Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

So McCain gets censured by the Arizona Republican Party for being "insufficiently conservative" by supporting a bi-partisan immigration bill in the Senate supported by 14 other Republicans and for not getting behind Ted Cruz's stunt to shut down the government in an attempt to defund the ACA that ultimately was only supported by Cruz and handful of Tea Party members of Congress.

Those wacky Tea Party kids and their mantra of "no compromise" just dont play well with others and if you aren't with them, you're off the team.

 

The shut down could have been avoided with a delay in the implementation of the ACA. The ACA was not ready. Several last minute changes and waivers were made negating the effective implementation of the full law - so why didn't we get agreement on a delay? Tea Party at fault? If you catch a cold, is the Tea Party at fault?
--- merged: Jan 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM ---

Why do you care about what the GOP does on a state level?
They expressed their opinion. Why isn't this healthy?
Why wouldn't you do the same if you were disappointed with an elected official representing you? If you express your opinion it o.k., but if the GOP in AZ expresses their opinion, it is not?

Are my questions clear? Do I need to explain how I came up with my questions?

 

Is is unhealthy for a political party to have a rigid litmus test for elected representatives on 100% of the issues and penalize (censure) officials for voting their conscience or for compromise for the greater good.

Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio not only voted for the immigration bill for which McCain was censured, Rubio was the lead Republican on writing the bill. Should he be censured? Or Jeff Flake, the other Senator from Arizona, who voted for the bill? Or the 12 other Republicans?

 

Fascism from what perspective? Do you consider non-elected people in a minority party fascist? Are you suggesting that those who will openly voice political points of view are fascist? Are you trying to illustrate a point not related to fascism, but made an error in using the concept in this context?

If you believe their opinion is ridiculous why didn't you state that from the start rather than stating that maybe their views are not fascist enough?

I have no issue with you criticizing the opinion of others - my questions are intended to help me understand your thought process.

Would this assume a shift in the views of those in AZ? Did they shift their views or did McCain shift his?

From a minority with no power?
--- merged: Jan 27, 2014 at 3:02 PM ---

Reagan signed passed immigration reform. Bush supported immigration reform. What 100% litmus test are you talking about. The GOP does not have uniform agreement on immigration reform.
--- merged: Jan 27, 2014 at 3:06 PM ---

Any issue with DC's #941 post, or just my response?

 

Ace, that is exactly my point.

Positions from which Reagan (and even Bush) looked for common ground to build consensus and compromise -- immigration reform, expanding EITC and Medicare, education reform, etc . - are now subject to censure by the extremists (more active) base of the party that is more often controlling the state party structure and compromise is a dirty word.

The Republican tent is getting smaller and smaller.
--- merged: Jan 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM ---
ps

And it is why Rubio now wont support a bill he helped write....for fear of the backlash from the extremists. He had the nerve to (gasp) compromise!!!!

 

Under the U.S. constitutional system, it is pretty much impossible for either major party to "die".

It may be an exaggeration to say that the electorate is "neatly polarized down the middle," but the electorate is behaving as if it were.

There is gerrymandering, sure, but a lot of that "cossetting" is a result of the physical polarization of liberals and conservatives in America. "Red" counties and states have been getting "redder", while "blue" counties and states are getting "bluer".

When your local and state political leaders, the local media, your neighbors, etc., are all singing the same song, it's hard not to at least hum along.

 

Fascism from the point of view of courage of a small group of people directing their anger to the powerful or the powerful ignoring the voices, even minority voices, of those they represent? You seem to suggest McCain may be a victim, I am not clear on this. If so, how is one of the most powerful political figures in the nation a victim? Or, who is the victim in the fascism you describe? Fascism from what perspective?

A small group of delegates representing a state political party organization, like the AZ Republican Party. In NC, my state, a group of about 100 people could gain enough control to get a measure issued similar to what happened in AZ. Would you characterize an entire state party based on the actions of such a small number?

You know some of the views of the Dalai Lama and you look at him as an individual - even if you do not agree with all of his views. Do you afford the GOP people in AZ the same courtesy?

I disagree. I would characterize fascism in many ways, ridiculous would not be one of them. Fascism is a serious socioeconomic ideology - a description of ridiculous suggests to me a minimization of the ideology. For the record, I have not used vague terms "good" or "bad".

The state party is an organization on to itself. It can be run in a fascist manner, is that your argument. Otherwise the party organization has no elected political power either in the state or nationally. It has no assigned power to influence McCain or any elected official - its only power is through its influence over voters. Any individual or organization is in the same position to hold or yield the same type of power. In fact, the odds are the people of AZ will re-elect McCain if he runs regardless of the opinion of the state party - I would argue McCain has more power and influence in the state.
--- merged: Jan 27, 2014 at 6:10 PM ---

Perhaps on this issue my memory is failing - but Reagan being from California had a California perspective on the issue, some Republicans did not and did not support the legislation. Many Democrats did not support the legislation. However the legislation passed with a coalition of both parties. There was not uniformed GOP agreement then and there won't be now.

I do not understand your point. Can you restate it.

There is 100% agreement from Democrats on immigration reform???? On what proposed piece of legislation or based on what detailed set of principles? Rand Paul was on Meet The Press Sunday and I agree with his point on this subject - there are most likely 3 to 5 things we all agree upon, lets start with those items and get them passed. And then continue the discussions on the other items.

Personally I currently support children who have been or are being raised here, go to school here, may serve or are serving in the military, with no criminal records, etc. be on some fast track to citizenship. If you and I agree on that, I am sure something in Congress can be passed if a focused effort is made. if we get some leadership.

I don't support politicians who lack conviction. I value that above most other characteristics. As I have stated in the past if Rubio is willing to take a risk on an issue you and other liberals support - give him the support - in that circumstance even those with weak conviction may show more courage.
--- merged: Jan 27, 2014 at 6:19 PM ---

Moderate Republicans have nowhere to go. All Republicans are painted with the same broad brush. Even moderates get demonized by the President and liberals - but these are the people the President would need to break the hold the far right has on the party. I have said many times if the President can not work with Boehner a true politician and compromiser, there is no one on the Republican side he can work with. The real problem is a tactical problem and a lack of leadership from the President. We always have extremes and those who will hold a hardline. In the past Presidents actually went to work to build coalitions. Obama does not.

 

Ace...McCain and Jeff Flake, the junior senator from Arizona, have nearly identical voting records, particularly on immigration reform, debt ceiling and holding the budget hostage, etc.

Why was Flake not censured? Could it be that McCain had more conviction (which you so admire) to speak out publicly against Ted Cruz/Tea Party political stunt to hold the government hostage that spit in the face of 200+ years of Congressional lawmaking.

MCain is a hot head and a war hawk but he does have some redeeming qualities that the Tea Party evidently has decided is a weakness of character and/or conviction or perhaps they are just whiny, wacky kids as I suggested, and just acted out of pettiness and petulance against one senator and not the other.
--- merged: Jan 27, 2014 at 7:19 PM ---

Nope, there is not 100% agreement on immigration reform or gun control or reproductive rights, or....

But no one is censured by the state party for their position on the issues.

 

Here's an interesting time series about that.

The U.S. has 3,113 counties (including county equivalents, like Louisiana parishes and Virginia cities, but excluding Alaska census areas). Most county boundaries have been unchanged for a century or more. Presidential election results are reported at this level.

At each presidential election, how many counties have voted four times in a row for the same party's presidential ticket?

That number is steadily increasing.

1984: 1401
1988: 1532
1992: 1640
1996: 1675
2000: 1862
2004: 1898
2008: 1972
2012: 2550

In other words, in 1984, it was about 45% of all counties that had voted for the same ticket four consecutive elections.

The number grew larger at each election since then, while the number of "swing" counties has steadily decreased.

Now, more than 80% of all counties vote consistently for the same presidential ticket.

 

Are you asking me? You know how I feel about McCain. I don't know Flake. I can not speak for the AZ GOP.

I did not like McCain long before Cruz. McCain's failure in 2008 is partly responsible for the Tea Party's growth. People were fed up with McCain style politicians - the conflict with McCain is not new.

A censure is a meaningless gesture in my option - I am only engaging in this discussion to defend those in AZ who did it. I think it simply is a reflection of their frustration with a Sr. Senator who may have been too focused on himself rather than the people of AZ.

 

Do you always defend meaningless gestures? Why?

Do you think expressing one's frustration in meaningless ways is productive or an example of adult behavior?