There won't be a leftist party in the US in the near future. We're not as organized as other progressive countries.

Update on the race: the Republican dropped out and is now putting full support behind the Democrat.

Yeah moderate Republicans are turning on the crazies, which is a good thing.

You'd think so, but the crazies have the microphone. "See?! See?!" they'll scream, "We told you she was with them!!!" and the idiots will nod their collectively empty skulls.

The two party system won't fracture. The reason we have two parties in America is not simply because people have accepted two parties, it is the natural outcome of plurality voting. Until we change how we count the votes, there will always be two major parties in the long term, with only very short transitional periods should one major party completely fall out of favor.

You're absolutely correct, though, that the centre-right government does not accurately represent the people. When polled on the issues, rather than on the candidates or the parties, Americans are decidedly more liberal than they vote. Collectively, we're centre-left if anything.

The New York Times > Log In

Wasn't sure exactly which thread to put this in, but this seems close enough. Krugman really nails whats going on right now

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again--the majority of Republicans are rational, reasoning individuals, but they have allowed themselves to be usurped by the loonies. TAKE YOUR PARTY BACK, GOP. Only then will there be any attempt at consensus or a chance to pull the nation out of it's quagmire.

I think that's exactly what should happen for both parties. Their numbers will continue to decrease where all is left behind are toothless relics... the clueless politicians, unemployed and scratching their heads. Niether parties are truly representing their traditional base. Time to hit the reset button... time to wipe and flush.

The game is fixed, though. These aren't just lunatic ideologues, they're seasoned and experienced politicians. Sarah Palin will die in her 70s with a full and vibrant career, far more than simply making a fool of herself, she likely will have shaped a lot of what will be of our country. I hate this fact, and I'll fight against it as much as I can, but I'd be naive to simply think Sarah Palin will stop on her own.

One thing I don't understand about the concern regarding the future of the Republican Party and the degree that the "base" will exclude moderates is that John McCain the last party nominee for President was moderate (at least in my opinion) and he did not even get an endorsement from another moderate like Colin Powell. Powell endorsing Obama had nothing to do with the "base" in the Republican Party, whatever his issue was, it was with another moderate but when you listened to him he talked about the extremists in the Republican Party, I don't get it. And given that the party nominated a moderate when there were more extreme right alternatives, what is the deal with all the concern about the "base" being in control - they are not and have never been. Bush had to play to the middle to get elected and re-elected. He toned down his "social positions" and he catered to domestic spending to the degree that he lost popularity with the "base". so, again what is the deal? Sara Palin, as much as I like her, is not going to be the 2012 nominee. The odds are it will be a moderate or a person who down plays their conservatism. So again what is the deal? I don't get it. Seems to me that Democrats are as splintered or more splintered than Republicans, especially given their current control of both Houses and the executive branch and their inability to get things done.

The reason Obama has been ineffective is simple--he has spent too much time offering the olive branch to a bunch of idiots. The time for trying to negotiate with the lunatic fringe--you know, people who won't even admit that Obama is an American, or invoke the phrase "death panel"--has LONG passed. Fuck em.

Do you mean like these folks or are you talking about the folks who insisted on the Stupak amendment, also Democrats?

Obtained: In Letter To Pelosi, 41 House Dems Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendment | The Plum Line

Ace, John McCain was a moderate in 2000, when everyone loved him. In 2008, John McCain's platform was nearly indistinguishable from George W. Bush's. He probably still is a moderate, but the RNC was scared shitless of alienating the base when they've become so vocal and involved, so they pushed McCain to go right. And he did. The only reason he looked like a moderate to people on the right in 2008 is that he was standing next to Sarah Palin. She's one of those more fringe right folks (radical Christian, neoconservative, etc.). John McCain's about a 6 on a scale of -10 to 10, with -10 being pure progressive and 10 being pure conservative. Sarah Palin's about a 12. Obama's about a 1.

I'm a -8.

I recall McCain being critical of Bush on many issues and to me it seemed that he made a point of distancing himself from Bush. On a broader not it turns out that Obama actual actions to date have been indistinguishable from Bush and Democrats have controlled Congress for 3 years and have not taken the country in a materially different direction so far.

McCain has always shifted to what is popular (my opinion) or main stream. I recall the immigration issue, he moved "right" because the main stream is "right" on that issue. That is one reason you won't see Obama and Democrats tackle the immigration issue any time soon. I am not sure what other issue you think may fit into this category.

That is incorrect from my point of view. In the primaries I thought he was the worst choice and the one most willing to compromise his convictions. Palin made him tolerable to the "right".

The characterization flies in the face of her actual record in elected office.


I get confused by these labels. For example I support a woman's right to choose an abortion in the first trimester only and when the fetus is not viable outside the womb however I also support legalization of virtually all illegal drugs. What am I?

I had a response to this typed out, but forget it. Won't do any good anyway.

The Obama thing is probably better for the Bush 3rd term thread, but what would you say were the main functional differences between McCain's platform and the policies of the Bush2 Administration?
It probably wasn't popular for calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance". That was not a populist move, but seemed to stem from McCain's (former?) character. Similarly, McCain refused to speak at Bob Jones U because of their ban on interracial dating. People, myself included, perked up when we heard about the Republican that was moderate on social issues. Holy shit, we thought, a social moderate and fiscal conservative? Those don't come along very often. Around comes 2008 and he's back to race-baiting in a massive way along with his pal Palin.
McCain is right wing. Sarah Palin is the populist far right. If McCain wanted to govern more than he wanted to win, he would have chosen someone capable of doing the job if something happened to him, like Gingrich (not that I can stand Gingrich, but at least he's got a lot of experience under his belt and he's got a lot of support not just in the base, but among moderates).
Do you mean mayor of Wasilla or governor of a state that has less people than Baltimore? Her record (charging for rape kits, covering up family scandals, coercion, incompetence, and corruption) all fit perfectly with my description, in fact I was being generous.
You're a solid 5 overall.

Just going on memory. Interrogation, Gitmo, Iraq War (strategy), deficits, original TARP, Social Security reform, diplomacy (engaging other nations), transparency, more support of military after they return, Katrina response, to name a few.

My recollection was that McCain went out of his way to down play the race issue in the campaign. I recall Democrats in their primaries having a bigger problem on the question of race than McCain. I don't recall Palin making an issue of race, I do recall her making an of Obama's "pals".

Is the problem with McCain boiling down to him picking Palin as a running mate?

Not sure I see the point there, but she has a record as an elected official.

None of those things are national "right wing" platform issues, she was not found guilty of charges of cover up or coercion. In terms of competence, Alaska did not suffer under her leadership, by most objective measures Alaska was doing well compared to other states. It is ironic that my post regarding McCain, a moderate, in my view and the party's chosen nominee (not hand picked like Palin was), turns mostly to a discussion about Palin. Palin, just like Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc., are not going to be the party's nominee in 2012, so again it begs the question, what is all the concern about?


Until we start talking national defense and capitalism.:thumbsup:

He changed his mind on torture when he voted against the waterboarding ban after explaining that waterboarding is torture. So no. No, he's pro-"enhanced interrogation" in practice.
You're right, but this isn't a policy issue, it's a specific installation. As above. McCain supports what was done at Gitmo, so closing it is entirely meaningless.
While McCain was in disagreement in maybe 2003-2006ish, after maybe mid-year 2007 they were in perfect lockstep. If was funny that while back in 2006, McCain said that Bush Misled Country On Iraq, fighting strongly against it, and in 2008, it was all about the surge, baby! BTW, both Bush and McCain supported the surge.
Meaningless. Republicans are deficit hawks during a campaign and spend with the best Democrats when in office. Check out this WSJ article regarding the deficit under a McCain administration.
Nope.
For privatization before he was against it?

Was Bush ever explicitly against transparency? I mean in practice, sure, but if we're going to compare campaign promises of McCain to practices of Bush... you get what I'm saying.
McCain is horrible when it comes to veterans.
Hindsight is 20/20.

I'm sorry, but really McCain was tremendously similar to Bush.
"That one" was probably the most obvious example/gaff, but there were a lot more. I'm glad that McCain corrected that stupid woman that, between drooling on herself (elitist!), managed to string syllables together and "accuse" Barack Obama of being an Arab, but that doesn't negate other instances. McCain's problem with "gooks" aside, there were racial undertones that were fanned by the McCain campaign.
[quote=aceventura3;2727238]Is the problem with McCain boiling down to him picking Palin as a running mate?[/QUITE]
No, though that was indicative of how much he was willing to do to earn the support of the lunatic base. McCain in 2000 was a moderate conservative. Had Rove not sucker-punched him, his run against Gore would have been spectacular. It might have even elevated the debate. Instead of returning with all his moderate, mavricky goodness in 2008 to duke it out with liberal moderate Obama, he brought the Republican playbook and ran every tired, boring, Bush-era strategy.
I was vice president of my high school band. I'm not qualified to be president.
None of my things would have qualified as conservative 40 years ago, but here we are. And yes, she was found guilty. She was leading the charge backing the nutter (and surprisingly boring) tea party conservative candidate in NY's 23rd. She's part of the reason this thread exists. In fact, she's a bigger part of this conversation than McCain. I'm not even sure why we're talking about McCain anymore, I'll have to go back and check.
That's why you're not a three. Still, I know a few tens and you, sir, are not a ten. Take that as a deeply sincere compliment.

I think we are kinda splitting hairs here, the TARP as an example, this was from a NY Times interview of McCAin and he agreed in principle to the Bush plan as did Obama, but had some problems with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us...l?ref=politics

But, my original point is that, at least in my opinion, McCain is a moderate. And, I would think he is the type of person people would expect, a little "right" leaning but mostly middle of the road from a party trying to be inclusive and with broad appeal. Seems you think he is much more "right" leaning than I do - it is a subjective call. but if McCain is too extreme who would actually fit what you would expect from the Republican Party?