The Politics Thread

[GoldenDogs]

Sometimes your statements baffle me, Max. Do you really feel the need to associate Cain's rise with a true anti-racist sentiment in the GOP? Seriously? I like the man's message - his skin color makes no difference and I see no need to make it an issue - well intentioned or not. It's about policy, plain and simple!

But those last few words of your post is what really kills me... Max, there are just as many racists in the Democratic party, Green party, etc. You tend to pander a little bit to our friends on the left in this forum... most of which are fair-minded enough to accept the fact that racism isn't owned exclusively by those on the right.

Besides, I believe that those who go OUT OF THEIR WAY to point out the color of a person's skin are generally the ones with racist tendencies in their heart.

My problem with Obama has always been, first and foremost, questions of policy. Now, of course, the problem has grown into one of job performance. With the current crop of GOP candidates, my concern is one of policy and what comes out of their mouth. Romney and Perry both have huge problems. That's why Cain looks so damn good right now. I like what Cain says... I like his humor... I like him. I hope he can entrench himself amongst the higher profile candidates and prove to be electable...

[Max]

Brian, I concede that some of my messages are contradictory, and you have every right to call me out on it. The reason why I mentioned the fact that there are racists in the GOP was because if I did not do that, some liberal on this board would have likely chimed in and "reminded" us just how much the GOP hates black people. (Thus, you could say I was shamefully pandering.) The fact that Cain is doing so well is proof positive that the GOP is not a party full of racists (as I previously stated).

As you mentioned, there are indeed racists in the Democratic party. For instance, the late Robert Byrd--who served as Senate Majority Leader as recently as the late-80's--was once a member of the KKK. However, liberals had no problems with Byrd's racist past. This is in stark contrast to how they treated Trent Lott after he made his infamous comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. With Democrats, the song is always the same: liberals who have a racist past are completly reformed, but conservatives with such histories still hate black people with the same intensity.

However, I do regrettably belive that there are probably more racists in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, and this is not pandering on my part. (But the percentage of racist Republicans as a whole is relatively small.) However, when the Democrats suggest that the Republicans captured the South mostly on issues of race, such a statement is very simplistic on their part. The fact of the matter is that Republican dominance in the South is also due to the Democratic Party's leftward position on other social issues such as gun owners' rights, abortion, and school prayer.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Max

[Roman]

Well, you and I will just see things very differently. I will not vote for any Republican candidate. The bigotry that most of them that I have seen to have is really sad. That's from Herman Cain, to Rick Perry and so forth. Also, i personally can't say that the percentage of racist Republicans is small. IMO, it's too large to consider anything else that comes from the Republicans that I have seen in the public eye. To add, the Democratic Party had a shift starting in the early 1950s with Harry Truman running for his second term. the Dixiecrats left the Party and joined the Republican Party after being Independents because Truman made a stance for civil rights (as he spoke of during a speech to the NAACP) and the Dixiecrats would have none of that. To also add, I am one Independent who has voted Democrat who had a problem with RB's racist past. I also seem to remember that he atoned for it in his later life and, judging by his voting record up until his death, seemed to me to have made strides in making changes in his life. To say that liberals had no problem....well, I don't purpose to know all liberals like I don't know all conservatives, so I will not say what any of they think or do.

The GOP, IMO, has a very big problem right now in where they have taken the Party. A moderate voice is no longer welcomed in that party. John Huntsmann maybe the only Republican I would consider for the GOP ticket, but he has been shoved down so much by the MSM and his own party because of some of his moderate views, on top of going after his own party for some of the rhetoric that has been coming out the past years. These candidates and the Party in general needs to regain a much more moderate voice, if they have any chance of climbing out of the hole they've dug themselves into. I really hope they can, because with this US Congress we have now, we need more voices of moderation instead of what the nation has been getting.

JMO.

[Max]

Roman, I really commend you for stating that you had problems with Byrd's racist past. However, given that Byrd said the "N-word" in public as recently as 2001, I highly doubt that he ever fully gave up his racist ways. I do believe that Byrd tried to atone for his racist past, but so did Strom Thurmond (yet I've never seen a Democrat give Thurmond the benefit of the doubt, and I can only imagine the s#itstorm that would have happened if he used the "N-word" in 2001). Please note that I am not at all trying to defend Thurmond, as I believe that both men were racist (and remained that way to a lesser extent in their later years) dinosaurs who should have left the Senate decades before they actually did. (This is a big reason why I support term limits for members of Congress, though I concede that elected GOP officials have been major hypocrites on this issue.)

Please forgive me for my rudeness, but the Dixiecrats still very much remained in the fold even after Truman made strides in civil rights. For instance, in the 1952 & 1956 elections, Stevenson captured the Deep South despite the fact that he was far more liberal on social issues than Eisenhower. The first time a GOP candidate made huge inroads in the South was in 1964, when Goldwater did really well in the region as a result of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. (Although Goldwater was wrong on his position, it is a myth that he opposed the Civil Rights Act because he was a racist. Rather, his opposition was due because he believed that civil rights was an issue that should be left for the states to decide.)

In 1968, George Wallace carried several Southern states (and it is reasonable to assume that Wallace took more votes away from Humphrey than Nixon, given regional voting patterns at the time). While Nixon did carry every Southern state in 1972, this was due to the fact that McGovern was perceived as being too far to the left (as opposed to any race-based issue); consequently, McGovern lost every state except Massachusetts. In 1976--a quarter century after Truman made his advances in civil rights and twelve years after LBJ signed major Civil Rights legislation--native son Jimmy Carter won every single Southern state except Virginia.

Thus, it was not until the Reagan Revolution of 1980 that the South became a solidly Republican region in presidential elections. At the Congressional level (and with other local races as well), this transformation did not occur until 1994. And as I stated earlier, issues such as abortion, gun owners' rights, and school prayer contributed to Republican domination of the South (in addition to racial issues).

If you don't mind, there's actually one more thing that I would like to point out: in contrast to "common knowledge," Romney is actually to the left of Huntsman (whom I support). This is because Romney has a past of raising taxes, pushing government-run healthcare, and being pro-choice and pro-gun control. Huntsman, on the other hand, has always been consistently conservative on those issues. The fallacy that Huntsman is to the left of Romney persists because (1) Huntsman is less partisan and (2) Huntsman committed the "Cardinal Sin" of working for Obama.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Max

[Roman]

Well, max, like I said, we will strongly see it differently. Yes i had a problem with Byrd's racist past, but I find myself having very serious problem with the bigotry of the Republican Party now. I've done my research, follow my politics every day, and they just don't make me comfortable to join that tent. Not at all. I defend and push the right for any gay American to marry or join our Armed Forces. I'm not asking who someone sleeps with or who they want to marry when it comes to defending our nation. I'm also waiting to see and hear where the RP's jobs' bill is. or, telling us some solution about getting the vast number of Americans back to work without including tax cuts for, everything, and cutting programs which they say are entitlements. Yes they are....they entitle people to survive. Do they need to be reformed? Hell yes. There are those who get benefits who don't need them at all. But many, many Americans do, and if we are still waiting on the Top 1% to create jobs (I would still like to know where they are), we are done for.

I blame both parties, but I put more of the blame on Republicans more than Democrats. Here is a bill that not one Republican voted for even though many pieces of legislation that was in there they backed, until Obama said he was for it as well. Is defeating him more important than the future of our country?

[Max]

Roman, as you said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, please keep on posting, because you are so articulate, and I really enjoy reading what you have to say.

Just today it was announced that former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm will be getting a new primetime show on Current TV (Al Gore's network). Many liberals have long held Granholm in great esteem, which I find completely baffling and hypocritical. That's because they rightly trashed Arnold Schwarzenegger for his s#itty tenure as governor, despite the fact that Michigan was/is one of the few states to be in even worse economic shape than California.

[DRW50]

I don't remember Granholm being all that popular with liberals. I remember very early hype for her as governor, up to about 2004, but then she didn't create jobs, and she just held on after that because of national waves against Republicans and because Michigan Republicans are generally not overly appealing. It took some random millionaire who had no ties to the Michigan GOP to win.

Speaking of media darling governors, do you know anyone who will vote for Romney because Chris Christie has endorsed him? I know the media just adores Christie, because he hates the right people, and he yells and stomps his foot and gets them swooning, but is there any Republican primary voter who was waiting for bated breath about who Christie would support?

[Max]

Actually, as recently as 2009, some on the left mentioned her as a potential Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice.

Carl, you're right that Christie's endorsement of Romney won't likely change many voters' minds. However, the reason why the endorsement was important was because it now gets the GOP establishment (and money) fully behind Romney.

[DRW50]

I think they are already behind Romney, they just aren't saying it openly because so many in the base distrust him. Now Cain is #1 in the polls. People just don't want to accept Romney until they have no choice.

I don't remember the Granholm speculation but I think that was less about her popularity, as others who weren't overly popular, like John Kerry, were also mentioned.

The Tea Party is going after the Wall Street protestors. Someone in the Tea Party says Tea Party members are "happy warriors."

http://www.politico....1011/65826.html

Meanwhile, a writer for the influential conservative blog American Spectator said that he went to the Wall Street protests and did his best to rile them up. So apparently these protests were sedate enough that some on the far right felt they needed to make them more aggressive. More happy warriors.

http://www.guardian....y?newsfeed=true

Anita Perry lashes out at her party for attacks on her husband.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65882.html

Edited October 14, 2011 by CarlD2

[Max]

The Anita Perry comments were absolutely laughable, especially her statement that God told her that her husband should run for president.

The Wall Street protesters are the Tea Party of the left. But when the Tea Party organizes and holds rallies, they are classified as uncivilized, rowdy, and disrespectful. However, in the mainstream (non-Rupert Murdoch) media--which many Democrats insist has no liberal bias--rarely (if ever) are such terms are used to describe the anti-Wall Street crowd.

What's even more baffling is that the Wall Street protesters are all fired up and ready to support Obama's re-election. While Obama is doing a great job at pandering to this crowd, the fact of the matter is that he has taken tons of Wall Street money for years (and has relationships with Wall Street lobbyists). If the anti-Wall Street crowd wants somebody who truly believes in their cause, they should support Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, or Bernard Sanders. (I purposely did not mention Ralph Nader as a realistic option, since these people hate him more than they hate Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld combined.)

Edited October 14, 2011 by Max

[Kylie]

It just baffles me that this country still thinks changing the party in office is going to fix anything. Clinton was Democrat and he made his share of mistakes. Then we had Bush the Republican who f*cked up immensely. So we went back to a Democrat, who hasn't done much of anything. No one sees the pattern? No sees that it doesn't matter if we shoved and Independent in there, the problems still exist. They're not going to go away. And a party stay or change isn't the answer.

IMO it's the system that's broken, and it's been broken for a long time. Doesn't matter if it's a Republican or Democrat at the helm, we're flawed from the inside out, not the outside in.

For the record, I'm registered as an Independent, but I am without a doubt an issue based voter. This isn't about parties for me; I think party politics has helped get this country into the trouble that its in...so it doesn't matter to me who is on each parties card when it's said and done. If I like one of their ideas, I vote for them. If not, I don't put in anything. I'd rather not vote for a candidate than have a party tell me who to vote for.

[DRW50]

I'm not sure. The Tea Party was given outsize attention from the start. They were painted by the media as the voice of America, even when some members were hurling racial and anti-gay slurs at Congressmen. The Wall Street protestors are mostly painted as fringe, or in terms of what they're costing the city.

[Roman]

Well, IMO, all politicians take big money from Wall Street. The last POTUS did it as well. See, it's just not one side with me, and that seems to be the on-going speech. It's one side or the other. I feel that one side deserves the lion's share of the responsibility for where we all are at right now, but both parties are to blame. The TP crowd held rallies every day, stood on the steps of the Capital building yelling and screaming at members of Congress, using racial and homophobic epitaphs, and carrying guns to events. And American has the right under the Constitution to civil discourse and peaceful assembly. Not just any group who I or others happen to agree with. There are now some in the RP who are talking about their hygiene, calling them Marxists and socialists, and making out to be some type of anarchist group. Instead, they should be listening to these Americans and find out what they really want (even though they've been saying it since September).

I am so happy and glad to see the majority party assemble and tell not only DC both the world that we are really sick and tired of members being sent to DC to line their own pockets and sell out the country at the expense of either being re-elected or to Big Fill-In-The-Blank. I just see none of the candidates for POTUS winning if they continue to run on social issues instead of economic issues. They need to stop saying "It's all Obama's fault" and come up with some solutions of their own that actually include getting people back to work, and maybe reversing NAFTA and returning many of these jobs back to the States (Clinton should have never signed that bill). But, if they want to keep talking about the POTUS in personal terms instead of what they will do, keep going.

It's not enough to say you should vote against the other person...you have to give the people someone to vote for. They just don't get that.

I do give you credit for calling out AP. Saved me the time in doing it.

[Roman]

IA 1,00%. To me, Congress is the problem. Always has been. They are like children who don't get their way and blame each other instead of themselves. The Democrats have no spine or backbone, and the Republicans have been hijacked by the Tea Party.

[alphanguy74]

I think Herman Cain's ascension is pure and simple. The Tea Party has had a reputation for racism (considering there are next to zero black faces at Tea Party rallies) and since the Tea Party has nearly organized a coup in the Republican party, the Republican Party is latching onto Herman Cain like a drowning man to a life preserver. They think this is their "big chance" to prove they aren't racist. when in reality, the party is filled with all types, racist, and non-racist. Are all repubs racist? NO. Are they all concerned only about policy? NO. For some, it's a smokescreen. I think the class warfare aspect is what's most fascinating to me. FINALLY people who are the grist for the mill of the rich are speaking out and the rich are in the bomb sights, and it's about damn time. I hope this movement gains huge momentum. Greed is the basis of all of our problems, people's desire to be rich so far outweighs any desire to have a society where everyone from top to bottom, have a safety net and peace of mind. I can honestly say I have never had a desire to be rich. Being able to get by with a modest lifestyle is fine with me. If I made a salary of 500,000$ a year, would I mind paying 60% in taxes? Hell no. I would gladly do it. And this idea that higer taxes for the rich is going to keep people from trying to advance their careers is utter BS. Let's take a hypothetical... you are working as department supervisor in a company, making 100,000$ per year, and paying 20% income tax. That means your take home pay is 80,000$. ok, let's say you are offered a vice president position at 500,000$ a year, and then your tax rate jumps to 50%. That means your take home would be 250,000$. So, does ANYONE here think that people will not try for the promotion and go from 80,000$ a year to 250,000$ a year, all becaue they'd have to pay more taxes? Hell no.

Edited October 17, 2011 by alphanguy74