaign to keep Romney on the defensive through the Summer. It's largely working since the Romney campaign isn't really addressing these issues. I might even go so far as to say the tactics of the Obama campaign in putting this out are dishonest, even sleazy. But that's Presidential politics in 2012.

[rock on sooner]

Sorry, I should have said allegedly. As to the politics, man, you
ain't seen nuthin yet...from both sides! On or about Labor Day,
when folks will begin to pay tention, both sides will have one
broadside after another.

As to the issue of Bain, it is the SEC who indicated that Romney
was in charge of Bain for up to two years longer than he said
he was, so I dunno....

[Midtowner]

Midtowner,
I had a great reply to you, and the damn hotkeys ate it.

Eff the hotkeys. Thanks for the time and energy. I always take it as a very personal compliment when someone takes the time to type a well thought out epistle on a topic in response to something I said. It's a great sign of respect and I appreciate that. Hopefully, I can reciprocate herein.


I don't think the extention of government power by both parties is especially related to corruption. It is, instead, simply a natural function of any large organization to acquire more and more power over time. I don't even find it very menacing in general until the attempt is made to justify the power as some sort of right of the central authority. That increases in danger as time passes.

As to corruption, agree to disagree. I'm apparently much more cynical about the motivations of those in political power than you are. I believe that the folks at the top see themselves as being in a position to financially reward benefactors who invest in the folks at the top retaining their political power. It's all about how much money they can direct and where they can send it. As far as danger from a central authority, I guess I just don't see it. I think what you're getting at is the expansive reading of the commerce clause starting with Wickard v. Fillburn leading to unprecedented exercises of federal authority. The fact is that exercises under that expansive reading haven't really been particularly harmful or dangerous. In fact, I'd argue FDR's soil conservancy programs, rural electrification, the WPA, etc., were pretty good things. Going forward, the EPA has been a great thing, etc. I think the expansive reading of the taxing power of Congress is very interesting, but again, I think that's headed for limitation in future cases if the feds use the taxing power in an extreme or confiscatory manner.

What I think is truly dangerous is an executive that doesn't consider itself bound by the Constitution or the law. Bush and now Obama have been particularly frightening in that they have refused to enforce laws they don't like, have ignored Congress' authority, etc. Now, the executive has claimed the power to execute citizens without any sort of notice or opportunity for a hearing, merely trusting the Chief Executive's judgment. What I think is worrisome is that Congress and the courts have been deferential to that sort of thing.

And how 'bout that Patriot Act?

Thomas' dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld encapsulates what I think the current executive's stance to the Fourth Amendment (which is now meaningless if you use the word "terrorism") in that Thomas wrote that he believed constitutional provisions could simply be ignored if national security (whatever that is) is at risk. We now have our phone companies turning over their records to the FBI without warrants, all kinds of warrantless wiretapping, etc. This something which should have everyone upset, but I imagine most conservatives probably think of the 4th Amendment as that pesky amendment that lets criminals get away with crimes. I'm sure that was exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they included it in the Bill of Rights.


The key question any political philosopher must answer is that of the role of the individual vs. the collective. If the individual came before the collective, then his grant of power to the group is limited and what is not granted is retained and the collective has no right to usurp that. If, on the other hand, you posit the collective as prior to the individual, then membership is something that must be begged and no prior existing rights are necessarily still possessed by the individual.

I don't see that we have much of a choice. We're mostly citizens by birth. The word "citizen" implies membership to a collective as much as comrade. Theoretically, we're all parties to a social contract wherein "the people" (a collective) are sovereign rather than a King. Our duty of obedience to the sovereign is limited by the Constitution, but as I mentioned, in certain cases, it looks as if that social contract is meaningless. We need principled leaders who are going to respect that and I don't think any of our Presidential candidates fit the bill and I think our Congress is too afraid to take this issue on or is fine with the status quo.


It is on this basis that I see major differences between Democrats, who are essentially collectivists and Republicans, who are basically individualists. To the former, there is no necessary limitation to the exercise of government authority. Any mellowing of complete government power to the collectivists is a grant or act of kindness on the part of a perfect, all powerful central authority.

I don't see that from Republican leadership at all. They are fine with collectivism so long as it's benefiting their benefactors. As a collective, if we ignore financial fraud and abuse, if we ignore industrial polluters, if we chip away at civil rights enforcement measures, that's not individualism, that's collective inaction. There's nothing individualistic about allowing Goldman-Sachs the "freedom" to be later bailed out by the taxpayers. It's just irresponsible marshaling of the public's resources. Sometimes there are certain things which only a government can do, i.e., regulate financial markets, pollution, enforce laws which protect individual property and civil rights, etc.


A republican form of government should not be confused with this philosophical argument. It is merely a mechanism through which the daily managerial impossiblities of direct democracy are handled. We can't vote on every issue, so we delegate. It is arguable that this act of delegation implies a retention of authority in the individual and thus supports an individualist characterization of our government more than a collectivist one.

The Republic envisioned by our founders was not an inclusive "will of the people" sort of thing. The Senate was chosen by state assemblies, the House of Representatives was chosen by white landowners who were of age. The President by an electoral college. There was very much an elitist, collectivist, maybe even plutocratic slant to our young Republic.


Further, acting in concord to resolve issues of the commons in no way challenges the innate authority of the individual. People may choose to work together, and to make this choice through the agency of their delegated representatives without any diminution of those powers. I am sure that the shareholders of ill-managed companies are sorry that the federal government didn't catch their foolish managers in illegal activities and stop them. To wish this, however, says nothing whatsoever about those shareholders' choice to be more or less free actors in a society..

Wall Street wouldn't choose to become more regulated. In fact, they actively fought it during the early Obama presidency when the Democrats attempted to set up a consumer protection agency. The free market has failed us because when fraud goes unpunished, consumers are unable to make intelligent and informed decisions about what products or securities they will buy. Acting in a collective manner, the people set up laws which protect individual rights in the marketplace at the expense of those who might do them harm. Only the collective can address these issues. Shareholders, at least until the recent (and mostly symbolic) rejection of the Citigroup executive compensation package have been largely silent because most are institutional shareholders with big 'ol conflicts of interest in slapping their buddies wrists when they overreach.

[KantoSooner]

According to what I read, it really depends on what you mean. The consensus seems to be that when he left, he left and had nothing more to do with managing the company. If you mean when his sale of stock was complete and when his legal entanglement was completely cleanly broken off, then the date was arguably later.
So, there's just enough fuzz there to keep Obama's campaign people out of jail, but only just.

[Midtowner]

As to the issue of Bain, it is the SEC who indicated that Romney
was in charge of Bain for up to two years longer than he said
he was, so I dunno....

It was Bain's SEC filings which listed Romney as an executive and sole stockholder with compensation of $100K. Whether he actually exerted any influence or control is disputed.

[pphilfran]

If you want to truly make sure that Social Security is solvent until the end of time, REMOVE THE CAP ON EARNINGS. As an example, why should President Obama get a FICA holiday? He pays nothing into Social Security starting in May (for the math challenged: presidential salary is $400,000. Social Security earnings cap is $106,500).

Bump up the limit to 140 or 150 and add a couple of years and we are golden....currently those that pay the max have about 30% of their return moved from their annual benefit and shifted to those on the low end...

You need to explain to me what would be fair about your method...

A self employed guy making a million would pay in 124k in one year...what should he get back for his investment...and it is an investment into a defined benefit plan....

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I really don't have a problem with the Voter ID laws. There's no evidence that fraud is a big deal, but then again, there's no evidence that fraud isn't a big deal. We know that fraud happens as dead folks have been documented to cast votes from time to time. As to whether that matters, consider the recent Tulsa election which was thrown out after the recount showed a 1-2 vote win for the (R), but then 4 ballots favoring the (D) were found gummed up in a machine. Even one vote of fraud can change the outcome of some elections, so maybe it's a solution in search of a problem, maybe the champions of the cause have less than pure motives, but heck, if you're too dumb to get one of the dozens of alternative forms of ID and bring it with you, you're too dumb to be choosing our elected leaders.



That investigation is ongoing. I won't prejudge the outcome or whether voters are going to care. You could run a felon against Barack Obama and about half of the country would probably still vote for the felon. Doncha love the 2-party system?


From a Eugene Robinson article about voter ID in Pennsylvania ....

Thanks to figures released last week by state officials, we know the answer. It turns out that 758,939 registered Pennsylvania voters do not have the most easily obtained and widely used photo ID, a state driver's license. That's an incredible 9.2 percent of the registered electorate.

Most of the voters without driver's licenses live in urban areas - which just happen to be places where poor people and minorities tend to live. More than 185,000 of these voters without licenses, about one-fourth of the total, live in Philadelphia - which just happens to be a Democratic stronghold where African-Americans are a plurality.

.
.
.

Perhaps these numbers are so intoxicating that Turzai forgot the cover story about how voter ID is supposed to protect the franchise rather than selectively restrict it. His spokesman later explained that Turzai meant "the Republican presidential candidate will be on a more even keel thanks to voter ID" - in other words, there will be a level playing field once the new law eliminates all that pesky voter fraud.

That might be reasonable, except for one fact: There's no fraud to eliminate.

Prodded by GOP political activists, the Justice Department under Bush conducted an extensive, nationwide, five-year probe of voter fraud - and ended up convicting a grand total of 86 individuals, according to a 2007 New York Times report. Most of the cases involved felons or immigrants who may not have known they were ineligible to vote.

Not one case involved the only kind of fraud that voter ID could theoretically prevent: impersonation of a registered voter by someone else. Pennsylvania and other voter ID states have, in a sense, passed laws that will be highly effective in eradicating unicorns.

http://www.arcamax.com/politics/eugenerobinson/s-1169954?print

[LiveLaughLove]

From a Eugene Robinson article about voter ID in Pennsylvania ....

Thanks to figures released last week by state officials, we know the answer. It turns out that 758,939 registered Pennsylvania voters do not have the most easily obtained and widely used photo ID, a state driver's license. That's an incredible 9.2 percent of the registered electorate.

Most of the voters without driver's licenses live in urban areas - which just happen to be places where poor people and minorities tend to live. More than 185,000 of these voters without licenses, about one-fourth of the total, live in Philadelphia - which just happens to be a Democratic stronghold where African-Americans are a plurality.

.
.
.

Perhaps these numbers are so intoxicating that Turzai forgot the cover story about how voter ID is supposed to protect the franchise rather than selectively restrict it. His spokesman later explained that Turzai meant "the Republican presidential candidate will be on a more even keel thanks to voter ID" - in other words, there will be a level playing field once the new law eliminates all that pesky voter fraud.

That might be reasonable, except for one fact: There's no fraud to eliminate.

Prodded by GOP political activists, the Justice Department under Bush conducted an extensive, nationwide, five-year probe of voter fraud - and ended up convicting a grand total of 86 individuals, according to a 2007 New York Times report. Most of the cases involved felons or immigrants who may not have known they were ineligible to vote.

Not one case involved the only kind of fraud that voter ID could theoretically prevent: impersonation of a registered voter by someone else. Pennsylvania and other voter ID states have, in a sense, passed laws that will be highly effective in eradicating unicorns.

http://www.arcamax.com/politics/eugenerobinson/s-1169954?print

If you are too stupid or out of touch to get an actual ID, you are too stupid or out of touch to vote.

Eugene Robinson isn't exactly the cat's meow of neutrality either.


Robinson appears frequently as a political analyst on MSNBC cable-TV network's programs such as Morning Joe, PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, The Rachel Maddow Show, the Ed Show, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann (now discontinued on MSNBC).

[pphilfran]

Why not give out an Id when you register to vote...don't all states require registration?

[Midtowner]

Some of the aspects of some of the state implementations of this law are a little iffy. For example, in Texas, a conceal carry license is good but a student ID is not. Now I can see the argument that some schools are private, so let's just throw those out. Why then is an ID from Texas A&M not as good as a CCA or a utility bill?

[Sooner5030]

I'm split on voter ID laws. If state IDs were provided at no direct fee to each potential voter than I am ok with it.....but the last thing I want to see is states jacking up fees for all IDs to help with revenues. How'd like to pay $50 for your state ID......and the ability to vote?

However, if having an ID is not a financial barrier than I am all for requiring it.

[LiveLaughLove]

Some of the aspects of some of the state implementations of this law are a little iffy. For example, in Texas, a conceal carry license is good but a student ID is not. Now I can see the argument that some schools are private, so let's just throw those out. Why then is an ID from Texas A&M not as good as a CCA or a utility bill?

Who knows. Probably lots of reasons, like a CCA requires a much more rigorous background check.

If the people of Texas don't like it, they can work to change it or move. Nothings forcing them to live there.

I had job opportunities in California years ago. No thanks. My brother in law just moved back from there, sold his business, and restarted here.

They loved their house, the land, everything except the government there. Fighting liberalism in California is futile, so they moved here. California's loss.

The point is, it's up to the state and shouldn't be regulated by the feds.

[Midtowner]

It is regulated by the feds... the Voting Rights Act requires federal approval of Texas' regime. It also appears, after doing some research that my assertion re: student ID's was wrong. I appear to have been misled by something I read somewhere. Of course if the student ID doesn't have a picture (and that's rare), what I said would be right, but even high school IDs have the student's picture on them these days. These are the things which will suffice in Texas as ID:

a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;

a form of identification containing the person's photograph that establishes the person's identity;

a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person's identity;

United States citizenship papers issued to the person;

a United States passport issued to the person;

official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;

a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or
any other form of identification prescribed by the Secretary of State.

Seriously.. if you can't get one of those, you shouldn't be allowed to vote anyhow. Let's call it an intelligence test. If Democrats are so worried that their voters are too stupid to comply with this, I guess I don't really know what to say.

[olevetonahill]

I'm split on voter ID laws. If state IDs were provided at no direct fee to each potential voter than I am ok with it.....but the last thing I want to see is states jacking up fees for all IDs to help with revenues. How'd like to pay $50 for your state ID......and the ability to vote?

However, if having an ID is not a financial barrier than I am all for requiring it.
Costs 10 bucks here in Oklahoma . Sheesh all a person got to do is not buy 1 12 pack or leave the meth alone for 20 minutes .

[olevetonahill]

Some of the aspects of some of the state implementations of this law are a little iffy. For example, in Texas, a conceal carry license is good but a student ID is not. Now I can see the argument that some schools are private, so let's just throw those out. Why then is an ID from Texas A&M not as good as a CCA or a utility bill?

Hey Mid yer thinkin cap fell off again .. How about the Fact that a CCPH has to go thru an extensive background check where as a Student of any college can be an Illegal .

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Regarding these ID laws, if the ID has an address different from the precinct in which you are attempting to vote, do they deny you a ballot?

Or if you move but don't change the address on the ID will you be guilty of voter fraud if you vote in a precinct in which you don't live?

[olevetonahill]

Regarding these ID laws, if the ID has an address different from the precinct in which you are attempting to vote, do they deny you a ballot?

Or if you move but don't change the address on the ID will you be guilty of voter fraud if you vote in a precinct in which you don't live?
Why Not, If you move and dont change the adrees on yer DL you are breaking the law.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nOYpoGfvXtI/T_xPDsXMkqI/AAAAAAAABi0/BXfL9kGAiMs/s640/cucumber11.jpg


Cucumber Subs. Just an idea for old and fat pubs who need to go low carb. If you can give up the white bread.

[Sooner5030]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nOYpoGfvXtI/T_xPDsXMkqI/AAAAAAAABi0/BXfL9kGAiMs/s640/cucumber11.jpg


Cucumber Subs. Just an idea for old and fat pubs who need to go low carb. If you can give up the white bread.

That looks really good but it looks like they cut out the tasty part of the cucumber......wtf?

[olevetonahill]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nOYpoGfvXtI/T_xPDsXMkqI/AAAAAAAABi0/BXfL9kGAiMs/s640/cucumber11.jpg


Cucumber Subs. Just an idea for old and fat pubs who need to go low carb. If you can give up the white bread.

Hell jaun, I like all kinds of Bread, I dont just use "White" I like em all

[TrueBornSooner]

Some of the aspects of some of the state implementations of this law are a little iffy. For example, in Texas, a conceal carry license is good but a student ID is not. Now I can see the argument that some schools are private, so let's just throw those out. Why then is an ID from Texas A&M not as good as a CCA or a utility bill?

The background checks on C&C much more substantial than student IDs. That makes perfect sense to me.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Hell jaun, I like all kinds of Bread, I dont just use "White" I like em all

You're a registered donk so you know I wasn't thinking of you :star:

[olevetonahill]

You're a registered donk so you know I wasn't thinking of you :star:

Only in name :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Good thing the pubs got Sheriff Joe running interference w/ his 95 year-old witness on Obama's birth certificate. Who needs a ****ty economy when you got the birther issue to make the pubs look good?

[LiveLaughLove]

Good thing the pubs got Sheriff Joe running interference w/ his 95 year-old witness on Obama's birth certificate. Who needs a ****ty economy when you got the birther issue to make the pubs look good?

What a red freaking herring. 10% of people still think Elvis is alive and if they write to him he will receive it.

So I'll see your birther and raise you 9/11 truthers, of which were much more recognizable leftist kooks. Oh yeah and the CIA got the urban areas hooked on cocaine, an oldie from the leftist archives but still a goodie that I heard a black man say about a month ago in cheyenne, Wyoming.

Find solace in the birthers if you must, and ignore your own kooks if you can. It won't make them go away or make your side superior.

[KantoSooner]

The Illuminati sit, in their mountain castle, laughing at your silly objective reality.