The Clinton Thread II

[Kelly]

This should be fun....

 

[DACrowe]

QUOTE=StorminNorman;19059565]Reagan claimed to be for regulating the markets and instead did nothing of the source. For you to connect the actions of President Reagan with "Small Government Policies" of individuals like myself is for you to argue that a man should be judged by what he says, not how he acts.

Neither Reagan nor Bush 41 nor Bubba nor Bush 43 were "small government" Presidents. None were practitioners of the Austrian perspective. None seeked to achieve Free Markets.[/quote]

Reagan was for deregulating the Financial Industry as well as decreasing Federal oversight of corporate America. I agree he was big government, there is no denying that. As were all of his successors and probably every president since FDR. However, Reagan focused on blowing up the deficit on national defense to "beat the Commies" and prove we were the best...and it honestly worked (though I think Afghanistan had more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, but still). He did not decrease the size of government, but he did set a legacy of government being hands off which led to things like Clinton's CTFC allowing commodities to be swapped and speculated upon, as well as the Clinton-Gingrich regiment repealing Glass-Steigal. It also gave credence to Bush's boneheaded ideas of tax cuts creating wealth for everyone and paying for themselves (as opposed to creating record deficits as they did under reagan and Bush '43).

But yes, he was big government. But he did create an environment hostile to government intervention which leads to things like lax MMS and SECs that let "industry" run us into the ground in a lot of ways.

You are correct in labeling the Tea Party as a "populist outrage" that is fuled by economic fear an discontent (and obviously a smidgen of paranoia), however that does nothing to dismiss it's irrelevance. After all Roosevelt's power came from similar feelings.

True. But their strand of populism tends to do well in short spurts and then sputter out. Like the Jenkins, Huey Long, and Father Coughlin strands.

To compare the Tea Party to (almost nonexistent) calls for Americans siding with Hitler over FDR is an act of either severe ignorance or intentional intellectual dishonesty. (Of course it should be pointed out that the only difference between the policies of Hitler and FDR was on what race was deserving of Concentration Camps).

I was referring to Father Coughlin and his radio show that had millions of listeners every airing as he decried FDR as destroying the US and that if it is a choice between Stalin (who FDR was) or Hitler, he'd choose Hitler. He is really no different than Glenn Beck, hence my comparison. A fire breathing blowhard who says mostly amde up, nonsensical bull **** and has millions of viewers/listeners daily, as well as great rallies that nobody seems to remember.

There is the crux of your entire position. I guarantee you the Tea Party will exists after a Republican comes into power.

We'll see, but I doubt it. I know every Tea Partier claims that they were opposing Bush and his big government policies during his tenure, but yet I never once heard them speak out other than in isolated Ron Paul-esque libertarian camps. The reason is most of the Tea Partiers were not outraged at Bush and don't want to appear hypocritical. But once they get rid of who they have as irrational a hatred of as the anti-war Bush protestors had of him being behind 9/11 (and yet are conspiciously silent during Obama's escalation of the Afghan War). Once Obama is gone, they will not be marching on Washington.

Of course one does not have to part with roads (or even Social Security or Medicare) and still be in favor of moving from an income tax to the FairTax as the FairTax is revenue neutral.

So you say, but most of our programs would be unaffordable under the Fair Tax. But when you think most of them shouldn't exist that should not be a big deal.

Republicans in the D.C. area are very difference from Republicans in Georgia, Texas, Idaho and Wyoming.

I know. But they aren't the runs who run the party and the government when they're in power. You say that it will change, but it hasn't. It's the same people with the same views of 10-20 years ago in D.C. and they may pay lip service to the base and Tea party....but they ignore them when in power. And I doubt that will change as the proteges in D.C. still think the same way. The ones who run the government.

You are pulling the 10-15% number out of your prostate.

Rasmussen has 30% of Americans associating themselves with the "Tea Party" label. The number becomes much higher when you include Americans who care about the same issues that drive the Tea Party: fixing the economy, stopping big government, ousting corruption, repealing Healthcare Reform, etc. etc.

I thought that poll were for those who agree with what the TEa Party Stands for or what they talk about (fiscal discipline). I'm pretty sure not 1 in 3 people in this country have gone to Tea party rallies and held up those signs. Or go to meetings once a week to talk about how much they hate Obama. I think 10-15 percent is more likely. If it was really 1/3 of the US, then 1 out of every 2 white people would be a Tea Partier (as they're almost entirely white) and that just does not seem likely.

Again I just do not believe that figure is accurate.

 

[StorminNorman]

I feel the tea party is going to eventually replace the republicans-or something else will. The GOP is disenfranchizing a large generation of voters due to their stances on social issues. The dems arent doing themselves with their handling of all things fiscal. Not to mention, both sides contradict themselves on a regular basis.

I wouldnt be surprised if the biggest reform to come from the great recession is a new power party. The tea party is a joke, at the moment, but the fact that a new party with pretty much zero substance can gain so much ground says something about the peoples outlook on the current way the government runs.

Excel speaks the truth. I mean the GOP is going to remain - but in name only - the party will be reformed from the bottom up, his principals are spot on though.

 

[Matt]

I disagree. The Republican Party is not going to rename or disappear or be replaced. Their values will change over the years. Hell, if you go back to the turn of the century, modern Democrats would've been Republicans and modern Republicans would've been Democrats. Hell, go back forty years ago to Nixon, 3 time Republican Party nominee for President. By modern standards he would've been run out of his party like Arlen Specter. The Republican Party will change its platform eventually and attract new voters and the Democratic Party will change its platform eventually and lose voters. These things fluctuate. Eventually, some people will be saying the same thing about Democrats as the Republicans are dominant among younger generations.

 

[StorminNorman]

That's what i meant to say - that the GOP will remain the GOP in name, but not in infrastructure.

 

[DACrowe]

The GOP is not changing anytime soon. At least not for the next 10-20 years. Once the US is radically changed, as Excel points out, the GOP will need to look drastically different from either the Party Establishment in D.C. or the rabid Tea Party base. Neither is appealing to non-whites or much of the youth vote who will be the base voters in 20 years.

The GOP may change into a libertarian party, which seems more likely. But the current Republican Party is not going anywhere...the party of corporate America in its heart and intolerance of anything non-White Christian in its face.

And that is why it will have to change in the longrun. Or as Excel says, it will fade.

 

[Matt]

The GOP is not changing anytime soon. At least not for the next 10-20 years. Once the US is radically changed, as Excel points out, the GOP will need to look drastically different from either the Party Establishment in D.C. or the rabid Tea Party base. Neither is appealing to non-whites or much of the youth vote who will be the base voters in 20 years.

The GOP may change into a libertarian party, which seems more likely. But the current Republican Party is not going anywhere...the party of corporate America in its heart and intolerance of anything non-White Christian in its face.

And that is why it will have to change in the longrun. Or as Excel says, it will fade.

And of course they will change. As I said, a mere 40 years ago, under Richard Nixon's leadership, the Republicans were the progressives. The Republicans did not become what you see today until Reagan took leadership. If they get a strong Libertarian leader who has a progressive social platform and a message of personal freedom who takes power, you will see a complete shift in the party values (just as you did when Reagan took power). The sheep will follow whoever can win.

By the same merit, you can see early hints of a change to the Democratic Party. The Blue Dog movement, while not as vocal as the Tea Party are just as prevelant. You can see the early signs of a change of values within the Democratic Party. I would not be suprised at all, if in ten to twenty years (maybe sooner if Barry O. loses his re-election campaign) you feel the same way as I do, Crowe. A man whose party has changed and left him behind.

 

[Kelly]

The GOP is not changing anytime soon. At least not for the next 10-20 years. Once the US is radically changed, as Excel points out, the GOP will need to look drastically different from either the Party Establishment in D.C. or the rabid Tea Party base. Neither is appealing to non-whites or much of the youth vote who will be the base voters in 20 years.

The GOP may change into a libertarian party, which seems more likely. But the current Republican Party is not going anywhere...the party of corporate America in its heart and intolerance of anything non-White Christian in its face.

And that is why it will have to change in the longrun. Or as Excel says, it will fade.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1497/democrats-edge-among-millennials-slips

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1497/democrats-edge-among-millennials-slips


As far as the Republicans changing? Who knows..... but within the 20th century, they certainly changed.....no reason why that can't happen again in the 21st century.

 

[StorminNorman]

Reagan was for deregulating the Financial Industry as well as decreasing Federal oversight of corporate America. I agree he was big government, there is no denying that. As were all of his successors and probably every president since FDR. However, Reagan focused on blowing up the deficit on national defense to "beat the Commies" and prove we were the best...and it honestly worked (though I think Afghanistan had more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, but still). He did not decrease the size of government, but he did set a legacy of government being hands off which led to things like Clinton's CTFC allowing commodities to be swapped and speculated upon, as well as the Clinton-Gingrich regiment repealing Glass-Steigal. It also gave credence to Bush's boneheaded ideas of tax cuts creating wealth for everyone and paying for themselves (as opposed to creating record deficits as they did under reagan and Bush '43).

The deficits that Bush ran up had nothing to do with the Tax Cuts, that did generate revenue, but had everything to do with his gross federal spending and engagement into two wars.

Reagan did set a legacy regarding small government by demonstrating that (with the success of his rhetoric) most Americans want the government he described (his rhetoric was totally libertarian in nature), as such I believe everyone will find that a national libertarian Republican candidate (that is given the same attention that a Mitt Romney got) would be tremendously successful.

And while we have benefited from Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steigal, it was his reinvestment into the Community Reinvestment Act that caused our crisis by pumping the banking institutions full of bad loans.

True. But their strand of populism tends to do well in short spurts and then sputter out. Like the Jenkins, Huey Long, and Father Coughlin strands.

But if the nation keeps getting worse due to big government policies, it is only natural that a small government group would only increase in intensity. As long as there is a Glenn Beck painting the narrative, the Tea Party will continue. The reason Beck is more effective than Father Coughlin is that Beck is a good person.

I was referring to Father Coughlin and his radio show that had millions of listeners every airing as he decried FDR as destroying the US and that if it is a choice between Stalin (who FDR was) or Hitler, he'd choose Hitler. He is really no different than Glenn Beck, hence my comparison. A fire breathing blowhard who says mostly amde up, nonsensical bull **** and has millions of viewers/listeners daily, as well as great rallies that nobody seems to remember.

Coughlin is different than Beck by being a raging anti-Semite and a proud Progressive. You are completely wrong on your take of Beck as painting him guilty of "mostly made up, nonsensical ********".

We'll see, but I doubt it. I know every Tea Partier claims that they were opposing Bush and his big government policies during his tenure, but yet I never once heard them speak out other than in isolated Ron Paul-esque libertarian camps. The reason is most of the Tea Partiers were not outraged at Bush and don't want to appear hypocritical. But once they get rid of who they have as irrational a hatred of as the anti-war Bush protestors had of him being behind 9/11 (and yet are conspiciously silent during Obama's escalation of the Afghan War). Once Obama is gone, they will not be marching on Washington.

Again, people forgot how little excitement there was in the GOP in 2006 - or his approval ratings in the low 20 (meaning that more than just Democrats opposed him). The Tea Parties started as a response to TARP anyway. Again, if we accept that Beck is the most important voice in the Tea Party movement (which I believe whole heartedly), then it is his credibility that matters. Beck opposed Bush before 2008, he opposed Obama today and it is Beck that routinely stresses the lack of importance of political party and the necessity of judgement based on action.

So you say, but most of our programs would be unaffordable under the Fair Tax. But when you think most of them shouldn't exist that should not be a big deal.

Most of the programs we have right now would be affordable under the FairTax. Now obviously, as you mention, I want a dramatic cut to those programs - but such a cut isn't of necessity for the FairTax plan but out of being the right thing to do.

I know. But they aren't the runs who run the party and the government when they're in power. You say that it will change, but it hasn't. It's the same people with the same views of 10-20 years ago in D.C. and they may pay lip service to the base and Tea party....but they ignore them when in power. And I doubt that will change as the proteges in D.C. still think the same way. The ones who run the government.

That's why it's important to clean out Washington. We need new blood, not proteges.

The internet is of vital important here as well. The Libertarian platform is the one that has benefited the most from the internet. Considering the 20th Century was essentially a century of increasing statism and the demise of capitalism in America, most Americans have only been introduced to statist ideas. In order to be introduced to be exposed to libertarian politics one needed to be in a crazy libertarian family or have the luck of crossing paths with a man like Murray Rothbard or Leonard Read. Outside of F.A. Hayek's book (or more accurately it's condensed Readers Digest version), Henry Hazlitt's New York Times Column (which ended in the 50's or 60's I believe) and Atlas Shrugged are really the only libertarian writings that were ever placed in the mainstream.

Now, thanks to the internet, anyone can find essays by Karl Hess or Rothbard or Mises. South Park is one of the most successful cartoons of all time. Libertarianism is becoming mainstream.

I thought that poll were for those who agree with what the TEa Party Stands for or what they talk about (fiscal discipline). I'm pretty sure not 1 in 3 people in this country have gone to Tea party rallies and held up those signs. Or go to meetings once a week to talk about how much they hate Obama. I think 10-15 percent is more likely. If it was really 1/3 of the US, then 1 out of every 2 white people would be a Tea Partier (as they're almost entirely white) and that just does not seem likely.

Again I just do not believe that figure is accurate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx

Whether one has attended a Tea Party is unnecessary to be a supporter of the Tea Party, just as one does not need to attend a Barack Obama rally to be a Barack Obama supporter.

 

[DACrowe]

And of course they will change. As I said, a mere 40 years ago, under Richard Nixon's leadership, the Republicans were the progressives. The Republicans did not become what you see today until Reagan took leadership. If they get a strong Libertarian leader who has a progressive social platform and a message of personal freedom who takes power, you will see a complete shift in the party values (just as you did when Reagan took power). The sheep will follow whoever can win.

By the same merit, you can see early hints of a change to the Democratic Party. The Blue Dog movement, while not as vocal as the Tea Party are just as prevelant. You can see the early signs of a change of values within the Democratic Party. I would not be suprised at all, if in ten to twenty years (maybe sooner if Barry O. loses his re-election campaign) you feel the same way as I do, Crowe. A man whose party has changed and left him behind.

I said they would change. But change is slow. I think they'll have to reimagine themselves in 10-20 years. But I honestly don't see the Tea party changing anything and it's a lot of noise that will not reshape the GOP.

They seem firmly in place. The same people who run the party in D.C. (and they are the ones who shape the actual policy, not the rhetoric) do not think Bush's ideas failed. They still think Reagan's version of a big government that burdens everyone but industry and should fight preemptive wars without impunity.

They can talk about how they are for deficit reduction all they want. But when their singature cause for next year is to blow a $700 billion in the budget on unpaid for tax cuts for the rich, as well as scoffing at the idea of looking at the Defense Budget as subjectable to cuts...then they're just whistling dixie.

McConnell and Boehner were thre for the Bush years. They were there when Gingrich signed his "Contract With America" and they proceeded to break 8 of their 10 promises on it.

The GOP will only change when it is politically inconvenient to be the party of arrogance, privilege and white resentment. The Tea Party speaks of changing that. But for every Tea Party candidate running in the House there are over 5 traditional Republicans. If Rand Paul and Joe Miller wins, there will be two fringe Tea Party senators and just ask Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold how much clout they have of shaping policy as the far left outsiders in the Democratic Senate caucus.

Until being labeled the party of big business, international authoritarians and angry white people is a losing strategy--and it currently isn't--they're not changing.

 

[Matt]

I agree that the Tea Party Movement won't reshape the Republican Party. I think a likely scenario is the libertarian movement reshaping the Republican party. I think a lot of this younger generation that was inspired by Obama has already found themselves disillusioned and that will only increase as the effects of Obama's spending becomes more apparent on their wallets as they enter the job force, have families to provide for, etc. I think you'll see a rejection fo big government and a lot of them will lean towards the Republican party, but shape it in their own image. A party that rejects big government and embraces individual liberty.

 

[Matt]

And meanwhile, I think especially after the defeat in this election (and possibly 2012), you're going to see the Democratic Party start to move right under the pressure of the Blue Dog Movement. I think we are in a time of party realignment.

 

[Paradoxium]

That must absolutely not happen. They need to shift left and win 2012 somehow.

They need to completely own this mess.

 

[DACrowe]

Reagan did set a legacy regarding small government by demonstrating that (with the success of his rhetoric) most Americans want the government he described (his rhetoric was totally libertarian in nature), as such I believe everyone will find that a national libertarian Republican candidate (that is given the same attention that a Mitt Romney got) would be tremendously successful.

Perhaps, but I don't see the GOP running one anytime soon. Romney? Palin? Barbour? Gingrich? Huckabee? Daniels? Only the last one might believe that and he is far from the frontrunner.

And while we have benefited from Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steigal, it was his reinvestment into the Community Reinvestment Act that caused our crisis by pumping the banking institutions full of bad loans.

It couldn't possibly be both contributed. But while that bill was bad, allowing Wall Street to gamble on those bad mortgages and increase their worth 20-fold is why banks went under. It is why the GDP output of financial services exploded in 10 years so that when one bank goes under they all go under because they all have their money in the swaps market and our pockets through commercial banking. Enter economic collapse and a bailout which has salvaged them into success but left us holding the bags of their bad investments (huge recession).

But if the nation keeps getting worse due to big government policies, it is only natural that a small government group would only increase in intensity. As long as there is a Glenn Beck painting the narrative, the Tea Party will continue. The reason Beck is more effective than Father Coughlin is that Beck is a good person.

I doubt we're going to get worse than we were in the 1930s. In fact, I hope we get better. Big government prevented a Depression (whether interveining was morally right or not). Small government would have left us to die a la Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

And Glenn Beck is a good person? Well I don't know him personally. But I do know he is professionally an opportunistic liar who contradicts himself weekly, has admitted to Forbes Magazine that he doesn't believe half the stuff he says and it's all about a paycheck to him--and who would attempt to "take back" the Civil Rights movement for his own self-aggrandizement.

None of these tell me he is a good person.

Coughlin is different than Beck by being a raging anti-Semite and a proud Progressive. You are completely wrong on your take of Beck as painting him guilty of "mostly made up, nonsensical ********".

And Beck is guilty of stoking fear and prejudices about hispanics and Muslims. He also routinely compares his president to evil dictators throughout history and contemporary times. Sounds awfully familiar. Oh...and he admits he is talking out of his ass.

gain, people forgot how little excitement there was in the GOP in 2006 - or his approval ratings in the low 20 (meaning that more than just Democrats opposed him). The Tea Parties started as a response to TARP anyway. Again, if we accept that Beck is the most important voice in the Tea Party movement (which I believe whole heartedly), then it is his credibility that matters. Beck opposed Bush before 2008, he opposed Obama today and it is Beck that routinely stresses the lack of importance of political party and the necessity of judgement based on action.

Beck may have opposed Bush, but there were not hundreds of thousands people marching in protest against him like there were for Obama...two months after taking office. Beck and Fox News willl be back to being the cheerleaders they've always been when we have a GOP president again. Remember when disagreeing or protesting Bush was "unAmerican," "unconstitutional," "not patriotic," "whining," "loony left," "love it or leave it?"

They'll be back to that spill within a week...who am I kidding...well before election night on that.

Most of the programs we have right now would be affordable under the FairTax. Now obviously, as you mention, I want a dramatic cut to those programs - but such a cut isn't of necessity for the FairTax plan but out of being the right thing to do.

And that is why the FairTax is logical to you. You tell most people they;ll lose their Social Security and Medicare, they'll tell you to go fly a kite.

That's why it's important to clean out Washington. We need new blood, not proteges.

I agree, but I don't see it happening. At least not in the near future.

The internet is of vital important here as well. The Libertarian platform is the one that has benefited the most from the internet. Considering the 20th Century was essentially a century of increasing statism and the demise of capitalism in America, most Americans have only been introduced to statist ideas. In order to be introduced to be exposed to libertarian politics one needed to be in a crazy libertarian family or have the luck of crossing paths with a man like Murray Rothbard or Leonard Read. Outside of F.A. Hayek's book (or more accurately it's condensed Readers Digest version), Henry Hazlitt's New York Times Column (which ended in the 50's or 60's I believe) and Atlas Shrugged are really the only libertarian writings that were ever placed in the mainstream.

Now, thanks to the internet, anyone can find essays by Karl Hess or Rothbard or Mises. South Park is one of the most successful cartoons of all time. Libertarianism is becoming mainstream.

I do agree libertarianism is catching a wider audience due to the Internet. But populist trends can get a lot of followers and never catch on with the mainstream, as we've talked about before. The Internet is also good at misrepresenting facts and information based on bias. It is also good to allow those who agree with that bias to live in a bubble where they can avoid scrutiny of their ideas or their political leaders can be with them and avoid accountability for their actions, rhetoric, etc. And it can lead to them to believe they're a bigger percentage of the country than they really are.

Whether one has attended a Tea Party is unnecessary to be a supporter of the Tea Party, just as one does not need to attend a Barack Obama rally to be a Barack Obama supporter.

True. But when I think Tea Partiers, I mean the true believers. The ones with the signs. If you are in the middle and just go with the wind changing of who has the better soundbyte, then chances are you can be swayed the other direction next election. Someone who supported or voted for Obama is not the same kind of person who drove 10 hours to see him speak and volunteered for his campaign. The same ones who will never vote for a Tea Party candidate but are a smaller percentage of the country who got a large coalition to agree with them in 2008. Kind of like the Tea Party in 2010. Doesn't mean they'll be around in two years though. Ask the Democrats about that. Oh well.

 

[DACrowe]

Reagan did set a legacy regarding small government by demonstrating that (with the success of his rhetoric) most Americans want the government he described (his rhetoric was totally libertarian in nature), as such I believe everyone will find that a national libertarian Republican candidate (that is given the same attention that a Mitt Romney got) would be tremendously successful.

Perhaps, but I don't see the GOP running one anytime soon. Romney? Palin? Barbour? Gingrich? Huckabee? Daniels? Only the last one might believe that and he is far from the frontrunner.

And while we have benefited from Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steigal, it was his reinvestment into the Community Reinvestment Act that caused our crisis by pumping the banking institutions full of bad loans.

It couldn't possibly be both contributed. But while that bill was bad, allowing Wall Street to gamble on those bad mortgages and increase their worth 20-fold is why banks went under. It is why the GDP output of financial services exploded in 10 years so that when one bank goes under they all go under because they all have their money in the swaps market and our pockets through commercial banking. Enter economic collapse and a bailout which has salvaged them into success but left us holding the bags of their bad investments (huge recession).

But if the nation keeps getting worse due to big government policies, it is only natural that a small government group would only increase in intensity. As long as there is a Glenn Beck painting the narrative, the Tea Party will continue. The reason Beck is more effective than Father Coughlin is that Beck is a good person.

I doubt we're going to get worse than we were in the 1930s. In fact, I hope we get better. Big government prevented a Depression (whether interveining was morally right or not). Small government would have left us to die a la Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

And Glenn Beck is a good person? Well I don't know him personally. But I do know he is professionally an opportunistic liar who contradicts himself weekly, has admitted to Forbes Magazine that he doesn't believe half the stuff he says and it's all about a paycheck to him--and who would attempt to "take back" the Civil Rights movement for his own self-aggrandizement.

None of these tell me he is a good person.

Coughlin is different than Beck by being a raging anti-Semite and a proud Progressive. You are completely wrong on your take of Beck as painting him guilty of "mostly made up, nonsensical ********".

And Beck is guilty of stoking fear and prejudices about hispanics and Muslims. He also routinely compares his president to evil dictators throughout history and contemporary times. Sounds awfully familiar. Oh...and he admits he is talking out of his ass.

gain, people forgot how little excitement there was in the GOP in 2006 - or his approval ratings in the low 20 (meaning that more than just Democrats opposed him). The Tea Parties started as a response to TARP anyway. Again, if we accept that Beck is the most important voice in the Tea Party movement (which I believe whole heartedly), then it is his credibility that matters. Beck opposed Bush before 2008, he opposed Obama today and it is Beck that routinely stresses the lack of importance of political party and the necessity of judgement based on action.

Beck may have opposed Bush, but there were not hundreds of thousands people marching in protest against him like there were for Obama...two months after taking office. Beck and Fox News willl be back to being the cheerleaders they've always been when we have a GOP president again. Remember when disagreeing or protesting Bush was "unAmerican," "unconstitutional," "not patriotic," "whining," "loony left," "love it or leave it?"

They'll be back to that spill within a week...who am I kidding...well before election night on that.

Most of the programs we have right now would be affordable under the FairTax. Now obviously, as you mention, I want a dramatic cut to those programs - but such a cut isn't of necessity for the FairTax plan but out of being the right thing to do.

And that is why the FairTax is logical to you. You tell most people they;ll lose their Social Security and Medicare, they'll tell you to go fly a kite.

That's why it's important to clean out Washington. We need new blood, not proteges.

I agree, but I don't see it happening. At least not in the near future.

The internet is of vital important here as well. The Libertarian platform is the one that has benefited the most from the internet. Considering the 20th Century was essentially a century of increasing statism and the demise of capitalism in America, most Americans have only been introduced to statist ideas. In order to be introduced to be exposed to libertarian politics one needed to be in a crazy libertarian family or have the luck of crossing paths with a man like Murray Rothbard or Leonard Read. Outside of F.A. Hayek's book (or more accurately it's condensed Readers Digest version), Henry Hazlitt's New York Times Column (which ended in the 50's or 60's I believe) and Atlas Shrugged are really the only libertarian writings that were ever placed in the mainstream.

Now, thanks to the internet, anyone can find essays by Karl Hess or Rothbard or Mises. South Park is one of the most successful cartoons of all time. Libertarianism is becoming mainstream.

I do agree libertarianism is catching a wider audience due to the Internet. But populist trends can get a lot of followers and never catch on with the mainstream, as we've talked about before. The Internet is also good at misrepresenting facts and information based on bias. It is also good to allow those who agree with that bias to live in a bubble where they can avoid scrutiny of their ideas or their political leaders can be with them and avoid accountability for their actions, rhetoric, etc. And it can lead to them to believe they're a bigger percentage of the country than they really are.

Whether one has attended a Tea Party is unnecessary to be a supporter of the Tea Party, just as one does not need to attend a Barack Obama rally to be a Barack Obama supporter.

True. But when I think Tea Partiers, I mean the true believers. The ones with the signs. If you are in the middle and just go with the wind changing of who has the better soundbyte, then chances are you can be swayed the other direction next election. Someone who supported or voted for Obama is not the same kind of person who drove 10 hours to see him speak and volunteered for his campaign. The same ones who will never vote for a Tea Party candidate but are a smaller percentage of the country who got a large coalition to agree with them in 2008. Kind of like the Tea Party in 2010. Doesn't mean they'll be around in two years though. Ask the Democrats about that. Oh well.

 

[Paradoxium]

aaaaaarrrggghhh *gargling blood* dissssect-a-quoting

 

[DACrowe]

I agree that the Tea Party Movement won't reshape the Republican Party. I think a likely scenario is the libertarian movement reshaping the Republican party. I think a lot of this younger generation that was inspired by Obama has already found themselves disillusioned and that will only increase as the effects of Obama's spending becomes more apparent on their wallets as they enter the job force, have families to provide for, etc. I think you'll see a rejection fo big government and a lot of them will lean towards the Republican party, but shape it in their own image. A party that rejects big government and embraces individual liberty.

I do agree. I don't know if the whole Obama youth vote is going to jump ship to libertarianism as you say (especially when you have some like Rand Paul putting a foot in his mouth on issues like Civil Rights), but I do see the transformation you say happening.

But not for another 10-20 years, I imagine. And not in this Tea Party "Revolution" as Stormy inferred.

As for the Dems going more Blue Dog? Possible, but the progressives have too many causes that appeal to a lot of people for them to be marginalized. I actually see the Blue Dogs becoming more marginalized in a few election cycles as moderates in the GOP are being right now.

 

[Marx]

HILLARY CLINTON SHOOTS DOWN PRESIDENTIAL RUMORS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/21/clinton-im-not-running-for-president/

 

[Matt]

She realistically can't seek the presidency. How can a member of Obama's administration really run against him? If she had any intention of an insurgency campaign she'd have stayed in the Senate.

Evan Bayh is going to will be the big insurgency candidate (the irony is, Obama and Bayh are basically identical from a policy standpoint, but as Kel often says, "perception is everything."), and maybe someone from the left of Obama (Russ Feingold, perhaps?)

 

[Marx]

HILLARY CLINTON TO HEAD BACK INTO ADVOCACY WORK AFTER SECSTATE POSITION ENDS?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/03/whats-next-for-clinton/

Again...

 

[Kelly]

Yeah, she seems to be walking the opposite direction of the Presidency.

Well, I guess we will be looking at Feingold.....

 

[SentinelMind]

Bill Clinton's Return to the White House. It's really sad when you need to pull out a past President in order to convince your own party to support your own initiatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHDPxohkrc

 

[StorminNorman]

Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow the current POTUS to play second fiddle to a former POTUS should no longer have a job in politics.

Today's meeting was an embarrassment for Obama.

 

[Kelly]

Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow the current POTUS to play second fiddle to a former POTUS should no longer have a job in politics.

Today's meeting was an embarrassment for Obama.

I'm hearing rumors that the person that set that up, is in fact without a job.


When you are a novice in a job that needs experience and you are standing next to the master....you look even more inexperienced. The fact that Obama said, oh hell no I'm not doing that.....I'll meet with him, but he can go home and do an interview from there....shows the inexperience we saw as he stood next to Clinton.

 

[Excel]

I dont have a problem with it at all.

Nobody is going to care about this in 2 weeks, they will care if the tax cuts get passed.