BS: Obit: The Republican Party

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:35 PM

"Yheeee Haaaww, yheeee haaawww."---Howard Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:56 PM

Political cartoonists are praying that Howard Dean runs.

jimmyt is another Compassionate Conservative. And I know many others who are deeply committed to helping the poor and minorities... some who have done far more for the poor than any liberals I know.

It all boils down to people.

Not labels.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:58 PM

True to that, Jerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 06:59 PM

I've found, in thirty-plus years of talking with folks in public libraries, that it doesn't seem to matter how rich or poor, educated or not, you are -- folks was things better for their children, a decent (not necessarily ostentatious or wealthy) way of life, decent health, a decent job at a decent wage, decent housing, and decent old age care and pensions. Note the consistent pattern of "decent." And having things better for the kids has ALWAYS been part of humanity's dream, hasn't it?

Somewhere along the line, the US has forgotten things like "general wealthy" and "common defense" and "for ourselves and our posterity." We've forgotten things like "the greatest good for the greatest number" and the true meaning of what it means to be part of a community. And that while that community gives to you, you have to give back to it.

Too much war, too much Watergate, too much corruption stemming from too much greed.

I don't object to someone making a lot of money when it is done by their brains and work, and I applaud when someone like Bill Gates gives back to the world community some of what he's made. I strenuously object when the money is stolen (let's call it what it is -- embezzlement is stealing), or even in some cases inherited, or obtained by slavery (of many sorts), or in any way sucked away by the greedy. I think that there's gotta be a special place in Hell waiting for some of those alive today (and GWB isn't necessarily among them, either).

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 10:02 PM

Hey, Bobert:

We seem to have usurped your thread. But, this IS mudcat. When you leave a thread un-tended for any period of time, you never know what's going to happen to it. An unwatched pot boils.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: OtherDave
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 10:39 PM

I live near Washington DC, so I can watch your tax dollars and mine at work. If you look at the last several congressional elections, you'll see that incumbents who chose to run were re-elected at higher rates of return than were formerly enjoyed by members of the Supreme Soviet.

Example: in the 2004 election, 401 House members sought re-election. 396 made it. That's 98.75%. Makes you proud to be an American.

In nearly every state except the small, single-member ones, boundaries for congressional districts are controlled by the legislature. The Texas gerrymandering that Tom DeLay orchestrated is an extreme example, but not extreme by all that much. My state of Maryland, a Democratic stronghold, gerrymandered my own district to finally eject Republican Connie Morella (who was no friend of Newt).

As prognostications for next year's elections come in, listen unless the GOP goes on to a postdoctoral level of hubris and self-immolation. You'll hear that there are only 40 or so "districts in play" -- out of 436 House seats.

This is representative democracy?

I have no hope for a third party doing much more than throwing a monkey wrench into things (cf. George Wallace or Ross Perot), but each of us might consider how to move the political establishments in our own state to put redistricting into non-partisan hands. It ain't easy (you can read how Iowa has struggled with this, but they've struggled fairly successfully), but it's well worth doing if it makes party apparatchiks on either side stop taking 80% of the vote for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: OtherDave
Date: 16 Oct 05 - 10:40 PM

435 seats, but I was in mid-rant.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 12:41 AM

Dianavan: I don't know a Republican or a Democrat who does not want what you listed in your post calling for a revolution.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 03:25 AM

Doug - I mean a revolution in the way we think about each other. We are not the enemy. Its when we take sides and try to demonize each other that we lose our power. As has been posted above, the name of the game is for politicians to keep us divided so that they can keep themselves in power.

None of the present politicians represent you or me. We are just a means to an end for them. Government has to change and start representing us.

A non-partisan redistricting at the State level sounds like a pretty good start. Any re-structuring has to be simple enough for everyone to understand. It takes alot of education.

We tried to do something like that at the city level, here in Vancouver but the referendum failed because it was so complicated that nobody could understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Peace
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 10:54 AM

"Our leaders are the best of men
So, we elect them again and again,
That's what I learned in school today,
That's what I learned in school."

Thank you Tom Paxton

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 01:01 PM

Where U B, Bobert?

U O K?

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 01:04 PM

He's probably catching up on his sleep...

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: saulgoldie
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 01:09 PM

I am not sure of the obit of the Repub party, although I would not mourn much. (Of course, there always needs to be an effective counterpoint to ANY power to keep it honest and focused.) To be able to take advantage of the current situation, the Dems need to straighten up and fly right.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101305E.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 01:38 PM

I just keep wondering about the "Return To Family Values"

Just where/when do they want to return to?
I mean the early sixties are now 45 years behind us. Are the good old days farther back? Surely they don't want to return to the days of a Kennedy whitehouse. The free-love/hippy-dippy late 60's early seventies? The Disco, imported Italian Polyester, Coke and Sex late 70's? The I got mine screw you 80's? Just when are they returning to?

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 02:25 PM

BARRY'S BOYS
(June Reizner)

We're the bright young men
Who want to go back to nineteen-ten
We're Barry's boys.
We're the kids with a cause
Yes a government like grandmama's
We're Barry's boys.
We're the new kind of youth at your Alma Mater
Back to silver standards and solid Goldwater
Back to when the poor were poor and rich were rich
And you felt so damn secure just knowing which were which.

We're the kids who agree
To be social without security
We're Barry's boys
'Cause his hat's in the ring
Where Westbrook Pegler once was king
Now he's too left wing
So if you don't recognize any old Red China
Or Canada, or Britain, or South Carolina
You too can join the crew
Tippecanoe and Nixon too
Back to Barry
Back to cash and carry
Back to Barry's boys.

(spoken)
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get from the left to the right.

Roses are red, violets are blue
Walter Lippmann's a pinko, too.

A-na-ka-nee, ka-nah, ka-nay
Let's investigate the PTA.

Barry, Barry, make your bid
I love John Birch, but oh you kid.

Mother, mother, wear a grin
And don't complain, or we'll turn you in.

Hold the presses, stop the mail
The Pentagon's having a one-cent sale.

What's the latest news statistic?
Hootenannies are socialistic.

Shut the door and lock and latch it
Here comes Lizzie with a brand new hatchet

(sung)

We're the kids full of nerve
As long as it's conserv-
ative we're Barry's boys
And we can't comprehend
Why our parents aren't friend-
lier to Barry's boys
Why Dad once crusaded for Sacco/Vanzetti
Now all we're doing is doing the same for John Paul Getty
Our parents emulated Roosevelt and Farley
But we just want to grow up to be like Ev and Charley

No college days with Socrates and Plato
When you're Barry's boys
You just organize parades for the abolishment of NATO
And the rest
The entire West
So let's go back to the days when men were men
And start the First World War all over again
That's right you tell 'em son
Isolationism can be fun
Back to Barry
Back to cash and carry
Back to Barry

And remember, "An American first, and a politician second."
Spoken like a true American politician

Back with Barry
Not with Lyndon, Ike or Harry
Back with Barry's boys.



Actually, I miss Barry Goldwater now....

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 02:56 PM

"I have no hope for a third party doing much more than throwing a monkey wrench into things (cf. George Wallace or Ross Perot), but each of us might consider how to move the political establishments in our own state to put redistricting into non-partisan hands. It ain't easy (you can read how Iowa has struggled with this, but they've struggled fairly successfully), but it's well worth doing if it makes party apparatchiks on either side stop taking 80% of the vote for granted."

Well said, Other Dave.

As individuals, other than campaigning for the national candidates that reflect our beliefs, one of the most effective things we can really do to bring about change is to work actively in our own localities. The "Man on a White Horse" charging in to lead us out of the Darkness is a very romantic image, but it happens very rarely, and if you wait for him, he may not come in your lifetime—or your children's. Major social changes within a democracy (particularly in a pseudo-democracy such as ours) happen from the bottom up, like a rising tide. That's when politicians, ever mindful of maintaining there positions as "leaders," will run like hell to get out in front and "lead" the people, once it becomes obvious to them which way the people are going.

I heard a speech a few days ago by a person who is deeply involved in trying to bring about social and political change in this country. He described a meeting he attended recently where several people were bemoaning the fact that the opposition was too great to overcome. "How can we accomplish our goals when we don't have leaders like Martin Luther King anymore?" complained one of those attending the meeting. Then a young woman stood up and gave them a thorough chewing out for their defeatist attitude. She concluded her remarks by saying, "Don't you realize? YOU are the leaders you have all been waiting for! So, get busy!"

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, that Truthout article that saulgoldie posted a link to is excellent.
Be sure to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: jimmyt
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:01 PM

It would be pretty interesting to come up with a poll of issues: economics, "family values", foreign policy, Government sprawl, environment, you know what I am getting at, and see just how people tend to fall if they are truly honest about how they feel. I know I do not discuss many issues regarding the quote "conservative values" with many folks because the truth is I am way left of where you would believe me to be.

I have always held out hope that there would be a party that fit in to the middle where I suspect most of us occupy more than we think.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:19 PM

Jimmyt: No disrespect intended, but would you be good enough to describe to me exactly what the "middle" is? On the issue of abortion, for example, what would be the "middle" point of view on that? On state's rights? On taxation? On Civil rights?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:51 PM

Hey, Doug:

Not to answer for jimmy (although I think the categories like taxation and civil rights are far too broad to even comment upon) I believe that most people vote their pocketbook. Those what got it want to make sure they keep it, and those what don't want a fairer slice of the pie. My Father worked in a factory all of his life and was a firmly planted Democrat. I think if he had suddenly inherited a million dollars, he would have started voting Republican, to keep all them Union folks and poor from cutting into his inheritance.

Not that I think that there is anything inherently wrong with voting your pocketbook. All those things that people refer to as common needs... clothing, housing, food, transportation and a sense of security all are money driven. I would hope that voting strictly on what is best for yourself would at least somewhat be tempered with a desire to make sure that no one is completely left behind.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:51 PM

Dianavan's putative party already exists.

They call themselves Libertarians, and they fill the bill for a McDonald's Philosophy. Let the government be smaller than the corporations....please!

As they say at despair dot com. "No One Of Us Is As Dumb As All Of Us."

Meanwhile, the Republicans have a lock on power due to the principle that between bad and scared, Americans will vote for bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Peace
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:15 PM

In Canada, where we face taxation at what I call a criminal rate, we often thank God we don't get all the government we seem to be paying for.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 08:52 PM

Jerry,

Been at the Getaway and then come home to sickly P-Vine and been workin' all danged day trying to planty as much stuff as can be planted to survive the winter and...

...what's the question???

Oh yeah, Howard Dean...

I'm gettin' a feeling that most of the folks here on Maudcat have never heard him fir any extended period of time...

He isn't like a traditional Dem or Repub...

Maybe that is why so many groups focused solely on defeatin him in '04... The Dems... The Repubs... The Media... All were in cohohzed to kill off Howard Dean...

Problem is that if you took a hundred people, split 33% Dem, 33% Repubg and 33% Independent and sat 'um all down in a room with Howard Dean fir an afternoon, as God as witness, most of them would come out sayin', ""Howard is the Man!!!"... I know this 'cause I have spent a lot of time listening to this man...

He makes perfect sense...

This ain't all about Iraq... Iraq is just one thing that Howard Dean has a position on... He has more insight into problems than I've heard from every other politican combined...

What I am sayin' here is "Give Howard a fresh look"... Wuill he ever be presidential material? No... To damged from the PR side fir that... But he has donwe something that most folks 2 years ago would have sworn that he wouldn't be able to do if he lived to be a 1000 years old... He has taken the DNC!!!

As a Green for two decades, does that make me a Dem again???

No, but interetsed, thank you...

Bobert
(Green fir Dean)

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 09:31 PM

Robo - Can you explain this please? "They call themselves Libertarians, and they fill the bill for a McDonald's Philosophy. Let the government be smaller than the corporations....please!"

I understand the term Libertarian (I think) but I don't understand 'McDonald's philosophy' or the next sentence either.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 08:53 AM

Di-
As I understand Libertarians, they are for limited government, and they have some vaunted philosophers on the subject harping back to the early days of the American Experiment: But they do not stress limits on private enterprise, including the huge corporations. Big government is the only mechanism which can put a restraint on Big Capital, so I find the Libertarians to be ludicrously self defeating in their basic conception. Their concept of limited government will lead us straight into a new kind of government: Corporate Big Brotherism.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: leftydee
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 12:32 PM

Bobert hit it on the head when he wrote " ...Iraq is just one thing HD has a position on." The point being that he HAS a position. The tragedy of the Dems recently has been the fact that no one is willing to be anything but Republican-lite. Less fullfilling, tastes like chicken crap. Kerry got beat because he didn't really offer any options. It's time for liberals to take back the Democratic Party and be unafraid to offer some things that would give the people of this great country clear choices. Where's the Democratic leadership right now when these crooks are on the ropes. They should be out throwing punches but choose to hide and hope they self-destruct. Imagine the uproar the Repubs would have created when Clinton was President. It's time to hear a new voice that speaks for the people not his corporate cronies. Help us find someone Howard!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:20 PM

The most noted and outspoken Libertarian I know and would listen to if his program were on in the DFW area would be Neal Boortz. You can visit his website and basically read what his beliefs are. If you visit his website, be prepared for a democrat/liberal bashing plethora of articles and his opinions but the basic belief structure is listed on his site. Otherwise, it's quite an entertaining site.

In my opinion, dianavan, libertarians are not really much different in belief structure from republicans except in the issues of government size and wanting to legalize drugs. There are a few other items of difference but those are the two largest ones.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:27 PM

I have posted this on various threads on Mudcat about forty-'leven times, and people may be getting sick of seeing it, but it merits constant repetition, like a mantra, until the Democratic Party finally gets it.

"Between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the Republican will win every time."
                                                                                                                              --Harry S. Truman

Now, you may not have like Truman, but you sure as hell knew where he stood.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:27 PM

Libertarian Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: saulgoldie
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:00 PM

My understanding of Libertarianism is that it is also very big on separation of church and state and individual liberties, two things that do not have much support in the Repub platform of the current era. Repubs who call themselves Libertarian have alot of nerve.

Furthermore, true libertarianism would not protect the corporate interests as they like to be protected from consumers, their stock-holders, and community interests. There would be a lot more chaos in the business world under true Libertarianism, and the corporate interests would not like the unpredictability, not one bit. Neither, I suspect would the majority of citizens.

When asked honestly, without spin or personalities about most of the popular issues of the day, most Americans are somewhat left of what is currently considered "center." The Dems need to get back to THEIR home territory with solid positions and talking points and stop trying to be "Republican-lite" and the people will find them.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:36 PM

This is a long screed, folks, but I do have some insight into the formation and fundamental beliefs of the Libertarian Party. So fix yourself a cup of tea or coffee, or pop open a beer, prop your feet up, and read on:—

During the mid-Sixties, in various parts of the country, people gathered around tape recorders to listen to a series of taped lectures given by psychologist Nathaniel Branden. There were several courses put out on tape by others, such as one on logic and rational thinking (quite good, actually) by Barbara Branden, (Branden's then wife), and one on economics by Alan Greenspan, now chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. These taped lecture courses were available through the Nathaniel Branden Institute. At the time, Branden was a disciple of, spokesman for, and lecturer on Objectivism, the philosophy of novelist Ayn Rand. The purpose of the Nathaniel Branden Institute was to disseminate the philosophy of Objectivism.

I had read the novels of Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and her earlier novels, Anthem and We the Living) and found the philosophy of individual autonomy, integrity, and being true to one's ideals to resonate very strongly with what I believe myself. So when the taped lecture series started in this area, I enrolled, along with several friends who also found much of what Rand said to be appealing.

But when the lectures got into the realm of politics, I began to see a schism between what Rand seemed to believe and what was actually going on in the real world (that objective reality that she put so much store by—as do I). Much of her political philosophy was based on the idea that there actually are such people as Howard Roark, Hank Reardon, Gail Wynand, Francisco d'Anconian, Dagny Taggert, and, of course, John Galt—all idealistic realists with flawless integrity. Now, I don't doubt the truth of this. I have met some, and I aspire to be one myself. But—Ayn Rand maintained that most American corporations are run by such people. In fact, I read a magazine article written by her in which she insists that this is truly the case.

I don't think I need to go into the reasons why I gradually began to find this a major dissonance in what I had previously regarded as a rock-solid, reality-based philosophy. I was with her up until that point.

Then, when she attacked environmentalists as being nothing more than a bunch of Granola-eating, sandal-wearing, dope-smoking, anti-business hippies who should "get down on their knees and give thanks to the dirtiest of smokestacks in the factories that are responsible for producing the affluence that allows them to spend all of their time in mindless demonstrations," that's when she lost me for sure. Because I also read a lot of science books and magazines, and I bloody well knew that she had slammed her heretofore acute mind shut and was talking through her nether orifice.

Naturally, in line with the government regulations that had been arbitrarily inhibiting all the good that her noble fictional heroes were attempting to lay upon a needy world, she demanded total deregulation of business. There, too, I had read some of the early works of Ralph Nader and other consumer advocates, and knew that Hank Reardon and John Galt, with their shining integrity, were not the ones in charge of American corporations.

It was about this time that the Libertarian Party got started. Now I'm not sure that it was actually initiated by Objectivists—followers of Ayn Rand's philosophy, particularly her political philosophy—but they were very much present and very influential in setting the direction that this new party was to go. And reading their web sites now tells me that they have remained true to their initial goals (would that this could be said of the Democratic Party, but that's another story). It was about the time that the Libertarian Party was forming that Nathaniel Brandon and Ayn Rand (now deceased) parted company rather unpleasantly. It seems that in the Inner Circle, everybody was having an affair with everybody else's spouse, and, among other things, Rand, who had fiercely advocated independent thinking, had a screaming fit when Branden had the temerity to disagree with her about something.

If you want to get a clue as to the aims of the Libertarian Party, familiarize yourself with the non-fiction writings of Ayn Rand, particularly The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal.

I am with the Libertarian Party all the way when it comes to matters of personal freedom and the government staying the hell out of people's lives—matters of whom you can marry, what you can do in the privacy of your own home (including what you chose to smoke or ingest—the Europeans handle this quite well, and we should study how they do it), what church you go to—if you chose to go at all, and all else that has to do with personal autonomy.

But the Libertarian Party's position on business and the economy is somewhat to the right of the neo-conservatives. Complete deregulation of business and the elimination of all social programs.

The CEO of Enron was no John Galt.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: saulgoldie
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:05 PM

Yugo, Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:45 PM

I'm very much afraid that third parties in this country don't stand much of a chance. That's just the way the system works (or doesn't), especially when a large chunk of the media is owned by supporters of one of the two major parties—a third party just doesn't get air-time, and that's one of the major factors in winning an election in this country. Tell me, quick: what were the names of the presidential candidates put forth by the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party? Didn't hear those names in the news very often, did you!?

I generally advocate the position taken by Thom Hartmann (clearly explained HERE), that, in view of the sad history of third parties in this country, the most practical and effective way to bring about the changes we want, is to join the Democratic Party (the more progressive of the two parties, which, granted, ain't sayin' much!) and work to reform that party, bringing it back to the ideals that they used to have. Howard Dean is a good start, and that's hopeful. There are others in the Democratic Party also, like Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, who, if not outright progressive, at least lean more in that direction than, say, John Kerry—although if you were to point him in the right direction and give him a shove. . . .

Speaking of Thom Hartman, if you're into graphic novels and such, take a look at THIS.

If I were going to join a third party, it would not be the Libertarian Party, it would be the Green Party (hi, there, Bobert!). The Green Party doesn't hide behind a lot of political rhetoric. Like Harry Truman, whom I quoted (yet again!) above, the Greens are more than happy to have you know exactly where they stand in relation to the two major parties. In capsule form, here are the Ten Key Values. No wishy-washy double talk to cover hidden agendas there. Right out, in plain language, for all to see.

I sorta wonder what might happen if the members of the Green Party all joined the Democratic Party and started kickin' some butt!

If you're a little fuzzy about why the United States has only two viable political parties, and various other aspects of what we like to think of as democracy—or if you think you know exactly what democracy is—I highly recommend First Democracy : The Challenge of an Ancient Idea by Paul Woodruff HERE. Is the United States really a democratic country? Read the book and then you decide.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:50 PM

Never mine in the yr 2006, is any one watching today. This week Bush is pushing 50 billion in cuts to social services while at the same time giving the rich another xmas present, 70 billion in tax breaks (see move on). I believe by this New years eve Bush well have driven his last nails into his own coffin.

Always Hopefull

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 11:41 AM

And the question on everyone's lips is, "Where are the Democrats?!!" I keep hoping that they will rise up and start drumming out the themes that are the Democratic cornerstones. But they don't. Nope, not even the Good Doctor, unless he is but it is buried in the news somewhere along with other important REAL stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:02 AM

Most of the people I know who self-identify as libertarians think the Republicans are a bunch of left-wing communists.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 11:03 AM

An interesting clip from comments sent in to the Times Freakonomics column recently:

""For example, I think that Presidents have very little to do with the success or failure of the economy."

I guess then that it is just a coincidence that, over the past 50 years, deficits decline during Democratic administrations and rise precipitously under Republicans. Both Clinton and LBJ left office having turned deficits into surpluses (and LBJ had the Vietnam War to finance). Under Democratic administrations, joblessness falls, poverty falls, and crime falls. All three rise under Republican administrations.

Here are some comparisons of economic performance during Democratic and Republican administrations:

Growth of real disposable personal income (1953-2001)

D: 3.65% R: 3.08%

Employment gains per year (1953-2001)

D: 1.684 million/year R: 1.279 million/year

Unemployment (1947-2001)
D: 4.8% R: 6.3%

Average after-tax return on tangible capital (1952-2004)

D: 4.3% R: 3.2%

GDP Growth (1962-2001)

D: 3.9%

R: 2.9%

GDP Growth (1930-2000)

D: 5.4% R: 1.6%

Inflation (1962-2000)

D: 4.26% R: 4.96%

Percentage Growth in total federal spending (1962-2001)

D: 6.96% R: 7.57%

Percentage growth in non-defense federal spending (1962-2001)

D: 8.34% R:10.08%

Yearly budget deficit (1962 - 2001)

D: $36 billion R: $190 billion

Increase in national debt (1962-2001)

D: $0.72 trillion (20 years) $3.8 trillion (20 years)

Annual stock market returns (1927 - 2000) (DOW)

D: 13.4% R:8.1%

Annual stock market returns (1927-2000) (S&P 500)

D: 12.3% R: 8.0%

Sources include BLS, Forbes, WSJ, the Fed, CPI, U.S. Government 2003 Budget, etc.

Note that in EVERY METRIC, Democratic administrations show statistically significant improvement in performance over Republican administrations (and few of these figures include ANY data from Dubya's administration, which will drag down Republican averages in a number of critical catagories).

For those of you who do not believe the President and his advisors have much influence on the economy, that's a helluva lot of coincidences to explain.

— Posted by Blue Sun "

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 09:28 PM

Kinda funny then, Amos, how there is is strong belief that the Repubs 'are the friend of business, and those who want to make profits'...

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: GUEST,Arkie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 11:37 AM

Could be they are friends of certain business groups or business men who can profit while their companies decline.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:51 PM

July 21, 2008
Delusional Checklist for Republicans
By Ben Cohen


"After 7 1/2 years of Republican rule, there are many conservatives sticking to their principles despite overwhelming evidence that none of their policies work. It would not be unreasonable to describe them as delusional, so I've come up with a check list to determine their sanity. If you believe that the following is true, it may be advisable to seek medical attention:

1. The war in Iraq is winnable
2. That we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq
3. John McCain is the best candidate on security
4. We need to go to war with Iran
5. Tax cuts will save the economy
6. The free market will save health care
7. We need less regulation for the financial sector
8. NAFTA and other free trade agreements will provide prosperity for everyone
9. Obama is a socialist
10. You can have a 'War on Terror'

This is of course, satirical, but it still amazes me that the same arguments are being made in public debate. Regular people have suffered through years of this bankrupt ideology, and are clearly eager to move on. Over 80% of the population believe America is on the wrong track, and are growing more and more eager to enact serious change in public policy.

The Republican candidate John McCain has tied himself to all of the above positions, and will deserves to find himself on the receiving end of a political battering this year. Another 4 years of failed policies may break the United States completely, and there must be a concerted effort to stop him. We can start by understanding the problem, and thankfully, we have an enormous amount of evidence to sift through. The current administration's abysmal record is a perfect example of what not to do in government, and it should now be clear that their policies should be banished to the rubbish dump of history. "

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM

Don't count them out. They have purged the CIA and Pentagon to do their bidding. They are going to go full bore, if only to protect their war criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Joe_F
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 08:55 PM

It is is bad taste to mention the likely effect of another large terrorist attack before the election, but I will do so. I suspect there are people in the present administration who are wicked enough to connive at or fake such a thing -- there are in any government -- but I doubt if they have the power to do so. More useful to the Republicans, in any case, would be a foiled attempt, especially if it were hinted and/or leaked that illegal means had been used to foil it. That could be more easily faked, or of course it might actually happen. I am inclined to expect it. It will be terribly demoralizing to the opposition, including me.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 06:54 AM

"More useful to the Republicans, in any case, would be a foiled attempt, especially if it were hinted and/or leaked that illegal means had been used to foil it. That could be more easily faked, or of course it might actually happen."


How could it possibly happen? After all, there IS no terrorist threat- Just look at the consensus here on Mudcat.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:30 AM

"the Democrats have to be for something as well as against Republican stupidity. "


Well, they lost the last election that way. I doubt if they have learned anything, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

Don't forget! W and Putin see eye to eye in a dicator kind of way.

Re-establishing a cold war stand off and fear factor of, lets say, an ongoing Cuban missle crises will help each dictator direct the wealth of their nation and control of its hostage citizens.

WATCH FOR THE NEW AND IMPROVED CUBAN MISSLE CRISES COMING TO A MEDIA OUTLET NEAR YOU>

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 09:59 AM

"These (Republican tea) parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.

But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.

Thus, President Obama is being called a "socialist" who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.

But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because "liberal" doesn't seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer "therapy and understanding" to the 9/11 terrorists?

Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn't born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.

Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials. But while it's new to have a talk-radio host in that role, ferocious party discipline has been the norm since the 1990s, when Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, became known as "The Hammer" in part because of the way he took political retribution on opponents.

Going back to those tea parties, Mr. DeLay, a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution — he famously suggested that the teaching of evolution led to the Columbine school massacre — also foreshadowed the denunciations of evolution that have emerged at some of the parties.

Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

But that's nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the "spontaneous" riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida's Miami-Dade County.

So what's the implication of the fact that Republicans are refusing to grow up, the fact that they are still behaving the same way they did when history seemed to be on their side? I'd say that it's good for Democrats, at least in the short run — but it's bad for the country.

For now, the Obama administration gains a substantial advantage from the fact that it has no credible opposition, especially on economic policy, where the Republicans seem particularly clueless.

But as I said, the G.O.P. remains one of America's great parties, and events could still put that party back in power. We can only hope that Republicans have moved on by the time that happens. ..."


(NYT Columnist P. Krugman)

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 10:44 AM

At this time, the only thing that seems to keep the Republican Party going is the complete ineptitude of the Democratic Party. We need a strong third party so bad it's painful.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: maire-aine
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 10:45 AM

I read the same article, Amos. I went out to one of the websites that's organizing this stuff. Krugman's blog has more links to their websites. Many of the people posting comments seemed badly mis-informed about the Obama tax plan. And the neo-cons are capitalizing on their confusion, if not deliberately lying to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 11:12 AM

"At this time, the only thing that seems to keep the Republican Party going is the complete ineptitude of the Democratic Party."

Oh pooh! They keep going because their brains are locked into their collections of single-issue ideas and slogans about those ideas! Where else would they go? Third parties simply don't work in this political system... except to occasionally spoil an election for one side or another.

The Democrats are beginning to see how a modicum of openness and honesty, when half-way well administered can actually get them elected and help people too! Too bad they have to do it under these trying conditions where NO plan seems to be ideal and progress costs so much!

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 11:29 AM

"(NYT Columnist P. Krugman) "


To follow Amos's past commentary:

"Another totally impartial commentor... NOT."

Subject: RE: BS: Obit: The Republican Party
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM

"Third parties simply don't work in this political system... except to occasionally spoil an election for one side or another..."


                They do work sometimes. We don't have Whigs anymore--though we do have "Know Nothings"--we call them Democrats. And the last time I voted, there weren't any Federalists on the ballot.