Fundamental flaws in the Republican Party

[tzor]

This is a joke, but somewhat serious. Tzor have you ever considered re-writing children's storys to reflect a Conservative point of view?

First of all, the Robin Hood legends are not children's stories. As with most legends, they are rather sloppy, contradict themselves, and wind up stealing other legends. (Specially the 19th century novel Ivanhoe.)

Now I have considered writing Snow White as a modern radio play, not really "conservative" but filled with various puns.

(The Prince "Charming" would be modeled after Chris Christie with constant "Please don't squeeze Prince Charming" references from his assistant.)

(And, of course, the President would constantly be talking to his political advisers on his iPad which he constantly calls a "magic mirror in my hand.")

(And why a conservative blogger and commentator - Snow White - would be "the most electable in the land," can only be explained by "it's a fairy tale, stupid!")

[PLAYER57832]

This is a joke, but somewhat serious. Tzor have you ever considered re-writing children's storys to reflect a Conservative point of view?

Already done... tales retold as partisan politics or some such.

[Symmetry]

Last week, as regular readers know, I went to the University of Idaho to debate whether civil marriage equality was good or bad for society as a whole. My interlocutor was and is a fundamentalist, a believer in Biblical morality, and a very hospitable and gracious host. I had dinner with his extended family – an impressive, funny, intelligent crew. His son-in-law friend, who shepherded me around, was super-smart, is obviously fully engaged in the modern world, educated and eager to chat. He also believes that the earth was created in six days six thousand years’ ago, that civil marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples only, and that abortion should be illegal.

I just want to say I wish I met more Christianists like this more often. My hosts sincerely believe that there can be no solid separation between church and state and no basis for social order or “truth” other than Biblical morality as strained through the New Testament. And so purely pragmatic political arguments can quickly become problematic for them. Peter Leithart, who attended the debate, wrote it up on First Things and admirably homed in on the core divide:

Sullivan demanded that Wilson defend his position with secular, civil arguments, not theocratic ones, and in this demand Sullivan has the support of liberal polity. Sullivan’s is a rigid standard for public discourse that leaves biblically-grounded Christians with little to say … That leaves Christians with the option of making theologically rich, biblically founded arguments against gay marriage. But do we have the vocabulary ready to hand? And even if we do, does the vocabulary we have make any sense to the public at large?

Wilson closed the debate with a lovely sketch of the marital shape of redemptive history, from the garden to the rescue of the Bride by the divine Husband to the revelation of a bride from heaven. In order for that to carry any weight, though, people have to be convinced that social institutions should participate in and reflect some sort of cosmic order. Who believes that these days? Wilson tells a cute story, many will say, but what does it have to do with public policy?

If that’s a hard case to make, it’s even harder to make the case that homosexuals are in any way a threat to our civilization.

Rod Dreher notes:

This is the answer to the question about “cosmic” versus “moral.” Leithart is pointing out that the metaphysical ground has radically shifted under our feet. The traditional Christian moral arguments depend on a metaphysical understanding that is no longer widely shared, not even by Christians.

This is why Christianism cannot win a majority – and is fast becoming a smaller minority. If your agrument is that God says so – and your fellow citizens don’t believe in that same God – how can you even engage in secular debate? New analysis (pdf) of polling and the last election results on the gay marriage question, for example, reveal that only one major religious group now opposes marriage equality across the board: white evangelical Christians, who are pretty close to synonymous with the Tea Party. Even every other Christian population supports it! From white non-evangelical Christians to Catholics, clear majorities favor the reform.

To give one comparison: white Catholics back civil marriage equality by 53 – 43 percent. Hispanic Catholics back it by 54 – 35. But white evangelicals oppose it by a massive margin: 73 percent oppose it, 23 percent support it. The GOP’s problem is that this is their base; it cannot compromise because God’s word is inviolable; and yet it is also losing the argument badly. You either stick with this base and lose – or you fight them and lose. Which is why so many in the GOP are now just not talking about the issue.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/07/cosmos/

[thegreekdog]

I agree with Mr. Sullivan.

[PLAYER57832]

Thought about making a new thread with this, because its not really just about Republicans, but decided it dos fit here just the same.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... nt-helping

[Night Strike]

Thought about making a new thread with this, because its not really just about Republicans, but decided it dos fit here just the same.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... nt-helping

So the vast majority of the story is about Republicans doing the blocking while only the last two semi-paragraphs give tacit mention of Obama failing to nominate anyone. Yep, NPR is completely unbiased.


Let's just take the ATF: Obama didn't even put forward a nominee until his gun control executive orders. Why wasn't that even inserted into the paragraph? Instead, the paragraph implied the Senate hadn't confirmed anyone since 2006.

[PLAYER57832]

Thought about making a new thread with this, because its not really just about Republicans, but decided it dos fit here just the same.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... nt-helping

So the vast majority of the story is about Republicans doing the blocking while only the last two semi-paragraphs give tacit mention of Obama failing to nominate anyone. Yep, NPR is completely unbiased.


Let's just take the ATF: Obama didn't even put forward a nominee until his gun control executive orders. Why wasn't that even inserted into the paragraph? Instead, the paragraph implied the Senate hadn't confirmed anyone since 2006.

They haven't.

[Night Strike]

Thought about making a new thread with this, because its not really just about Republicans, but decided it dos fit here just the same.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... nt-helping

So the vast majority of the story is about Republicans doing the blocking while only the last two semi-paragraphs give tacit mention of Obama failing to nominate anyone. Yep, NPR is completely unbiased.


Let's just take the ATF: Obama didn't even put forward a nominee until his gun control executive orders. Why wasn't that even inserted into the paragraph? Instead, the paragraph implied the Senate hadn't confirmed anyone since 2006.

They haven't.

Someone must be nominated in order to be confirmed.

[PLAYER57832]

Thought about making a new thread with this, because its not really just about Republicans, but decided it dos fit here just the same.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... nt-helping

So the vast majority of the story is about Republicans doing the blocking while only the last two semi-paragraphs give tacit mention of Obama failing to nominate anyone. Yep, NPR is completely unbiased.


Let's just take the ATF: Obama didn't even put forward a nominee until his gun control executive orders. Why wasn't that even inserted into the paragraph? Instead, the paragraph implied the Senate hadn't confirmed anyone since 2006.

They haven't.

Someone must be nominated in order to be confirmed.

Yes, that was mentioned as well. Also that the same thing happened under Bush, etc.

BUT.. the point is that Repubs now are doing it more and more for ideological reasons, purely to deny those agencies the ability to do their work, not because of any real and true issue with the nominee or because they want some concession, etc.


And it harms all of us, subverts what democracy we have.

[stahrgazer]

Personally, I think the fundamental flaw in the Republican Party looks like this:

"We want to cut budgets... ...of anyone but our own benefits, salaries, and supporters."

Yup. Because THIS Republican is still waiting for the GOP bill that cuts federal wages and other expenditures by slashing 50% off the Congressional and Senatorial salaries, and reduces their other benefits by 60%.

When I see that supported, then you damn skippy I'll be voting my "party line" all the way. Until I see that, I'm left with the impression that my once-wise party has turned into a bunch of hypocritical old white men who want my woman's body back under their control (abortion); want the poor under their control (no welfare) and want to support only their own supporters (Haliburton, etc.)

They're simply too busy trying to make "Democrats fail" (and sort of failing at that) than working to make my country succeed.

Most recently, they want to pass off budget back to Obama; they should all be impeached! The way it's supposed to work is, the administration suggests a budget, but it's Congress/Senate job to work it out and pass one!

Obama has done his job over and over again in that regard, it's Congress and Senate who've violated their duties by failing to pass something (and they're doing it so they can blame "Obama" for THEIR failing, and it's not working, and THAT is why Obama got re-elected and why his approval rating is higher than theirs.)

I'm POSITIVE that had the Republicans run on a platform of "cutting federal spending starting with those at the TOP - Congress and Senate," they would've won. Because only THEN would their "platform" be believable.

[tzor]

You raise a number of issues here; I'll try to address them all.

There is still a "progressive lite" wing in the Republican Party; not all Republicans are for spending cuts. This wing hated Reagan with a passion and they are glad he's dead. The arguments against G.W. Bush are valid; he never met a problem he didn't solve by MORE GOVERNMENT (yet he still pales in comparison to Obama's MORE GOVERNMENT responses). There are "career" politicians in the party; they may have started out with good intentions but now their only intention is holding on to power. McCain, unfortunately, is one of them. To a lesser extent, so is the current speaker of the House. He is only in the position he is now because he kissed ass up the political hierarchy.

The House has passed budgets; it is the Senate who has constantly refused to act. It's actually in the best interest of the Democrats not to pass a budget, allowing the ever growing continuing resolutions to cloak the levels of the spending. Obama, meanwhile has done NOTHING. I'm sorry, but the POTUS should have, at least in theory, a little pull in his own party. He can't even get a single member of the house to vote for his budget and he can't even get his budget up for a vote in the Senate. So not only are his budgets late, they are dead on arrival, by design.

[PLAYER57832]

I blame both parties, but this thread is about the Republicans.

[stahrgazer]

The House has passed budgets; it is the Senate who has constantly refused to act. It's actually in the best interest of the Democrats not to pass a budget, allowing the ever growing continuing resolutions to cloak the levels of the spending. Obama, meanwhile has done NOTHING. I'm sorry, but the POTUS should have, at least in theory, a little pull in his own party. He can't even get a single member of the house to vote for his budget and he can't even get his budget up for a vote in the Senate. So not only are his budgets late, they are dead on arrival, by design.

It's not POTUS job to pass a budget, that's Congress's job.

The Bush Congress was happy with the Bush budget because Bush didn't put everything into his budget. As he promised, Obama did put every expenditure that had been made, had been planned, and had been promised (and not just by/for Democrats) into the budget.

And now that they see it in black & white, they won't pass it.

And about the only "cuts" the Republicans want are to those who can least the government cutting off their aid while rich get even richer.

And not one of them has the balls to propose they start cutting with their own salaries and benefits; and not one has the balls to suggest that maybe we have too many congressman now and that, now that "reaching out" is much easier, maybe the population numbers that indicate another representative is in order, should be increased because one congressman can get feedback from a wider area than when those numbers were first set.

Yes, both are responsible for forgetting to lead by example, but since the Republican party wants to claim they're "for tax cuts" it's more their responsibility to start with cuts to themselves, their own salaries, their own benefits, their own numbers, their own pensions, cutting out pensions for those who've committed criminal impeachable acts, and so forth... things pretty much no "average citizen" would disagree with. So if they are supposed to represent "us" and they want to cut expenses, then they should start there.

[Night Strike]

It's not POTUS job to pass a budget, that's Congress's job.

But he is instructed by law to propose a budget....and has missed that deadline for at least the past two years and still hasn't proposed one yet this year.

Also, the Senate is instructed by law to pass a budget plan every year and has refused to since 2009.


By the way, I agree that the fundamental flaw of Republicans is that they refuse to cut governmental spending, which is because there are still too many big-government progressives in the party. But that's changing and will hopefully continue to change.

[stahrgazer]

But he is instructed by law to propose a budget....and has missed that deadline for at least the past two years and still hasn't proposed one yet this year.

Also, the Senate is instructed by law to pass a budget plan every year and has refused to since 2009.
.

So, after two years of Senate not doing their job, he decided to spend his time on something possibly more productive?

However, you are not in possession of the FACTS because, the FACT is, there IS a proposed 2013 budget.

The Budget

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013 contains the Budget Message of the President, information on the President’s priorities, budget overviews organized by agency, and summary tables.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview


In fact, there's information that indicates there was one for 2012, 2011, 2010 - and you have already conceded that there was a plan presented for 2009.

The 2012 United States federal budget was the budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2012, which is October 2011–September 2012. The original spending request was issued by President Barack Obama in February 2011.

The 2011 United States federal budget is the United States federal budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2011, which is October 2010 – September 2011. The budget is the subject of a spending request by President Barack Obama.[3][4] The actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 had to be authorized by the full Congress before it could take effect, according to the United States budget process.

The United States Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, titled A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise,[2] is a spending request by President Barack Obama to fund government operations for October 2009–September 2010. Figures shown in the spending request do not reflect the actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2010, which must be authorized by Congress.

So, I'm back to repeating: Obama has done his part of the job.

I'd like to see Senate/Congress reduce the budget by reducing their own salaries and benefits first, to lead by example with a budget cut that everyone except maybe themselves, would cheer.

[Night Strike]

Yeah, the 2013 budget was submitted last year after an extension. The 2014 budget, which was supposed to be submitted last month, still has not been submitted.

The Obama administration will release its 2014 budget more than two months late on April 8, according to congressional sources.

Pentagon officials have informed the House Armed Services Committee that the budget is coming on April 8, said Claude Chafin, a committee spokesman. A Democratic congressional source confirmed that is the planned release date.

The April release means President Obama's budget will be nine weeks late, as it was due by law on Feb. 4, the first Monday in February.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/287003-presidents-budget-delayed-until-april


By the way.....don't forget who controls the Senate......failure for them to pass a budget is NOT a fundamental flaw of the Republican party.

[tzor]

It's not POTUS job to pass a budget, that's Congress's job.

A few points to consider.

1. There is a law on the books that says he must submit a budget.
2. Anyone who doesn't do whatever they can to help a cause has no cause to complain about a cause not being done.
3. The President is normally the de facto Big Chief of his own party.

The person who is responsible for no budget (the only part of congress not to pass anything) is the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reed. Now the POTUS as Big Chief of the Democratic Party has enough clout to target Republican Senators who he doesn't like then he has enough clout to threaten to cut off the party fund spigot to the Majority Leader. He doesn't because he doesn't want a budget passed, but clearly if he wanted to, he has plenty of tools in his tool kit to make it so.

[AndyDufresne]

Moral of the story, everyone is to blame.

Moral of the story, no one is to blame.

Moral of the story, what is blame?


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

Moral of the story, everyone is to blame.

Moral of the story, no one is to blame.

Moral of the story, what is blame?


--Andy

Everyone who votes without truly considering that those who disagree might have valid points.

Everyone who doesn't vote, or who stays out of the system.

Anyone who cheats, lies, considers it OK to do so because the "ends justify the means".

Anyone who thinks its OK to just look at someone's label instead of their words, that labels mean something real.

[stahrgazer]

By the way.....don't forget who controls the Senate......failure for them to pass a budget is NOT a fundamental flaw of the Republican party.

Yes, it is. (Nor is it the first time they've used the stall tactic because a Dem was in the White House - reference to Clinton era.)

But I'll accept that it's ALSO a fundamental flaw of the Dem party.

And as I said: it's the Rep party that says they want cuts, but they want to cut ANYTHING but their own pocketbooks and bennies - and that's another flaw.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way.....don't forget who controls the Senate......failure for them to pass a budget is NOT a fundamental flaw of the Republican party.

Yes, it is. (Nor is it the first time they've used the stall tactic because a Dem was in the White House - reference to Clinton era.)

But I'll accept that it's ALSO a fundamental flaw of the Dem party.

And as I said: it's the Rep party that says they want cuts, but they want to cut ANYTHING but their own pocketbooks and bennies - and that's another flaw.

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

[tzor]

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...

Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."

[thegreekdog]

By the way.....don't forget who controls the Senate......failure for them to pass a budget is NOT a fundamental flaw of the Republican party.

Yes, it is. (Nor is it the first time they've used the stall tactic because a Dem was in the White House - reference to Clinton era.)

But I'll accept that it's ALSO a fundamental flaw of the Dem party.

And as I said: it's the Rep party that says they want cuts, but they want to cut ANYTHING but their own pocketbooks and bennies - and that's another flaw.

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

FACTS BE DAMNED! RHETORIC RULES! GO PLAYER GO!

[BigBallinStalin]

By the way.....don't forget who controls the Senate......failure for them to pass a budget is NOT a fundamental flaw of the Republican party.

Yes, it is. (Nor is it the first time they've used the stall tactic because a Dem was in the White House - reference to Clinton era.)

But I'll accept that it's ALSO a fundamental flaw of the Dem party.

And as I said: it's the Rep party that says they want cuts, but they want to cut ANYTHING but their own pocketbooks and bennies - and that's another flaw.

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

FACTS BE DAMNED! RHETORIC RULES! GO PLAYER GO!

The crowd goes wild!

[tzor]

The crowd goes wild!

I like how the guy in blue is giving everyone the double middle finger.