Palin is a 5th columnist

[Perd Hapley]

mellestad,

Think of the GOP primaries.  Palin's support would be quite influential, there. 

Speaking of third parties, Palin will likely encourage a lot of conservatives/libertarian sorts to go ahead and take another chance on the GOP, rather than vote third party.  Or in the unlikely event she goes third party herself, the opposite will occur. 

[mellestad]

mellestad,

Think of the GOP primaries.  Palin's support would be quite influential, there. 

Speaking of third parties, Palin will likely encourage a lot of conservatives/libertarian sorts to go ahead and take another chance on the GOP, rather than vote third party.  Or in the unlikely event she goes third party herself, the opposite will occur. 

Yea, I think I mentioned that in my last sentance.  If that is what he meant, I agree with him.

[MechAg94]

IMO, she could also be a distraction for Democrats.  Since she apparently does attract media attention, and she can say things in speeches attacking Obama and let the Repub candidate stay out of it. 

IMO, she is polarizing simply due to people's reaction to her.  Even among Republicans or at least right leaning independents, people seem to love her or hate her.  It doesn't matter if she is the cause or not.  I think some of the reactions to her are kind of stupid myself. 


Lastly, I get the feeling some of you will never be happy until the PERFECT candidate shows up.  Unfortunately, that person will never exist.  If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.

[Monkeyleg]

If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.

Oh, yeah. A rich white guy who owned slaves and was a war-monger to boot.

[mellestad]

IMO, she could also be a distraction for Democrats.  Since she apparently does attract media attention, and she can say things in speeches attacking Obama and let the Repub candidate stay out of it. 

IMO, she is polarizing simply due to people's reaction to her.  Even among Republicans or at least right leaning independents, people seem to love her or hate her.  It doesn't matter if she is the cause or not.  I think some of the reactions to her are kind of stupid myself. 


Lastly, I get the feeling some of you will never be happy until the PERFECT candidate shows up.  Unfortunately, that person will never exist.  If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.

I don't want perfect, I'd just like to see someone on the right who was fiscally conservative but socially moderate and vaugle electable.  I don't think the GOP will have much luck without some social moderation, and the country would benefit from some honest competition from a real fiscal conservative.  Keep the left honest, as it were.  As it stands now the parties seem very similar as far as fiscal policy (even if they like to say they aren't).  Everyone talks about a balanced budget, and no-one really tries to do it.  Although, really, the POTUS isn't going to matter there, that is pure congress.

[alex_trebek]

The real problem that no one, including even many tea partiers, is people like their government spending.

No one wants higher taxes, and they don't want to touch Medicare, SS, and national defense. The typical response from people is to "cut something less important." What they don't realize is that for the budget to be balanced something has to give. I know it depends where we are on the laferty curve, but several people have evidence of being on either side. It's hard to objectively determine. 

The budget will never be balanced, changing any of those is political suicide.

[mellestad]

The real problem that no one, including even many tea partiers, is people like their government spending.

No one wants higher taxes, and they don't want to touch Medicare, SS, and national defense. The typical response from people is to "cut something less important." What they don't realize is that for the budget to be balanced something has to give. I know it depends where we are on the laferty curve, but several people have evidence of being on either side. It's hard to objectively determine. 

The budget will never be balanced, changing any of those is political suicide.

Personally, I think there is political will to balance the budget right now.  Especially if they can get the rest of the financial meltdown behind them.

I don't think it will happen, mind you, but I think the public will is available.  It might not be available again for a long time either.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think the GOP will have much luck without some social moderation,

The GOP's social positions share broad popular support.  It is actually the Democratic and Libertarian parties that alienate voters with their fringe social ideas. 

[alex_trebek]

Personally, I think there is political will to balance the budget right now.  Especially if they can get the rest of the financial meltdown behind them.

I don't think it will happen, mind you, but I think the public will is available.  It might not be available again for a long time either.

Out of curiousity, where do you see it?


Many of the tea party people don't want any of the four changed, and some tea party candidates are complaining about too little money being spent in their districts. I don't think those protesters are necessarily any indication of willingness to support what is necessary.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Lastly, I get the feeling some of you will never be happy until the PERFECT candidate shows up.  Unfortunately, that person will never exist.  If George Washington was reincarnated and running for office, you would probably dump on him too.

Ayup.

I think part of the problem is that so few of us realize just how diverse the electorate is.  People on our side forget that there are lots and lots of voters out there that aren't in full lockstep agreement with our positions all down the line.  Naturally, any sensible politician will court those other voters, too, not just us.  And when they do we dump on 'em as if they've committed an unforgivable sin. 

Another problem is that we're incapable of setting aside minor disagreements and working on the big picture goals that we all share.  We'd rather snipe at each other over minor matters than cooperate to make changes we all can agree on.  Contrast that against the left, where they've managed to unite feminists, academia, blacks, journalists, unions, celebrities, environuts, gays...  And look what they've managed to accomplish because of it.  Back on our side, we can't get the libertarians and the Christians to cooperate on mutual interests like reducing the size of government, they'd rather piss on each other over abortion and posting the 10 commandments in public.  We can't get the tea partiers to cooperate with the Republicans on mutual interests like lowering taxes, they'd rather argue Ron Paul vs John McCain.

If we don't get real with ourselves, shed some of this naivety, agree to cooperate despite minor differences, and make peace with our imperfect systemof government, then we're completely hosed.  We will have no chance at all of saving our country.

[mellestad]

The GOP's social positions share broad popular support.  It is actually the Democratic and Libertarian parties that alienate voters with their fringe social ideas. 

Yes, although I don't think they have terribly more support than the Dems on average.

That is what I meant though, the GOP has a hard time keeping social moderation and fiscal conservativism in the same human being.

[mellestad]

Out of curiousity, where do you see it?


Many of the tea party people don't want any of the four changed, and some tea party candidates are complaining about too little money being spent in their districts. I don't think those protesters are necessarily any indication of willingness to support what is necessary.

Populist outrage towards taxation and government expansion.

[alex_trebek]

Populist outrage towards taxation and government expansion.

Yes populist outrage may certainly indicate the general feeling of the people. I would submit that while nearly everyone hates taxes and gov expansion, there is a big lack of concensus on which, if any, programs to cut.

Thus the status quo of increasing spending faster than increasing tax revenues will continue for the forseeable future.

[mellestad]

Yes populist outrage may certainly indicate the general feeling of the people. I would submit that while nearly everyone hates taxes and gov expansion, there is a big lack of concensus on which, if any, programs to cut.

Thus the status quo of increasing spending faster than increasing tax revenues will continue for the forseeable future.

No, I agree (I don't think what the body politic feels really has a basis in reality anyway) that it isn't likely, I just think if you magically had a POTUS and a congress willing to cut back to balance the budget, I think you could get the people to roll with it right now. 

I'm just speculating though.

[roo_ster]

I think what has made the Tea Parties so broad-based in membership, but spending/tax focused is that the magnitude of the spending and intrusion itself has morphed into a social issue.  Folks see a fundamental change in the relation of the state to the citizen. 

Over the years, "social moderate/liberal and fiscal conservative" usually means, "I'll cave on fiscal issues, too,"  or, "As long as we raise taxes to cover midnight basketball for blind, left-handed, lesbian dentists, I'll be fine with it."  See the not-so-dynamic Senatorial duo from Maine and any number of self described social liberal/fiscal conservative types for examples.

The GOP will not soon forsake the social conservatives, as they are its largest and most loyal voting block. 

[taurusowner]

I think what has made the Tea Parties so broad-based in membership, but spending/tax focused is that the magnitude of the spending and intrusion itself has morphed into a social issue.  Folks see a fundamental change in the relation of the state to the citizen. 

Over the years, "social moderate/liberal and fiscal conservative" usually means, "I'll cave on fiscal issues, too,"  or, "As long as we raise taxes to cover midnight basketball for blind, left-handed, lesbian dentists, I'll be fine with it."  See the not-so-dynamic Senatorial duo from Maine and any number of self described social liberal/fiscal conservative types for examples.

The GOP will not soon forsake the social conservatives, as they are its largest and most loyal voting block. 

True.  Generally politicians are most loyal to their social issues than anything else. 

[Perd Hapley]

That is what I meant though, the GOP has a hard time keeping social moderation and fiscal conservativism in the same human being.

You mean, in the same voter, or the same candidate? 

[MicroBalrog]

.  Back on our side, we can't get the libertarians and the Christians to cooperate on mutual interests like reducing the size of government, they'd rather piss on each other over abortion and posting the 10 commandments in public.  We can't get the tea partiers to cooperate with the Republicans on mutual interests like lowering taxes, they'd rather argue Ron Paul vs John McCain.

I think this is a bit naïve in and of itself. You seem to underrate the depth of the difference. I may not care much about abortion, but there are millions of people to whom abortion is murder. I disagree with that, but I can't imagine that people who literally believe that millions of children are being murdered every day will compromise on this issue. Similarly, the difference between Ron Paul and McCain isn't a minor difference, it's a massive gaping chasm

[Perd Hapley]

I may not care much about abortion, but there are millions of people to whom abortion is murder. I disagree with that, but I can't imagine that people who literally believe that millions of children are being murdered every day will compromise on this issue.

I don't think it's millions per day, but this is a very important point.  I tire of abortion being treated as a second-tier issue, or something on which we should be willing to compromise.  It's not a compromise sort of thing. 

[Gowen]

I don't think it's millions per day, but this is a very important point.  I tire of abortion being treated as a second-tier issue, or something on which we should be willing to compromise.  It's not a compromise sort of thing. 

I will not compromise on being pro-life and my stance on the second amendment.

[makattak]

I don't think it's millions per day, but this is a very important point.  I tire of abortion being treated as a second-tier issue, or something on which we should be willing to compromise.  It's not a compromise sort of thing. 

I quite agree.

What I find funny is the so-called "fiscal conservatives" who decry the Republicans for opposing abortion-on-demand and claim if they'd just "moderate" and "compromise" they'd support them.

If those social issues aren't important, why can't those so-called "social liberals/fiscal moderates" just drop their position?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

See, this is exactly what I mean.  

If you don't like abortion, that's still no reason not to cooperate with pro-choicer Libertarians on issues like RKBA.

If you don't like the Christians opposition gay marriage, that's no reason not to cooperate with the fundies on illegal immigration.

The McCain establishment types and Paul wookie types disagree on a lot of things, but they both agree on the goal of balancing the budget.  There's no reason they shouldn't be cooperating on that.

Don't like the RINOs?  Neither do I.  But let's be honest, if we'd had even just one more RINO Obamacare would have failed.

We don't all have to agree all down the line on this stuff.  In fact, we will never fully agree on everything.  We do have to be able to get along with each other well enough to save our country.  

What we have now is each member of the right-leaning half of the political sphere getting all bent out of shape whenever the entire sphere doesn't do exactly what he wants.  We'd much rather snipe at each other than at our true enemies on the left.  ("I can't support Sara Palin anymore!  Even though she represents most of what I believe, she dared to rub shoulders with Mitt Romney at a political event.")

This a huge problem.  It's going to cost us our country.

[Matthew Carberry]

Only one of those is properly a Federal issue.

Any justifications, excuses or exceptions that make a particular act of homicide lawful need to be determined by the citizens of a state for that state.  As I recall polling data is pretty clear that even if Roe didn't exist most states would have some form of legal abortion (rape/incest/first trimester).

That said, Roe isn't going away any time soon (we'll need polling data showing a sufficient majority in a majority of states to amend the Constitution to get rid of it), so it is in fact a "second tier" issue in terms of real politik.

Candidates for Federal office pushing, or being perceived as pushing, absolute abortion bans are not going to win a plurality of the voters in a plurality of districts sufficient to reduce government expansion in a host of other areas, making it a litmus test alienates potential allies on those other issues in the near term.

If we can get rollback of gross Federal intrusions on individual and state's rights on less hot button issues (Raich and the like) we can go after Roe with some momentum and a snowball's chance in hell of success.

Incrementalism is working for anti-abortion efforts already, that's how we're going to win it, not running head-on into a brick wall losing on the other issues all the while.

[mellestad]

You mean, in the same voter, or the same candidate? 

Mainly the candidate.

I don't think most voters are willing to be fiscally conservative.

[alex_trebek]

Mainly the candidate.

I don't think most voters are willing to be fiscally conservative.

I agree with this. No one wants to make the tough choices, andpeople will vote out the guy who wants to cut their "pay."