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

[jackschmittusa]

FerrelGeek

I stand by my statement. The Johnson administration was pretty much the last time the Dems did get ramrodded on any scale to follow the party line.

The Republicans are vicious about it and get worse as time goes by. Bush brought it out of the closet with so many blatant cases of demands of party loyalty to get a job, keep a position, etc.. Ability, skill, training, experience, and knowledge were distant runners compared to towing the party line when it came to any kind of support from the administration or the party.

And maybe, if you are a WWII vet, you're old enough to call me "son".

 

[fskimospy]

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.

My 'California' paper? Are you kidding me? It's one of the most influential measures of ideology in political science today. Dismissing it like that just makes you look bad.

You're just trying to debate using definitions of conservatism that you have invented yourself. Doesn't work that way man.

 

[Craig234]

I find this laughable. Why is Lieberman an independent now? Why didnt Bush get his SS reform through???

The glass house democrats build around themselves is hilarious to watch fall down when they throw a stone at the republicans.

Good example of Genx's bad logic and other argument flaws.

For one, Lieberman didn't become an independant because the party forced him out for his views as Genx insinuates - hell, they nominated him for Vice President earlier. Rather, Lieberman was voted out of the party *by the voters* who preferred another Democrat, and he went independant for one reason, to win the general election.

Second, he takes the explanation that the Democratic party is *more* tolerant of diverse views, and exaggerates it into a straw man that the Democrats have *no* limits on diverse views - implying that if Karl Rove declared himself a Democrat disagreeing with Democrats on every position, then if the Democratic Party took issue, it'd somehow disprove that the Democrats are at all more tolerant of diverse views. It's wrong and a fallacy as we've seen from Genx for years.

Note too his odd Glenn-Beck like tone as he talks about 'laughable' and 'hilarious' about his straw men.

I can't remember the last time he actually addressed the issue at hand - in this case, that the Biden explanation that the Democrats are more tolerant of diverse views.

I'm not even saying Biden was right or wrong - it might have to do more with the flaws of Republicans that they are the way they are, rather than the Democrats needing to explain anything - but he didn't address the actual issue with any answer on Jon Stewart's question, he just posted some attacks on Democrats.

We saw how Republicans got things done on Medicare Part D corruption, when some Republicans objected to the big corrupts spending - the leadership held open the vote for hours in a way never done before, all night walking the floor with reports of offers to fund a menber's family member's political campaign, and a threat to ensure his loss, along with other carrots and sticks. The Republicans are pretty much 100% on a lot of issues in a way that implies an awfully strong hierarchy to do as they're told.

When Republicans take the big checks, they seem to have an ideology that makes it especialy easy to put the donors ahead of the voters.

Hierarchy does tend to create order and unity. Just not necessarily good government.

 

[Genx87]

Good example of Genx's bad logic and other argument flaws.

For one, Lieberman didn't become an independant because the party forced him out for his views as Genx insinuates - hell, they nominated him for Vice President earlier. Rather, Lieberman was voted out of the party *by the voters* who preferred another Democrat, and he went independant for one reason, to win the general election.

So the democrat electorate tossed Lieberman out in the primaries because of his view on the war. And you are telling us they didnt toss him out because he didnt tow the party line?

What a magical world you paint yourself.

Second, he takes the explanation that the Democratic party is *more* tolerant of diverse views, and exaggerates it into a straw man that the Democrats have *no* limits on diverse views - implying that if Karl Rove declared himself a Democrat disagreeing with Democrats on every position, then if the Democratic Party took issue, it'd somehow disprove that the Democrats are at all more tolerant of diverse views. It's wrong and a fallacy as we've seen from Genx for years.

Take your medicine before posting. It will help you formulate a coherent msg.

Note too his odd Glenn-Beck like tone as he talks about 'laughable' and 'hilarious' about his straw men.

I was unaware that glenn beck held copyrights on those two words.

I can't remember the last time he actually addressed the issue at hand - in this case, that the Biden explanation that the Democrats are more tolerant of diverse views.

I was quoting somebody else bunkie. I know this may come as a surprise to you. But when somebody quotes somebody they are in effect talking to them, not the topic at hand.

Difficult concept I know.

When Republicans take the big checks, they seem to have an ideology that makes it especialy easy to put the donors ahead of the voters.

Hierarchy does tend to create order and unity. Just not necessarily good government.

Hilarious, oh did I plagarize Glenn Beck? Anyways it is amusing you talk about Republicans taking big checks when we just had Obama rake in record donations in the last election cycle and Unions paid lots of money for the govt to hand them the keys to two auto manufacturers. But in your world that is not corruption I am sure because the people doing the corrupting are Dems lol

 

[Deeko]

My 'California' paper? Are you kidding me? It's one of the most influential measures of ideology in political science today. Dismissing it like that just makes you look bad.

You're just trying to debate using definitions of conservatism that you have invented yourself. Doesn't work that way man.

Your paper is from the University of California. Thus, it is a California paper. I "dismissed it" because I was at my "job" and while I can hammer out some posts, I don't have time to read an in depth political paper.

Further - debating the definitions that I've created myself? You think I'm the first person to use the terms fiscal vs social conservatism/liberalism? It is DANGEROUSLY ignorant to think politics is a black or white, one issue subject.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Small Rant.

Just watched the Biden interview. I always enjoyed Biden because he pretty much tells it how it is. I guess people don't like it because it can be kind of abrasive but I love his blunt-ness.

He was dead on about a lot of things and I loved his comment on the repug definition of capitalism as "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else".

Then it came to the last question. Jon pretty much laid it on the line. It is the question that every socially liberal person has on their mind: Why can republicans force through all their bills when they are in the majority and completely toss aside all debate and filibuster, but the demo's can't seem to get anything through and are constantly being shot down and shut out?

Biden stammered for about a second and automatically Stewart let him off the hook and ended the interview. Seriously WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?

I am tired of congress dragging its feet. Man up and do something. Biden had a great opportunity to let loose one of his classic zingers and maybe it would have actually inspired some balls in congress. Fuck knows they need it.

weak rant off.

Figure P&N is best of this. I will put up a link to the interview tomorrow when they post it on the daily show website.

EDIT: Clips are up and on the front page. Biden Interview 1 and 2. http://www.thedailyshow.com/

What?? Thought Will Rogers answered that, "I belong to no organized political party, I am a Democrat."

 

[fskimospy]

Your paper is from the University of California. Thus, it is a California paper. I "dismissed it" because I was at my "job" and while I can hammer out some posts, I don't have time to read an in depth political paper.

Further - debating the definitions that I've created myself? You think I'm the first person to use the terms fiscal vs social conservatism/liberalism? It is DANGEROUSLY ignorant to think politics is a black or white, one issue subject.

Well you're certainly taking a novel approach to the discussion, one where you have decided you don't have enough time to consider the evidence presented to you about why you are incorrect, but will continue on as if it weren't there. You claimed that Republicans today are not markedly more conservative than in past years. I refuted your claim with peer reviewed research. You then followed up your evaluation of it by saying in effect 'I don't care what it says, I know what I know'. There's really not much point in showing you these things if you aren't interested in hearing the evidence.

In fact there's a huge amount of literature all based around the political polarization of America in recent decades... how the conservatives have become more conservative and the liberals have become more liberal. There are lots of interesting arguments about why, but nobody really disputes that such a polarization has occurred. This is one of the reasons why I'm pretty confused about your argument.

Maybe you don't consider people who don't balance the budget to be conservative, but Republicans have really NEVER been particularly good at balancing the budget. There's a lot more to fiscal conservatism than that however, and the Republicans have sure been gangbusters at the rest of it. (balancing budgets apparently isn't very fun) You're more than welcome to have your own personal definition of what a conservative is, but that's not really important to the rest of us because the rest of the country doesn't use your definition.

I guess my point is that I don't actually care if YOU think either Reagan or the modern Republicans are conservative or not. By all credible methods of surveying partisan ideological stances, they are... and that's what actually matters.

 

[FerrelGeek]

FerrelGeek

I stand by my statement. The Johnson administration was pretty much the last time the Dems did get ramrodded on any scale to follow the party line.

The Republicans are vicious about it and get worse as time goes by. Bush brought it out of the closet with so many blatant cases of demands of party loyalty to get a job, keep a position, etc.. Ability, skill, training, experience, and knowledge were distant runners compared to towing the party line when it came to any kind of support from the administration or the party.

And maybe, if you are a WWII vet, you're old enough to call me "son".

Then I guess I'll call you brother as my dad was a WW2 vet. As I said, politics is politics. I think both parties will do the needful to keep their troops in line. If you think that Pelosi, Reid, et al aren't putting on the pressure to get their gang to vote for healthcare and such, and won't punish the misbehavers next year, I stand by what I said. Politics is not a game for the timid; never has been.

 

[jackschmittusa]

FerrelGeek

The Dem leaders are far more likely to be using carrots than sticks. Quid pro quo is is usually the method of choice for them. The Republicans banish you to the wilderness for impure thoughts and words.

 

[Chaotic42]

I guess my point is that I don't actually care if YOU think either Reagan or the modern Republicans are conservative or not. By all credible methods of surveying partisan ideological stances, they are... and that's what actually matters.

So what are we 8 fiscally conservative/socially liberal people supposed to call ourselves? Other than hopeless, of couse.

 

[Deeko]

Well you're certainly taking a novel approach to the discussion, one where you have decided you don't have enough time to consider the evidence presented to you about why you are incorrect, but will continue on as if it weren't there. You claimed that Republicans today are not markedly more conservative than in past years. I refuted your claim with peer reviewed research. You then followed up your evaluation of it by saying in effect 'I don't care what it says, I know what I know'. There's really not much point in showing you these things if you aren't interested in hearing the evidence.

In fact there's a huge amount of literature all based around the political polarization of America in recent decades... how the conservatives have become more conservative and the liberals have become more liberal. There are lots of interesting arguments about why, but nobody really disputes that such a polarization has occurred. This is one of the reasons why I'm pretty confused about your argument.

Maybe you don't consider people who don't balance the budget to be conservative, but Republicans have really NEVER been particularly good at balancing the budget. There's a lot more to fiscal conservatism than that however, and the Republicans have sure been gangbusters at the rest of it. (balancing budgets apparently isn't very fun) You're more than welcome to have your own personal definition of what a conservative is, but that's not really important to the rest of us because the rest of the country doesn't use your definition.

I guess my point is that I don't actually care if YOU think either Reagan or the modern Republicans are conservative or not. By all credible methods of surveying partisan ideological stances, they are... and that's what actually matters.

What are you talking about kid? If its so important, just fucking say what the paper says, not all of us have time (especially during, uh, the work day) to read a full length college research paper. If all the paper says is "republicans and democrats are farther apart", which is what you've already said and the graphs show, why should I waste my time?

Also, so let me get this straight - you consider someone that raises both government income AND expenditures to be fiscally conservative? Are you insane? That's by definition the OPPOSITE of being fiscally conservative!

There is absolutely, positively, NO one black-or-white label for the vast subject of national politics. I say again - to keep trying to claim that is dangerously ignorant, and a large part of the problem with American politics.

 

[Carmen813]

What are you talking about kid? If its so important, just fucking say what the paper says, not all of us have time (especially during, uh, the work day) to read a full length college research paper. If all the paper says is "republicans and democrats are farther apart", which is what you've already said and the graphs show, why should I waste my time?

Also, so let me get this straight - you consider someone that raises both government income AND expenditures to be fiscally conservative? Are you insane? That's by definition the OPPOSITE of being fiscally conservative!

There is absolutely, positively, NO one black-or-white label for the vast subject of national politics. I say again - to keep trying to claim that is dangerously ignorant, and a large part of the problem with American politics.

If you wanted to read the paper, you would make time to do so. Stop making lame excuses. Do you know how many people have worked 40 hour jobs while completing graduate level degrees? The paper is FIVE pages long. Print it out and read it while you are on the can. Otherwise, stop being petty and petulant. If you don't want to read it, just say so.

Someone who raises government income and expenditures can meet the definition of a fiscal conservative if the goal is to maintain a balanced budget. In fact that is how fiscally conservative legislation is passed, you either offset spending increases with cuts in other areas, or increase taxes in order to pay for it. You could also simply choose to not vote for legislation that isn't paid for. Fiscal conservatism is not necessarily the same thing as a Conservative approach to government, which traditionally was about preventing government from growing (though in reality they didn't actually do that). Always being for a tax cut is not necessarily fiscal conservative if it requires us to borrow money to pay for it. This is why I consider Blue Dog democrats to be the some of the few remaining real fiscal conservatives left in Congress.

 

[Deeko]

If you wanted to read the paper, you would make time to do so. Stop making lame excuses. Do you know how many people have worked 40 hour jobs while completing graduate level degrees? The paper is FIVE pages long. Print it out and read it while you are on the can. Otherwise, stop being petty and petulant. If you don't want to read it, just say so.

Someone who raises government income and expenditures can meet the definition of a fiscal conservative if the goal is to maintain a balanced budget. In fact that is how fiscally conservative legislation is passed, you either offset spending increases with cuts in other areas, or increase taxes in order to pay for it. You could also simply choose to not vote for legislation that isn't paid for. Fiscal conservatism is not necessarily the same thing as a Conservative approach to government, which traditionally was about preventing government from growing (though in reality they didn't actually do that). Always being for a tax cut is not necessarily fiscal conservative if it requires us to borrow money to pay for it. This is why I consider Blue Dog democrats to be the some of the few remaining real fiscal conservatives left in Congress.

I said I looked over it. I asked if it says more than that, he didn't respond, he just whined. And the original discussion was taking place DURING THE WORK DAY, ya know, when I was AT that 40 hour a week job. I could read it later when I'm "on the can", without being able to respond for hours, or I could scan it, and keep the discussion going.

So let me get this straight - you can be a fiscal conservative that raises the size of government if you balance the budget - which these modern "super conservatives" have been the worst at, and eskimospy himself even agreed about. Which is it? Are these people that want to shrink government but are too inept to do it, or are they people that want to increase government but balance the budget? Or, simply, are they just not fiscally conservative, no matter what label people want to slap on them because they cut a tax here and there?

 

[SilentRunning]

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

Because Joe Biden was in a hurry to get his motorcade back out on the streets to do his part to boost auto sales.

 

[Jhhnn]

So what are we 8 fiscally conservative/socially liberal people supposed to call ourselves? Other than hopeless, of couse.

The term, "fiscal conservatism", has been used and abused by the Right Wing for so long as to be meaningless. The simple fact that the Clinton Admin was the most fiscally responsible since Jimmy Carter should tell you something. Republican "fiscal conservatives" are pathological liars, judging from their actual accomplishments. They cut taxes, hugely at the top, then borrow the money instead, creating deficits and the most lopsided distribution of income since the 1920's.

Anybody who thinks that fiscal responsibility can realistically be achieved through spending cuts alone is completely delusional. Taxes need to go up, particularly at the top, because they're the people who've benefited enormously over the last 30 years, and they're the people who'll suffer the least actual pain in the process. They're also, increasingly, the only people who have any money, given that their share of income has almost tripled over that same 30 year span... the top 1&#37; share going from <9% in 1979 to >23% in 2007...

 

[SirStev0]

So what are we 8 fiscally conservative/socially liberal people supposed to call ourselves? Other than hopeless, of couse.

Paulbots?

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

Could you explain Olympia Snow to me then? Or some of the other Republicans who have worked with Democrats on various issues.

The reason Democrats can't get things run through is because they have a lot of moderate or conservative members who are fearful of their seats if they vote to far to the left.

A lot of them remember the 54 Democrats who lost their seats when too many of them sided with Clinton on his tax increase way back in the early 90s.

 

[fskimospy]

I said I looked over it. I asked if it says more than that, he didn't respond, he just whined. And the original discussion was taking place DURING THE WORK DAY, ya know, when I was AT that 40 hour a week job. I could read it later when I'm "on the can", without being able to respond for hours, or I could scan it, and keep the discussion going.

So let me get this straight - you can be a fiscal conservative that raises the size of government if you balance the budget - which these modern "super conservatives" have been the worst at, and eskimospy himself even agreed about. Which is it? Are these people that want to shrink government but are too inept to do it, or are they people that want to increase government but balance the budget? Or, simply, are they just not fiscally conservative, no matter what label people want to slap on them because they cut a tax here and there?

Fiscal conservatism covers a whole lot more than the deficit. In fact there isn't even really an agreed upon idea of what 'fiscal conservatism' is. Hell, the trickle down economics people will happily engage in deficit exploding tax cuts because they believe that in the end we will end up with more money and I'm pretty sure they would be labeled fiscal conservatives. In addition to that there are the free trade movements, massive deregulation, etc... etc. All things modern Republicans embrace with gusto.

As I said before, you believe that because they have failed in one area that fiscal conservatism covers, that they aren't 'conservatives'. If you want to use your own definition for it that's certainly fine, but I'm just warning you that you won't be talking about the same things that a lot of other people are.

There really isn't much more to say on the topic. On the whole, Republicans are markedly to the right of where they were in the past due to the increasing polarization of America. There are also some pretty fascinating studies about the self sorting that is taking place in America and if you're interested in reading about that I can hook you up with some pretty neat papers too.

 

[Jhhnn]

Olympia Snowe? She's one of the last of a dying breed, a Republican Yankee. The usual ravers refer to her as a RINO whenever she bucks the right fringe leadership.

She's also been in congress since 1978, largely because she's represented the people of Maine in a way they can accept and respect.

1994? You must be referring to the Repubs' master scam, the Contract on America...

 

[FerrelGeek]

FerrelGeek

The Dem leaders are far more likely to be using carrots than sticks. Quid pro quo is is usually the method of choice for them. The Republicans banish you to the wilderness for impure thoughts and words.

Yes, the carrot of .gov pork to bribe the folks back home. That's why, to a fair extent, both parties suck. I criticised the GOP for overspending as well.

 

[Carmen813]

/snip

So let me get this straight - you can be a fiscal conservative that raises the size of government if you balance the budget - which these modern "super conservatives" have been the worst at, and eskimospy himself even agreed about. Which is it? Are these people that want to shrink government but are too inept to do it, or are they people that want to increase government but balance the budget? Or, simply, are they just not fiscally conservative, no matter what label people want to slap on them because they cut a tax here and there?

You are confusing the terms "Conservative" with "fiscal conservative." A person who believes in the Conservative philosophy of government generally is against government growth. In reality, Conservative politicians aren't really against government growth. They are against expanding social welfare programs but will gladly amp up military spending. They also tend to be rather hawkish on wars, and aren't opposed to telling you what you can/cannot do in your bedroom.

A fiscal conservative doesn't have to be against government growth, simply against growing the national debt/deficit. It's possible to be a fiscally conservative Conservative, like Ron Paul, just as it's possible to be a fiscally conservative Democrat, like the Blue Dog coalition. As I said, if you cut a tax but don't also cut spending (or I suppose tax someone else) then it isn't a fiscally conservative position.

I'll give you an actual example. Last year Congress passed a new GI Bill that tremendously expanded veteran benefits. The bill added $63 billion to the deficit. Blue Dog Democrats protested and would not vote for the bill. They wanted to cut spending elsewhere or instill a new tax to pay for it. Blue dogs ended up losing because progressive Democrats and some "Conservative" Republicans united together to get the bill through the House and into the Senate. The bill passed, adding $63 billion to our national debt.

We're talking about multiple dimensions of someone's political stances where the labels we use like "Liberal" or "Conservative" don't work. I would probably consider myself a fiscally conservative liberal. Liberals want an expanded role of government (in my case, in a few areas, like health care, education, energy), but they also want it paid for.

 

[Pulsar]

i think biden explained it rather well. the democratic party has many different viewpoints within it, and many (or enough, at least) see some of the current legislation as watered down stopgap solutions- which is what it is. and they won't vote for it. the republicans are all pre-programmed yeses and nos. so on issues like healthcare, you get a big arbritray block of 'no's thrown into the middle of your democracy.

but it would be much better if all the dems could just agree on a single-payer healthcare bill that they would unanimously pass, and ram that fucker through congress and the senate like shit through my colon after taco bell. uncompromisingly dimwitted cries of 'socialism!' be damned.

Does it make you feel more secure with your world-view when you attempt to classify half the country with a broad brush like that? Or do you just dislike serious discussion and find blind bigotry easier to handle?

 

[brblx]

if you can't acknowledge the rank stupidity of the general population of this country, congrats, you're now lumped in with them. see how that works?

if you need a news network to a) tell you your fears and then b) support your (their) fears through lies and manipulation of the truth and finally c) coddle you and point the finger at an arbitrary 'bad guy,' yes, you're a dumb son of a bitch. got a problem with it? learn to think for yourself and maybe others will take you seriously.

you've got the 'blind' part right, but you're labelling the wrong group, dipshit.

 

[Chaotic42]

Paulbots?

What?

 

[Pulsar]

if you can't acknowledge the rank stupidity of the general population of this country, congrats, you're now lumped in with them. see how that works?

if you need a news network to a) tell you your fears and then b) support your (their) fears through lies and manipulation of the truth and finally c) coddle you and point the finger at an arbitrary 'bad guy,' yes, you're a dumb son of a bitch. got a problem with it? learn to think for yourself and maybe others will take you seriously.

you've got the 'blind' part right, but you're labelling the wrong group, dipshit.

It seems you answered my question for me. I'll chalk you up in the column of "blind bigotry".

Your eloquence and word selection are also truly top notch.

As for the "rank stupidity" - I've met a lot of people. Each one of them surprises me as to what they're good at, and what they do know, and what they don't. I'm not so quick as you to throw them all into a bus and label them morons just because they disagree with me on a particular topic.

Let me know how far that 'democrats = good' and 'republican = bad' gets you in life. It sure looks like a plan for success to me.