The Myth of the RINO?
posted at 9:02 am on May 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Two weeks ago, I directed readers to an analysis by Keith Poole of UC San Diego on the relative ideological positioning of the three main candidates for President. Poole provides an excellent analysis of Congressional voting patterns called the Poole Report, which provides the broadest basis used for rating members of both the House and the Senate. The Poole Reports use roll call votes that have at least 0.5% of members voting in the minority. For example, the 2007 session of the Senate had 388 data points, as opposed to the ACU’s 25 and 107 for the National Journal, which gives a much more complete look at the partisan nature of voting for both Republicans and Democrats.
Poole’s analysis shows a fascinating and perhaps disturbing trend. Despite the perceptions of many in and out of the blogosphere and punditry, the parties have moved away from compromise, not towards it. Poole’s charting of partisan voting behavior over the last 40 years makes this plain:
Note the progression of the voting pattern, and where today’s candidates would have scored on this timeline with their 2008 positioning. In 1968, McCain would have been on the right wing of the Republican Party, and both Obama and Clinton would have been significantly on the left side of the Democrats. By 1988, McCain exists squarely in the GOP’s mainstream, and both Obama and Clinton remain on the left wing of the Democrats. Now, McCain’s fixed 2008 position puts him on the moderate side of the party, while the mainstream of Democrats have just barely reached Obama and Clinton’s position.
Now re-run the animation and look at what happened to the center in American politics. Forty years ago, members in both parties routinely overlapped, and their mainstreams existed closer to the center. The crossover point came just to the right of center and about halfway to the peak of both parties. In 1988, the crossover point hit about the same spot but much lower on the density scale, and the overlaps of both parties extended much less into the density of the opposition. Now, there is almost no density at the crossover point and the overlap has all but disappeared entirely.
What does this mean? It shows that RINOs and DINOs exist largely as mythology. Congress has become a place where party-line votes prevail on an almost-exclusive basis. Those who believe that we lose elections because of a lack of party discipline and loyalty in the legislature have targeted the wrong culprit. Neither party has a lack of discipline, but both may have allowed a critical gap to open with the American electorate that could threaten the two-party system.
Much has been made of independent runs from Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader, but this shows that they also miss the point. The opportunity for political traction doesn’t come from the extremes of the Left and Right, but from the center. At least in Congress, both parties have abandoned American voters in the center, and are to this day still trending away from them. This could be the greatest opportunity in decades for a real third party to form and represent the gap that the last 40 years has opened between the parties. That opportunity will not be realized at the presidential level, but rather in the House and Senate.
This gap does have meaning in the presidential race. Even though Republicans have many structural problems in this election, they may have nominated the one man who can actually engage the center better than any of the two dozen candidates who ran in this cycle’s primaries in both parties. Not only does McCain occupy a spot on the spectrum closer to the center than anyone else, he’s also perceived to be more centrist. He has a track record of independence in his voting record that frankly is almost nonexistent in today’s politics. While that certainly (and legitimately) frustrates conservatives, it speaks to a wide range of American voters who find themselves lost in a deepening and widening valley between two peaks.
If McCain can capitalize on that and can find messages that resonate with those voters — and especially if he can demonstrate the hard-Left credentials of his opponents — he may find a treasure trove of support in a year where Republicans elsewhere are likely to take a beating.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »
Yes, but that is precisely the same motive why many conservatives will vote for McCain, akward as it is in the short term. You call it a sell-out. I see it as a strategic retreat. Live to fight another day.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Thompson, I don’t think so. In general these polls simply measure name recognition.
For whatever reason, Romney seems to be hated by the Christian right though.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM
flenser:
No, I do not think we need to go back to the days when the Republican party was run by Rockefeller Republicans and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind.
You are just pissed that you can not get your way and so you are railing against your own party.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM
And I do not think the left loves McCain. Do people like flenser honestly believe that every Democrat in America is like Cindy Sheehan?
The truth is I know Democrats who served in Vietnam and respect McCain because they think he is a stand up guy.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Has supporting Bush been “living to fight another day”? Or has it been doing what was immediately expedient, and what has brought the party to its current pass?
I think you’re calling for some more of the hair of the dog that bit us. At some point embracing the political views of your opponents ceases to be living to fight another say, and becomes Vichy style surrender. Looking at McCain on global warming, taxes, free speech, amnesty, etc, etc, that is were we’re at.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM
flenser, who was your preferred candidate in the primaries?
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:43 PM
frankly, flenser, I’d be happy to respond to your questions, but your performance to this point doesn’t give me great confidence that you’d be open to dialog, or to seeing things from my perspective. I’ll give a try before I head out to run an errand or two, then I’ll check back.
I’ll leave aside the amusing idea that McCain is any kind of “child,” and say that I believe McCain has been made a poster child etc. - in short, demonized - by immigration hawks and super-hawks. I don’t accept the notion at all that there is only one true conservative approach to immigration, and I find that most of the people who assume there is such a thing tend either to embrace radical or piecemeal or radical and piecemeal approaches that have zero likelihood have being adopted or sustained.
Neither McCain nor anyone else will get very far without a very broad coalition behind him. If conservatives and centrists unite around a 1) secure the border, 2) reform legal immigration and guest worker programs, 3) enforce the laws program, neither McCain nor anyone else will be able to stand in their way, even if they want to. I take McCain at his word that that is his program. You don’t. In the real world it doesn’t have to make very much difference, because even as President he’d have no interest and no ability to go against his own promises and supporters.
In short, his persona as a hard-ass, coupled with a 30-year history going back to the Reagan Era, including very prominent opposition to earmarks, unpaid-for tax cuts, defense boondoggles, and so on. The same history of working with Democrats that upsets hard right conservatives gives him credibility with independent and centrist Democrats.
To give one major example, his health care proposal is something that Republicans can support that positively addresses a very prominent domestic issue for which the Democrat answer is a rather unimaginably massive expansion of entitlements.
Have you actually read the WEEKLY STANDARD piece that I, along with others, have repeatedly referred to?
CK MacLeod on May 18, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Tell me your mind and I won’t need to read it. What do you want? You support McCain, right? Do you deny he’s a Rockefeller Republican? By all means, speak your mind.
You need to take that up with the McCain supporter here who said that they do.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:44 PM
The “name recognition” assertion is just an excuse. When a pollster screens for “likely voters”, much of the name recogntion effect is filtered out, and anyway, we’re long past the point of name recognition being the deciding factor (Romney’s still the butt of jokes for late night TV comedians). If it was, one would expect Romney to be approximately neutral on the Republican ticket with McCain at the top; instead, he decreases support significantly.
Big S on May 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I hope, truly hope, that allowing McCain in changes the present dynamic enough, so that next time our choices are not so dire. In other words, I hope that time will offer a way out, some other solution. If I’m wrong, if I’m being naive, then you were right to resist now. That’s why I called it a principled stand. Good luck to us all.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I don’t think the War on Terror seemed very inconsequential to the people in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. It will not seem inconsequential to its next victims, either. We may not be in danger of being “overrun by militant Islam,” but we are most assuredly in danger of being murdered by it. Much of the rest of the human race is definitely in danger of being overrun by it. I believe it is imperative to discredit it as an ideology, before the death toll runs into the millions. An America that projects weakness to its friends and enemies is not an America that has influence on the world stage - but the world has a great deal of influence on Americans, as a quick trip by any nutroots website will demonstrate. If you can really look at the world around us and think the “WOT is inconsequential,” then I’m afraid I have very little chance of persuading you otherwise; I can only offer my own view in good faith. I’ll even toss in a sincere hope that you’re right and I’m wrong. I won’t give you President Obama, though.
George W. Bush is, in my humble opinion, a good man, a decent leader, and a horrible politician. Bearing in mind that McCain wasn’t my first choice for President, and I strenuously disagree with him on a number of issues, I think he’s a somewhat better politician than Bush was. I certainly don’t think he’ll repeat Bush’s curious disappearing act, post-2004. McCain doesn’t have to do a 180 to be persuaded to support some good policies, and he doesn’t even have to personally like them. He just needs to be persuaded. We conservatives are, as a class, very good at persuasion. I’m ready to take a shot at it. I hate to keep beating the “unthinkable alternative” drum, but… oh, what the hell, consider it beaten one more time.
Nope, I want to take it back. I disagree with the notion that electoral support for someone automatically equals endorsement of all their views. If you’re planning on waiting for a candidate who agrees with all, or even most, of your policy ideals, you’ve got an awfully long wait ahead of you, during which the people who violently oppose most of your views will be steadily firming up their hold on the government. To throw out an example, I personally believe the right to vote should be restricted to net payers of taxes, and members of the military - i.e. the people who pay for the government should run it. I’m not holding my breath waiting for a candidate who even nominally agrees with my position.
I really do sympathize with your feelings on this point, but I just don’t think our political system works that way. Look at it this way: the Left has an almost monolithic political constituency, which they can hold together with almost zero effort. (I was really looking forward to seeing if the black vote would break off if Hillary won the nomination. Ah, well.) This coalition represents roughly 40% of the voters in the United States. I don’t see any fertile ground for a third party to take shape under these circumstances - no matter who the Democrats run, they get 40%, period. There is little chance a third party could put together a winning majority out of the remaining 60% - it would take a generation for such a political realignment to occur. I don’t want to give the government to the Democrats for a generation. Even if I were, I can only think those years would make it harder and harder for a third party to gain traction - it would be too busy squabbling with the remains of the GOP for votes and political support, and would have no Congressional support to enact its agenda. It would just make the Left more solid, up until liberal policies completely crash the country, which is likely to happen within our lifetimes.
I want to stay in the fight and avoid the crash. I’m not at all convinced the electorate, as it stands, would emerge from a generation of liberal dominance and churlish conservative silence, survey the wreckage of the American system, and decide that conservatism was the answer. Our power lies in our voices and ideas. If we withdraw from the political battlefield, we lose that power, as surely as America loses its influence by withdrawing from the global battlefield.
Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 1:46 PM
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Flenser,
Its simple English. Reagan “insisted” on an amnesty provision.
Now, if you want to call Mark R. Levin a liar and a liberal too, be my guest.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Doctor Zero, you are a voice of enormous reason. Thank you.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM
To say “I’ll be a virgin later” is to admit that you’re not a virgin now.
Sigy on May 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I want to stay in the fight and avoid the crash. I’m not at all convinced the electorate, as it stands, would emerge from a generation of liberal dominance and churlish conservative silence, survey the wreckage of the American system, and decide that conservatism was the answer. Our power lies in our voices and ideas. If we withdraw from the political battlefield, we lose that power, as surely as America loses its influence by withdrawing from the global battlefield.
Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Well said.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Logical flaw - Sigmund Freud is dead.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Um… you’re kind of proving my point.
Illegal immigration issue > unions, IMHO. He votes conservative on the more minor issues when compared to Bush tax cuts, illegal immigration, and free speech.
HYTEAndy on May 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM
flenser:
My mind? Well I think you are a bitter little person who is unhappy because you did not get your way.
You refuse to accept the idea that the majority of the people in your party do not see things the way you do and so you lash out at people and assume you have been robbed.
You are hoping that some arch conservative will somehow manage to get the nomination away from McCain so that the real Republican {one to your liking} can go on to get his ass handed to him in the general.
Governing is too hard, requires compromise and is beneath the dignity for the pure at heart such as yourself, so your greatest desire is to turn the Republican party into a fringe group whose only real purpose is futile bitching.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Great stuff. Love what you say, how you say it. Mucho impressed. Thanks.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM
The irony and arrogance on display with this one is amusing.
Anyone outside its own beliefs is infidel. And stupid infidel at that.
I’m a pragmatist and I do not agree with your ‘burn the party to the ground and rebuild it right this time’ aspirations.
In the past couple of weeks or so I’ve discovered that I’m not Conservative enough, not Christian enough, not Republican enough, not Pure enough. I can live with that. I am not about to willingly hand my country over to a trifecta of marxists for even 4 years.
McC’s nowhere close to perfect, but he’s a hell of a lot better than obama or billary with a complicit congress.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Do you remember, ” Read my lips, no new taxes “.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 1:57 PM
That sort of response, to a remark that he is a “poster child”, does not give me much hope that you’re interested in any serious dialogue.
I suppose the fact that he’s made it his lifes work to advance the Ted Kennedy view on immigration has nothing to do with. No, it must be that the poor innocent guy is being “demonised” by the nasty “hawks”, which is now a term of disapproval for conservatives I guess.
Or in other words, “I’m not one of you conseravtives”. Yes, but you should refrain from telling conservatives what they believe.
What do the American people want? Does that even matter?
That is not a conservative, or centerist, or even liberal program. You are arguing for what YOU want, while claiming that it’s what everyone wants.
A hard ass in opposition to what? The LA Times and NY Times did not endorse him due to his hard assed opposition to the liberal agenda. His hard assed reputation comes from his opposition to his own party.
People like you, hmmm?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 1:57 PM
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Don’t worry, dear techno_barbarian. I’m in your company of ’sins’.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I may be dead but I still have enough of my wits left to know what a profoundly disturbed gaggle of Presidential candidates America has this year.
Sigy on May 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Brilliant and worth a repost!
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM
techno_barbarian, GT was caught in a blatent lie, that Reagan “insisted” on amnesty.
He followed that up with a second lie - that “insisting” on something is not the same as setting a condition.
Them’s the facts. Argue the facts. Don’t sneer at me in full blown liberal fashion.
Bully for you. Will all the pragmatists and centerists and moderate Democrats please stop trying to lecture conservatives on how McCain is too a conservative?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I’m sure nobody was under any illusions as to what company you are in. Now go have your hissy fit and temper tantrum.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:03 PM
We agree on this, but they are the chosen ones, and I’m not willing to hand over this still wonderful country to the Messiah, with a supermajority in the House and Senate, able to promise and deliver cradle to grave programs to the lemmings, to vote for them again. 3-4 SCOTUS judges could retire in a short time. That could not be undone in a looooong time if two Reagans come along. It pains me to even think about it.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:05 PM
George Bush has brought this party to oblivion? Excuse me but George Bush was the one who won two terms and put the Republicans back in the majority. Then they proceeded to lose it.
It was the purity brigade and their constant bitching about everything from Dubai Ports to Harriet Miers to Katrina to God knows what else that split the party. The debacle over immigration was just plain hysterical.
People like flenser are just like rats deserting a sinking ship is all. When it was afloat, it was a fine place to be.
They do not really care about getting along of course, that is why they do not mind giving the White House over to Obama.
The thing that fanatics do not understand is that sane people tend to stay away from the fringes. A movement toward consensus is natural for most people.
And most people do not hang out on political blogs. I think that because of that a lot of us who do forget that rank and file voters do not always see things the same way a lot of us do. We speak only for ourselves.
So while flenser might think that only the most rigid philosophy is principled and that all real true blue Republicans see it the same way….. that has more to do with his peculiar mindset than it does with reality.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I don’t think Flenser’s voting for McCain.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM
flenser, who was your candidate of choice in the primaries? Mine were Thompson and Romney. They didn’t make it.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Once again, Flenser brilliantly demonstrates his inability to comprehend simple English and calls Mark Levin a liar.
Impressive.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:08 PM
….or Juan Hernandez?
You dupe of vanity.
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM
You just declared yourself a nobody, nice.
I’m in a calm and good mood, and completeley amused by you.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM
flenser:
speaking of temper tantrums and hissy fits. listen to yourself.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Without sovereignty, it is all moot.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I have demonstrated your inability to comprehend simply English, and even to understand the meanings of words.
You claimed that Reagan “insisted” on amnesty. You lied. You cited in support statemenst which showed that you lied. And you showed yourself too stupid to comprehend what you cited.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:12 PM
What’s wrong, Terrye? Don’t you like it when people use your own words to describe you? Or is it only you who gets to talk that way to people?
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:13 PM
If the employers don’t swing, it’s got no ring.
If the employers don’t do jail, we won’t hail.
If the employers don’t get fined, we will sure mind.
If the employers don’t hang, it’s got no bang.
If the employers sail, we won’t hail.
If the employers walk, we will talk.
If the candidates just talk, we will walk.
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 2:13 PM
I was not under the impression that flenser was like the judge and jury of all things Republican and conservative and who is good and bad and right and wrong…etc.
I have principles, believe it or not. The fact that I think flenser is a tad overzealous does not make me a leftie.
I know that flenser thinks it does, because for some reason he thinks he has the right to make that judgment.
But it is all in his head. I am sure Obama appreciates his support however.
poor baby.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Jawohl, Herr Klaus - we agree. However, Obama will not bring us any. The U.N. and the international courts will make decisions for us, the WoT will be handled in the courts, the white flad will be flown, and we’ll all sing kumbaya together, while we heal ourselves into Change, Hope and Unity, while the country goes South in a jiffy. Not from this quarter, if I can help it.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM
That’s quite an amusing imagination you have.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Agreed.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
Holmes on May 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM
flenser:
I am sorry, I do not even know what you are talking about.
I consider myself a moderate, center right. I even voted for that paleo conservative Hostettler in 2006 when he ran against the blue dog. I vote for Republicans. I will vote for the Republican who gets the nomination.
You will sit back, bitch and make gotcha acid comments at people as if we will hang our head in shame because Golly Gee flenser really got us that time.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM
MB4, I agree with you on all points, except the last one. Walking will give us Obama. It gives me nightmares and I break out in sweat just thinking about it.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Sure you are. It’s important to keep up your pose, that being all you have.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Question: Is McCain a “liberal” or more of a “populist”?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM
There are two types here opposed to Flenser. The first is pro-McCain, and don’t like any opposition to him. The second is reluctantly for McCain. I don’t think Flenser needs to talk much to the first, and the second are mostly in agreement with him. So this isn’t an argument about McCain, it’s a debate about tactics.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM
flenser:
I am sorry, I do not even know what you are talking about.
I consider myself a moderate, center right. I even voted for that paleo conservative Hostettler in 2006 when he ran against the blue dog. I vote for Republicans. I will vote for the Republican who gets the nomination.
You will sit back, bitch and make gotcha acid comments at people as if we will hang our head in shame because Golly Gee flenser really got us that time.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I notice that all the liberals on this thread seem to imagine that if they can only insist on how “amused” they are, they will somehow win the argument.
This isn’t the college dorm, and you don’t win any points for your ability to pretend to be superior.
But what can I say? I’m “amused” by you also.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Would you consider the “second” to be pragmatists?
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM
flenser, whom should we vote for this year?
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:23 PM
So, not only is Mark Levin a liar, you’re going to call him a liberal, too?!
Wow.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:23 PM
E. I’m gonna vote for Mac twice.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Heh.
I find it curious that the radicals on the far left and the ideological puritans on the right seek the same thing this election cycle; the utter destruction of the GOP. The former just wants it dead by any means necessary, and the latter thinks they can resurect it from a death for which they will be directly responsible.
We live in interesting times indeed.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 2:23 PM
liberal my ass flenser. These people are not liberal, if you think they are then you are definitely a fringe.
No wonder you feel so lost.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Or strategy. What is most likely to lead to a renewal of conservatism? The popular belief that Bush is a conservative has damaged the movement immensely. Electing another Bush type will only compound the damage.
Of course for some people here, that’s a feature, not a bug.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Perhaps, but not merely.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Brilliantly stated.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
JiangxiDad, next time please correct my “white flad” into “white flag”. Thanks ahead. I know I can count on you.
Voting twice for McCain will get you in trouble with flenser.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Even though I think you’ve been rude to some ladies here, I do think you are asking the right and important question.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I see that your debating skills have if anything gotten worse, Terrye. And you were never up for much more than some obnoxious put-downs. I learned “hissy-fit” from you after all.
Like you’re some expert.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I come back to read some comments and once again the site has been hijacked by the same troll. For some of you folks this might be a new experience but this went on over at CQ’s, it ultimately ruins every thread.
McCain is the nominee. Either vote for him or shut the f’up. I’m, along with millions, getting sick of this bullshit nazi purity act about what constitutes being a conservative. Flenser and crew haven’t a clue. Stop wasting bandwidth with these Paulis unless you are practicing typing.
Flenser, to your credit, you are a very successful troll. Now go back to the other sites you haunt and spew your Begala like BS there for awhile.
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Flenser: Unless you are a lady, in which case, full steam ahead.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
“Liberal is as liberal does”.
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
How else would you describe? I’m part of that “second”. I’ll be holding my nose when I vote for him knowing that if I cast my vote for any other candidate, Obama wins.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM
flenser:
So Bush is not a conservative and McCain is not a conservative. Who is…? Ron Paul?
I can remember when conservatives were riding Bush’s coattail’s, they did not doubt he was one of them when it worked for them.
But then they decided to stab him in the back along with the liberals they claim to hate.
Extremes meet and when they do it is not a pretty picture.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:29 PM
How often have I commented on HA that the far left/right will destroy this country?
They are dead set to speed it up. I feel sorry not for our generation, as we’ve lived in the best of all times in history, in the greatest country on Earth, but for the children. They might never even know what once was.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:29 PM
The “ladies” should learn some manners, rather then flinging mud and then acting shocked or “amused” if it comes back to them.
Yes. Now if the “ladies” in question would go pester their unfortunate children, the serious people here could debate that matter.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:29 PM
True, but I don’t see that answering my question in light of the fact that Bill Clinton was often referred to as a populist.
(Populist as defined by Rush Limbaugh as one who sticks his finger in the air to see which way the political winds blow)
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
patrick:
We have not always agreed, but thanks. You are right.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
And now I can add to my list of things I didn’t know I was; I’m now, according to this fire-breathing, rock-ribbed Conservative, a liberal. You stay classy there, phlegmster.
Sheesh kid. You debate like a spoiled 3 year old. Talk about throwing tantrums. You’re practically holding your breath and turning purple because you can’t get your way or sway people to your way of thinking.
Hint: Less abrasion and self-righteous indignation. Also, your harping about the meaning of ‘is’ is, reminds me more of BJ clintoon than Reagan.
You sir, are no Reagan.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 2:31 PM
seriously, he’s a paulie?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I’ve never seen you before. But I can already tell that this notion is your One Big Idea that you bore everyone to death with.
And that you know as much about the “far right” and “far left” and politics in general as you do about quantum mechanics.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:32 PM
flenser:
Good bye. I can remember when you were sane.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I agree. But that brings the question, “what is far-left and far-right?”
The Left has been very successful in defining it for quite some time.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Lieber Johann, bist du verückt geworden, Mensch? Ich bin der 100% Gegensatz von liberal. Dass du das nicht siehst macht mich sehr traurig. Ich wuensche dir trotzdem alles Gute da es mich immer freut dich hier zu sehen/lesen.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I remember Reagan. He was not a fire breather. All in all, he seemed like a nice man. That seems like a small thing, but people responded to it.
Terrye on May 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM
No offense, but it was a college “textbook.” Um, no bias there….
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Good lord.
You’ve been hanging around people on the right, since your defection from the Dems, for several years now, Terrye. And you still think that Bush is a conservative?
Your memory is playing tricks with you then. Can you cite any figures on the right claiming that Reagan was a great conservative? The right supported him because of the war. On just about everything else they don’t think much of him.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Yup. And I’m still hoping you choose Texas as your next home. We’d be proud to have you.
techno_barbarian on May 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I’m part of the second too. But my decision isn’t purely or solely practical. Frankly,there’s a lot of emotion tied up in it. There are elements of real fear re. Obama and my own family’s future (perhaps not the best motive by which to make a decision), and strategic–I don’t think we’ll allow ourselves to get boxed into this situation again, now knowing that forever more, the Dems will choose one abomination or another. I also see the destruction of the Dem. party as its currently constituted by a pres. loss in ‘08. That’s nothing to sneeze at, even if they are a congressional majority. Whatever they become, they can’t stay with the same losing strategy. In other words, change is about to come, for all concerned.
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Dang! (did I get that right?)
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Branch Rickey on May 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Righteous indignation?
Johan Klaus on May 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Like I said, I’m in a good mood. Also, I don’t engage in fights which are too easy because it doesn’t challenge me.
p.s. you’re wrong on those quantum mechanics. Now nuclear physics, I’ll give you, but not much other than that.
Entelechy on May 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Then you don’t remember Reagan. The man wrote an anti-abortion book while in the WH. He was a much greater enemy of big govenment than Bush or McCain. Not hard to do, but still.
Of course you don’t care about policy, it’s all about tone to you.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Agreed and well said.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Like I said, sure. I believe you. Honest.
So now you’re claiming to be an expert on quantum mechanics? Feynman said that there were only six people in the world who understood that subject. You must be a pretty rare bird, if you’re not pulling my leg.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Ah, thank you. That explains it.
a capella on May 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM
What’s missing in Poole’s analysis is where the media is now in relation to where it was in 1968.
The media has a huge influence on opinion and elections.
Also, the mid-60s brought us Johnson’s Great Society - not a very “centrist” initiative. The Great Society rode forward on the landslide Democrat congressional victories of 1964 which brought a lot of new liberals to the Congress.
jaime on May 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Due to a grave miscarriage of justice which will not go on too much longer I am not even allowed to vote at all in the U.S. 2008 Presidential election and I am still going to vote for Juan at least diez times. The least you could do is vote for Juan cinco times.
VinyFoxy on May 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Sorry, but Reagan wasn’t a firebreather. Billy Sunday was a firebreather.
I’m not familiar with the book you say Reagan wrote about his opposition to abortion. What was the title?
I will agree with you that Reagan was a much greater enemy to big-government than Bush or McCain.
.
GT on May 18, 2008 at 2:46 PM
That would go a long way in explaining this new fangled Microsoft Windows Vista system of mine.
Sigy on May 18, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Wishful thinking. Really wishful thinking. People have been saying that for years, and they are stronger now than before.
I don’t see why not. All the same arguments will be recycled. We have to vote for X because he can win, Sure, he’s not very good on our issues, but do you want the Dems to win?
The underlying subtext here seems to be that conservative positions dare not be spoken, that they are two “extreme”. Look at all the people here, on this site, willing to say exactly that. Lots of Republicans don’t want conservatism, they want broadly liberal policies implemented by Republicans, who they feel are better people.
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:48 PM
seriously, he’s a paulie?
JiangxiDad on May 18, 2008 at 2:31 PM
That’s being generous. Trust me when I tell you this he could care less about conservatism. His main goal is to get Obama/Hillary elected. He’s just pulling your chain in the interim. Old CQ’s crew know him well.
Go back to CQ’s when you are bored and look him up. It’s all so tiresome. Most old posters ignore him but there’s always newbies that he baits.
patrick neid on May 18, 2008 at 2:49 PM
“Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation”. It was the first, and so far only, book to be published by a sitting President.
Reagan was certainly a fire breather. Funny how the older generation of conservatives get treated with such respect. Those rose colored glasses really work!
flenser on May 18, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I think that is the kind system they had in Germany about sixty-five, seventy years ago. How did that work out?
MB4 on May 18, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »