Why Jon Stewart Why? Why did you let Biden slide on that last question?

[Jaskalas]

I know you’re all tripping over yourselves to pat each other on the back while spitting vitriol at Republicans, but what the hell do you think that has to do with the OP and his question? Seems you’ve wandered off the reservation, and altogether too, like nice little lemmings.

Dare I ask if there are any cliffs around here?

Why Jon Stewart Why? Why did you let Biden slide on that last question?

Oh, ya almost forgot, maybe because John Stewart isn't a real reporter.....

/thread.

 

[Genx87]

That was amazing. You hit almost every talking point in one paragraph. If you would have throw socialism in there somewhere you might have gotten your own radio show warming up the crowd for Rush.

What talking points? I made a single point about govt intervention and used the pay czar as an example. I know this may blow your brain since you have such a simple view of everybody you dont agree with, but I havent listened to Rush in years.

 

[jonks]

What I was impressed with was Biden's repeated clamping down mid-sentence when he realized he was treading down dangerous streets. Maybe the old codger has learned a thing or two.

Or Obama followed through with that remote-electroshock device and the handler's kept applying it when they saw that maniacal gleam in Biden's eye.

 

[Deeko]

Well you could say that the Republican base is even further to the right than the Republicans serving in Congress, but there really isn't much argument about the fact that the Republican party is CONSIDERABLY to the right of where it was 30 years ago. Were Ronald Reagan to run today he would almost certainly face a primary challenge due to the fact that he was not conservative enough.

So yes, when you look at the average Republican member of Congress as compared to the historical average, they are nearly all hard right wingers.

Financially? I don't really think so, not from a historical perspective. You have to realize - yea, there was the brief period between the 30s and 70s where we getting more and more fiscally liberal every day, but prior to that, and since that, that hasn't been the case. For the majority of the country's history, we've been a much more financially conservative nation.

 

[fskimospy]

Financially? I don't really think so, not from a historical perspective. You have to realize - yea, there was the brief period between the 30s and 70s where we getting more and more fiscally liberal every day, but prior to that, and since that, that hasn't been the case. For the majority of the country's history, we've been a much more financially conservative nation.

I was referring to modern American history as it's pretty hard to talk about Americans' view of the social welfare state in the 18th and most of the 19th century until Bismark when such a concept did not really exist. Were they more conservative in that way because they chose to be, or because people were unaware of how to effectively implement the alternatives? The system simply wasn't built for such a thing, it wasn't capable enough to do it. I don't really view that as conservatism so much as a lack of options.

Regardless of all that, I was referring to recent history. Reagan signed one of the largest tax increases in US history as a percentage of GDP. It was around 1% of annual GDP which would be like passing a 1.5 trillion dollar tax increase over 10 years today (I don't know why they always measure over 10 years but they do). Tell me the Club for Growth wouldn't be targeting him for being insufficiently ideologically pure right about now.

 

[Deeko]

I was referring to modern American history as it's pretty hard to talk about Americans' view of the social welfare state in the 18th and most of the 19th century until Bismark when such a concept did not really exist. Were they more conservative in that way because they chose to be, or because people were unaware of how to effectively implement the alternatives? The system simply wasn't built for such a thing, it wasn't capable enough to do it. I don't really view that as conservatism so much as a lack of options.

Regardless of all that, I was referring to recent history. Reagan signed one of the largest tax increases in US history as a percentage of GDP. It was around 1% of annual GDP which would be like passing a 1.5 trillion dollar tax increase over 10 years today (I don't know why they always measure over 10 years but they do). Tell me the Club for Growth wouldn't be targeting him for being insufficiently ideologically pure right about now.

I barely consider Reagan to be a fiscal conservative, to be honest. Reagan & Bush were the biggest deficit spenders vs the GDP to date (in the post WWII era) - which is another reason why I say today's Republicans are not conservative. Even the hardcore Reaganauts are not fiscal conservatives, even though they might claim to be.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Biden did explain it. Unlike the Republicans who will ostracize someone for not following the party line, the Democrats freely accept independent thinkers of many stripes. They may get flustered sometimes when it's hard to reach a consensus, but they don't have political firing squads like the Republicans do.

It's statements like this that serve as a reminder to not read P&N while consuming food/beverage. This has got to be one of the most laughably ignorant statements I've seen recently. Politics is politcs, son, and if you don't think your precious dems don't strong-arm anyone that strays off the straight and narrow, you're either profoundly naive or a complete idiot. And no, I don't believe that the reps are sweet and innocent regarding this.

 

[fskimospy]

It's statements like this that serve as a reminder to not read P&N while consuming food/beverage. This has got to be one of the most laughably ignorant statements I've seen recently. Politics is politcs, son, and if you don't think your precious dems don't strong-arm anyone that strays off the straight and narrow, you're either profoundly naive or a complete idiot. And no, I don't believe that the reps are sweet and innocent regarding this.

Actually he's right. The Democrats don't play nearly as hard with people as the Republicans do. Ask yourself if you honestly believe that a Republican senator could endorse the Democratic candidate for president, work with his campaign team, and actively smear him, threaten to filibuster the party's signature legislation, and suffer no significant consequences? Riiiiiiight.

The Republicans have greater party discipline than the Democrats do. This isn't a slam on them, it's a compliment. Joe Lieberman would have been roadkill a year ago had he been a Republican instead of a Democrat. (and yes I know he's technically an independent)

 

[jonks]

It's statements like this that serve as a reminder to not read P&N while consuming food/beverage. This has got to be one of the most laughably ignorant statements I've seen recently. Politics is politcs, son, and if you don't think your precious dems don't strong-arm anyone that strays off the straight and narrow, you're either profoundly naive or a complete idiot. And no, I don't believe that the reps are sweet and innocent regarding this.

Posted this in another thread:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/rel17e.pdf

Republicans prize ideological purity more than dems do.

 

[fskimospy]

I barely consider Reagan to be a fiscal conservative, to be honest. Reagan & Bush were the biggest deficit spenders vs the GDP to date (in the post WWII era) - which is another reason why I say today's Republicans are not conservative. Even the hardcore Reaganauts are not fiscal conservatives, even though they might claim to be.

Well I guess you agree with me then? Whatever you want to label Reagan as (and face it, in the opinion of the VAST majority of the world Reagan was EXTREMELY conservative), Republicans now claim to be significantly to the right of where he was. Which... comes back to the original point. The Republican base as it exists today would probably challenge the single most revered politician they have had in a century, an icon of conservatism, because he would not be ideologically pure enough.

That tells you something. Ideological polarization has hit both parties in the last 30-40 years or so, but since the Democrats started from a more moderate place, the shift has been way more noticable in the Republicans. (I would hope that we can agree that from a world standard the Democrats are centrist if not center right, and the Republicans are quite far to the right) I believe this extremism is short lived as the Republican party will quickly tire of losing elections, but I would imagine it will survive through at least 2012.

 

[Genx87]

Well I guess you agree with me then? Whatever you want to label Reagan as (and face it, in the opinion of the VAST majority of the world Reagan was EXTREMELY conservative), Republicans now claim to be significantly to the right of where he was. Which... comes back to the original point. The Republican base as it exists today would probably challenge the single most revered politician they have had in a century, an icon of conservatism, because he would not be ideologically pure enough.

That tells you something. Ideological polarization has hit both parties in the last 30-40 years or so, but since the Democrats started from a more moderate place, the shift has been way more noticable in the Republicans. (I would hope that we can agree that from a world standard the Democrats are centrist if not center right, and the Republicans are quite far to the right) I believe this extremism is short lived as the Republican party will quickly tire of losing elections, but I would imagine it will survive through at least 2012.

I still think you trying to put our two main parties on the world spectrum is silly. They are both considered liberal parties on a world spectrum and probably much closer than you think. There are true fascist, national socialist, socialist and communist parties in the world that tip the spectrum far more than democrats and republicans. In our narrow political spectrum because they both seem far apart doesnt mean they are in the grand scheme of things. And I really question if they are that far apart anyways.

 

[Deeko]

Well I guess you agree with me then? Whatever you want to label Reagan as (and face it, in the opinion of the VAST majority of the world Reagan was EXTREMELY conservative), Republicans now claim to be significantly to the right of where he was. Which... comes back to the original point. The Republican base as it exists today would probably challenge the single most revered politician they have had in a century, an icon of conservatism, because he would not be ideologically pure enough.

That tells you something. Ideological polarization has hit both parties in the last 30-40 years or so, but since the Democrats started from a more moderate place, the shift has been way more noticable in the Republicans. (I would hope that we can agree that from a world standard the Democrats are centrist if not center right, and the Republicans are quite far to the right) I believe this extremism is short lived as the Republican party will quickly tire of losing elections, but I would imagine it will survive through at least 2012.

I don't think Republicans are significantly to the right of Reagan, not at all. He had an extremely left situation to deal with, and no matter what Ron Paul tells you, you can't just snap your fingers and change overnight.

I don't care how Europe views Ronald Reagan or American politicians. In the terms of domestic politicians, today's right is not right at all - Reagan may not have been an ultra conservative, but he was at least trying to move to country in the direction of the right.

Its also not fair to say "oh, well those things did't exist in the pre-modern era, so I don't count that" The country still viewed politics in a vastly different way than they do now - a way that was considerably more conservative.

 

[fskimospy]

I still think you trying to put our two main parties on the world spectrum is silly. They are both considered liberal parties on a world spectrum and probably much closer than you think. There are true fascist and socialist and communist parties in the world that tip the spectrum far more than democrats and republicans. In our narrow political spectrum because they both seem far apart doesnt mean they are in the grand scheme of things. And I really question if they are that far apart anyways.

Trust me I know exactly where they fall on the world spectrum. There most certainly are parties that exist that are further to the extremes than the Democrats and the Republicans. My point was that in particular the Republicans have become extreme and I stand by that. While maybe there is a party I'm not thinking of, I cannot think of a single party that has wielded power in the industrialized world during our lifetimes that is further to the right than the Republicans in the US are currently. Not one.

In fact if you read my previous post more closely you should conclude that I find the two parties relatively close as well. Describing the Democrats as center to center right with the Republicans being far right shows that I consider them both to occupy the same part of the ideological spectrum. Both parties are economically to the right, authoritarian parties with the Democrats being moderately more in favor of civil liberties. (this is one of the things that makes everyone calling Obama a communist so funny)

 

[bfdd]

Actually he's right. The Democrats don't play nearly as hard with people as the Republicans do. Ask yourself if you honestly believe that a Republican senator could endorse the Democratic candidate for president, work with his campaign team, and actively smear him, threaten to filibuster the party's signature legislation, and suffer no significant consequences? Riiiiiiight.

The Republicans have greater party discipline than the Democrats do. This isn't a slam on them, it's a compliment. Joe Lieberman would have been roadkill a year ago had he been a Republican instead of a Democrat. (and yes I know he's technically an independent)

Yeah, the Dems have never talked shit on Joe Lieberman... ever.

 

[shadow9d9]

Um. Maybe because American is a center right nation and these congressmen are too worried about being re elected....

Notice how Obama gets the gays to rally behind him and then throws them all under the bus when push comes to shove. Being re elected is more important to him and gays.

Oh, ya almost forgot, maybe because John Stewart isn't a real reporter.....

For a fake reporter, he asks harder questions than pretty much every "real" one.

 

[shadow9d9]

Or dems agreed with the legislation repubs and Bush pushed through. I know the dems like to paint this picture of being victimized during the Bush era. But they sure didnt seem to have a problem voting for many of his initiatives.

Conservatives are up in arms for other reasons. Reason lefties dont find that big a deal. The intervention within our markets is getting crazy. Obama basically does what he wants with little oversight. This pay czar is absolutely crazy. Sets the wages for the top 25 at banks. Who has oversight over this czar?!?!?!?!?

OUR markets!?!?!? That SAME MARKET almost brought the entire world down with them. THAT market allowed a few greedy people to almost bring the US and the world into another depression!

So, YES, if they allow that to happen, they must accept government regulation in the form of pay restrictions.

How dare you defend "our markets"... the same markets that if left to their own devices would have made a handful of people rich at the expense of billions of people.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yeah, the Dems have never talked shit on Joe Lieberman... ever.

You have one person that does everything opposed to the party... and you equate it with variations on the same theme that is currently within the party...

Gotcha.

Straw man.

 

[RedChief]

OUR markets!?!?!? That SAME MARKET almost brought the entire world down with them. THAT market allowed a few greedy people to almost bring the US and the world into another depression!

So, YES, if they allow that to happen, they must accept government regulation in the form of pay restrictions.

How dare you defend "our markets"... the same markets that if left to their own devices would have made a handful of people rich at the expense of billions of people.

So government interference in the market creates a situation where the markets fail so additional government regulation is needed to fix it?

Yea....

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, the Dems have never talked shit on Joe Lieberman... ever.

So wait, now party discipline doesn't involve taking away chairmanships, money, or help on legislation, it involves hurting their feelings by saying mean things?

 

[fskimospy]

So government interference in the market creates a situation where the markets fail so additional government regulation is needed to fix it?

Yea....

It's never the market's fault! This is yet another iteration of the 'the market can never fail, it can only be failed' ideology. If a regulated market fails it's because of regulation. If a free market fails it's because it wasn't free enough. That's the great thing about having such an unrealistic ideology. No one would ever implement it because it's crazy, so you can never be proven wrong.

 

[shadow9d9]

So government interference in the market creates a situation where the markets fail so additional government regulation is needed to fix it?

Yea....

Dumbest thing ever.. the government LIFTED restrictions in 1998, ALLOWING this to happen...

Explain how greed of a few individuals bankrupting their own companies for personal gain is caused by government regulations... I'd love to hear the crazy.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think Republicans are significantly to the right of Reagan, not at all. He had an extremely left situation to deal with, and no matter what Ron Paul tells you, you can't just snap your fingers and change overnight.

I don't care how Europe views Ronald Reagan or American politicians. In the terms of domestic politicians, today's right is not right at all - Reagan may not have been an ultra conservative, but he was at least trying to move to country in the direction of the right.

Its also not fair to say "oh, well those things did't exist in the pre-modern era, so I don't count that" The country still viewed politics in a vastly different way than they do now - a way that was considerably more conservative.

Well first of all Republicans as a whole are to the right of those in office during the Reagan years. That's pretty much beyond dispute. If you think a Republican president today would sign a $1.5 trillion tax increase you are out of your mind. 'Trying to move the country in the direction of the right' has nothing to do with whether or not Republicans today are more conservative than he was. They either are, or they aren't.

As for whether or not Republicans today are 'conservative', I don't really see how it's possible to argue that they are not. You have two choices, you either have the absolute values of liberal/conservative (in which case what Europe is definitely matters for establishing what those are), or you have the relative American values. On the world scale Republicans are on the ultra-right... undoubtedly the furthest right major political party on the planet. On the American scale they are still the right. Just because other people in America may be MORE conservative than the Republicans, in the ideological spectrum that America has they are conservative.

Yes, the extreme fringes of America are even more conservative than your lay Republicans. We frequently here from this fringe when they call the Republicans 'not true conservatives', but this is only from their perspective, which is hardly what one would consider 'mainstream'.

For an interesting look at how the parties have changed over the last 30-odd years here's this study on political polarization by Keith Poole and others:
http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/extensions/fall2005/Poole.pdf

This standard for measuring ideology among politicians is pretty much the standard for political science in that respect. Particularly note the distortion of the ideological distribution curves between the Ford era and today. (2009's Republicans would undoubtedly be more conservative still as many of the more 'moderate' ones lost in 2006 and 2008).

 

[Deeko]

Did you happen to notice the DRASTIC increase in size and spending of government between 2000-2006? Compared to, say, the Reagan era? Just because they might claim in a speech to be conservative, doesn't mean they really are. John McCain wanted to spend $700 billion of federal money to purchase the mortgages of people who couldn't afford them. There is nothing conservative about any of that.

 

[fskimospy]

Did you happen to notice the DRASTIC increase in size and spending of government between 2000-2006? Compared to, say, the Reagan era? Just because they might claim in a speech to be conservative, doesn't mean they really are. John McCain wanted to spend $700 billion of federal money to purchase the mortgages of people who couldn't afford them. There is nothing conservative about any of that.

You're more than welcome to use single issues to attempt to define people as conservative if you want, but on the whole the average legislator is considerably more conservative today than he was in 1980. I've provided you with peer-reviewed work on the subject, hopefully you'll check it out.

 

[Deeko]

Ahh yes, if I don't read and comment on your California paper on conservatism, I guess the over-arching truth of the matter doesn't make a difference. I glanced through it, although I don't see what difference it made.

If Joe Congressman from Alabama is "truly" considerably more conservative than his counterpart from 1980, but his party, while in total control for six years, drastically increases both the size and scope of government, the Republican party is not conservative by any measure.

There certainly are social conservatives today - lots of them - but financially? Please, they're all financially liberal, they just like to spend money on different things. The Bush era tax cuts weren't designed to reduce government, they thought they could spur MORE money that way, allowing for even greater government increases.