Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Arlen Specter has pretty much, one way or another, handed his seat to the Democrats in 2010 already thanks to his vote on EFCA. Now the speculation about whether he will lose in the primary or general is becoming clearer.
PA-Sen: Specter's worst nightmare coming true by kos Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:20:05 PM MDT
Former Rep. Pat Toomey stepped down as president of the Club for Growth today:
Quote:
It’s time for me to say goodbye to you and all the other wonderful members of the Club for Growth. I’m leaving as president of the Club for Growth today, and will soon take on a new challenge.
It was an eventful tenure for Toomey, during which Republicans lost solidly Red districts to Democrats after backing rabid, unelectable conservatives like Bill Sali in Idaho (Idaho!), Andrew Harris in Maryland's conservative 1st CD, and Tim Walberg in Michigan's 7th. Mission accomplished! So now, Toomey's "new challenge" is to take his particular brand of crazy back to the people of Pennsylvania, where closed primaries ensure the GOP's shrinking and increasingly radicalized base gets to make the call between the weaselly incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, and the true-blood conservative Toomey. It's not even going to be close.
Remember, the latest Quinnipiac University poll of the race had Toomey defeating Specter 41-27. His chances in the primary range from zero to nil.
Quote:
Pennsylvania’s primaries are closed, so the 239,000 defectors [switching from Republican to Democrat in 2008] suddenly loom large —Specter survived his 2004 primary by just 17,000 votes. No longer Republicans, those likely Specter voters are shut out of the primary.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, Specter (R-Pa.) provided a preview of his strategy against Toomey. Specter said Toomey fought for deregulation, embraced private accounts in Social Security and, if nominated, would lose the general election and allow Democrats to pass so-called card-check legislation favored by organized labor.
Specter said Toomey is "to the right" of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), adding, "Santorum lost by 18 points [in 2006], spent $31 million and was a two-term incumbent."
The jab at Santorum comes in the wake of Santorum's silence on whether he will endorse Specter's bid for a sixth term. Santorum backed Specter in his tight 2004 primary win over Toomey. President Bush also backed Specter over Toomey.
"If Toomey is the nominee, you can be sure he'll lose," Specter said, claiming Democrats would then have the votes to pass card-check and allow the White House and congressional Democrats to steamroll their agenda through Congress.
The problem for Specter is that two years ago, he was a co-sponsor of card check. He can try to waive it as a shield, but true conservatives in Pennsylvania don't trust him, and they shouldn't. The way he's been flipping around his positions of late, it's clear that there's no ideal he won't compromise or surrender for political gain. And if next year he decides card check is politically advantageous, he'd flip right back in support. If conservatives want a true and reliable foe of card check representing them, they have no choice but to back Toomey. And they will.
It's going to be a slaughter.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
Good riddance.
Yeah, you may as well dig that hole a little deeper before your try to climb out. 18 seat deficit, 25 seat deficit, what's the difference? As long as the GOP is ideologically pure to the radical rump, they're certain to make a major comeback!!!
You know, conservatism is by definition fighting a losing battle. Conservatism embraces the thought and policy of the PAST, and at best they can slow the arrival of the thought and policies of the future. But when the policies embraced by your party are embraced by a quarter to a third of the people, you may as well just call the hospice. They ain't coming back, and shaving off the few in your party with electoral viability in moderate states and districts is not going to win any elections for you.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Yeah, you may as well dig that hole a little deeper before your try to climb out. 18 seat deficit, 25 seat deficit, what's the difference? As long as the GOP is ideologically pure to the radical rump, they're certain to make a major comeback!!!
You know, conservatism is by definition fighting a losing battle. Conservatism embraces the thought and policy of the PAST, and at best they can slow the arrival of the thought and policies of the future. But when the policies embraced by your party are embraced by a quarter to a third of the people, you may as well just call the hospice. They ain't coming back, and shaving off the few in your party with electoral viability in moderate states and districts is not going to win any elections for you.
Yeah, the same people said the same thing when Carter took office. Conservatism was dead. Dead, dead, dead. But then Reagan came along.
Ideological purity is extremely important in my opinion. That's why I didn't vote for McCain. There's no point to voting for people like Specter. He's taking us to the same place as Obama, just at a slightly slower clip. So what's the point? The two parties are both drunk on power. And there's no way I'll openly support a candidate for any party that wants more power centralized to the government.
I don't understand what's so wrong about the politics of the past. I'm not concerned with what is fashionable, in vogue, or new. I'm concerned with what is best for humanity. I will advocate what will progress humanity faster. That's pretty much a libertarian perspective. Having the government control the auto industry, healthcare, the financial system, the education system, is a one way trip into stagnation. Obama will undoubtedly find someway to substantively co-opt big oil by the end of his term as well. And then what do we have left?
People taking care of themselves is what works best. Empowering and enabling people is what works best. Modern progessivism does not do this. Modern progressivism simply attacks the rich and redistributes to the rest. What the Democratic party is forwarding at this point is mindless class warfare that will surely do great damage to this country. You look upon society and examine as a matter of inequality. The more inequality that exists, the worst the situation is. Regardless of how fast America is actually moving forward. All you seek to do is qwell inequality, without examining the great damage that has been done to our education system and inner city societies by social welfare programs.
My largest gripe when Obama was running for office was that he wasn't inspiring people to do great things. And that is my largest beef with modern day progressivism. It simply attacks achievement and prosperity. In the process it destroys entrepenuerism and risk taking that advances societies much farther, and much faster.
But you don't see it like that. You just think people should be more equal. Equal according to the government.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
Which is why I can't wait till the over-65 crowd starts dying off and maybe we can see a worthwhile opposition party (or 2) emerge, one that isn't living in the 1980s.
Also David, you had best be careful what you wish for.
Obama and the Democrats are running up insane debt. Debt that we will have to pay for.
Social Security is insolvent. It's a complete and total disaster at this point.
Democrats will ultimately be held responsible for these failures. As well as the failures of any other social initiatives that they take. The big issue that the left will inevitably have to deal with is our debt.
I would say that two election cycles from now this will become the most prominent issue in our country. Particularly if our economy languishes in stagnation and the spending is not brought in line with taxation. And guess what, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.
Also David, you had best be careful what you wish for.
Obama and the Democrats are running up insane debt. Debt that we will have to pay for.
Social Security is insolvent. It's a complete and total disaster at this point.
Democrats will ultimately be held responsible for these failures. As well as the failures of any other social initiatives that they take. The big issue that the left will inevitably have to deal with is our debt.
I would say that two election cycles from now this will become the most prominent issue in our country. Particularly if our economy languishes in stagnation and the spending is not brought in line with taxation. And guess what, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.
Debt of the future brought to you by the thoughts and policies of the future.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
Also David, you had best be careful what you wish for.
Obama and the Democrats are running up insane debt. Debt that we will have to pay for.
Social Security is insolvent. It's a complete and total disaster at this point.
Democrats will ultimately be held responsible for these failures. As well as the failures of any other social initiatives that they take. The big issue that the left will inevitably have to deal with is our debt.
I would say that two election cycles from now this will become the most prominent issue in our country. Particularly if our economy languishes in stagnation and the spending is not brought in line with taxation. And guess what, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.
Yeah, the GOP has been SO financially responsible for the past 30 years.
Would you please just shut the fuck up?
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Also David, you had best be careful what you wish for.
Obama and the Democrats are running up insane debt. Debt that we will have to pay for.
Social Security is insolvent. It's a complete and total disaster at this point.
Democrats will ultimately be held responsible for these failures. As well as the failures of any other social initiatives that they take. The big issue that the left will inevitably have to deal with is our debt.
I would say that two election cycles from now this will become the most prominent issue in our country. Particularly if our economy languishes in stagnation and the spending is not brought in line with taxation. And guess what, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.
Yeah, the GOP has been SO financially responsible for the past 30 years.
Would you please just shut the fuck up?
Quote:
That's why I didn't vote for McCain.
Good job David. Now would you please shut the fuck up?
Yeah, but you voted for Bush, and would vote for Reagan in a heartbeat, so yeah.
Yup, I would have voted for Reagan. Duh. And I voted for Bush the second time for the same reason a good portion of the country voted for Bush the second time. His name was John Kerry.
You know, conservatism republicanism is by definition fighting a losing battle. Conservatism Republicanism embraces the thought and policy of the PAST, and at best they can slow the arrival of the thought and policies of the future.
FTFY
i know you already know this, but there is a distinction to be made between republicanism and conservatism. republicanism is a philosophy borne of modern political necessity, and the roots of what is currently termed "conservatism" can be found in what was identified as "liberalism" during the french revolution and age of enlightenment. my political orientation might be modernly defined as "conservative," but in reality, it's "classically liberal." i believe in the sovereignty of the individual. i think morality should be divorced from organized religion whenever and wherever possible. i advocate for policies that maximize individual freedom - both social and economic - so long as those freedoms don't encroach upon the rights and freedoms of others.
the modern political label of my stance on issues like gay rights, the drug war, censorship, and immigration would be considered "liberal" or "progressive." in reality, they're consistent with the core of "classical liberalism." the modern political label of my stance on issues of economics, gun control, and abortion would be considered "conservative." in reality, they're consistent with the core of "classical liberalism." my philosophy "embraces the thought and policy of the past" only because the state has increasingly encroached upon the sovereignty of the individual, reduced social and economic freedoms, replaced peaceful cooperation with disharmony and suspicion, and reduced global prosperity while relegating the poor to terminal poverty. perhaps i read your statement a bit too defensively, but i gathered that you meant to equate harking back to policies of the past to harking back to a time of jim crow, suppression of sexual rights, and ethnic/racial homogeneity. because these phenomena so conflict with what "classical liberalism" entails, i reject them. and because among the unintended consequences of the increased role of the government are a reduced ability of the poorest of the poor to better their respective lots in life, a creation of a permanent upper and lower class, and a disregard of both the positive-sum nature of capitalism and negative-sum nature of government intervention, i reject policies that further enhance and inflate the role of the state.
i'm hopeful that the past is prelude, and my philosophy is one that embraces the thought and policy of the past to the extent that it is able to ensure a more free, peaceful, and prosperous future. fuck it, i'm rambling. friedrich hayek said it best:
Friedrich Hayek wrote:
At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty, those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.
Friedrich Hayek wrote:
...This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.
...But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people's frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."
Friedrich Hayek wrote:
...This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
thodoks wrote:
*awaits tl;dr responses*
I read the whole thing. I was a bit uncomfortable with what Dave said, yet couldn't find a proper way to say it. Per usual, you did a much better job than I ever could.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
You know, conservatism republicanism is by definition fighting a losing battle. Conservatism Republicanism embraces the thought and policy of the PAST, and at best they can slow the arrival of the thought and policies of the future.
FTFY
No, I used "conservative" on purpose. By definition...
con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] –adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. 2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate. 3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit. 4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party. 5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism. 6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. 7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
Now I'm sure you, as an economist, would prefer that conservative political parties follow definitions 2 and 6, but that is not the case, and rarely have been in this country.
As for the rest, tl;dr
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
Yeah, thanks PD. When I read your initial post, it looked right to me, and changing it to "republicanism" did not seem correct at all. Conservatism is, by definition, ... well, you just posted it.
Yes. He lost the Democratic primary and then ran as an independent and won. Chris Dodd could find himself in a similar situation if the Democrats can find a serious challenger for the primary.
Now I'm sure you, as an economist, would prefer that conservative political parties follow definitions 2 and 6, but that is not the case, and rarely have been in this country.
i'm of the opinion that a good idea is a good idea. period. there is no logical reason why someone should be prevented from doing what they want to do (so long as they're not violating the rights of others). to the extent that this idea is respected legally and societally, i wish to "conserve" the institutions that help preserve it. similarly, to the extent that this idea is NOT respected legally and societally, i don't wish to "conserve" the institutions that undermine it, and in fact would want to replace said institutions with ones that will more likely respect and preserve a "live and let live" philosophy. it doesn't matter to me whether a party is defined as liberal, progressive, or conservative. there are certain ends i would prefer society pursue, and i'll support the political party that values them.
and yes, such parties are rare in rhetoric and ever rarer in practice. i didn't vote, remember?
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
To support your claim that by being conservative you desire to conserve liberty, you must hold make the assumption that our country necessarily progresses from a state of more liberty to a state of less liberty.
I agree that "there is no logical reason why someone should be prevented from doing what they want to do (so long as they're not violating the rights of others)", but I fundamentally disagree about the course of liberty in our country, so instead of conservatism preserving liberty as you claim, I believe it preserves a state of less liberty.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
