GOP Making a Comeback?

Remove all ads!

AMaster,
I tend to agree on the GOP's shrinking demographic segment. This Gallup Poll strongly supports your assertion.

​

That's why the GOPers is so happy about folks like Beck and Limbaugh who scare the living Bejeezus out of retirees and middle aged white people - they mobilise the faithful, while the awful, i.e. their more underhanded experts, try to focus on voter suppression to deal with the rest. If you have less voters, are unwilling to compromise, then such tactics become a near necessity. Majorities in the past have been slim for the GOP. Without voter suppression the GOP loses - they have even frequently lost with voter suppression. The Karl Rove mindset was and probably still is: 50.1% are a majority; f*ck the rest.

That's why ACORN, who registers voters for the other side, is to them a strategic threat. That's the issue with ACORN and everything else is merely a welcome pretext. Community organising so people register to vote is a far more 'positive' thing in a democratic republic - it encourages people to participate in the political process - as opposed to 'negative' things like trying to deny people their vote by purging them from the voter rolls i.e. reducing the number of likely opposition voters. Quite obviously they do that because GOPers running around in demographies supporting D's stand little chance of persuading people to register as Republicans. Thus, they rather have these people don't vote at all than, heaven forbid, they may just exercise their right to vote and vote for the opposition.

ACORN's shenanigans still pale in comparison to what a Mr. Shlozmann did during the Bush years, without him ever being held accountable. I chose an organisation with dumb ass employees serving a prep kid in a pimp costume over a crook prosecutor indicting ACORN on trumped up charges a week before an election every day (everyone charged was acquitted) while feigning ignorance about the obvious impact on the elections (the allegation that the other side is cheating increases the GOP voter turnout - and if it takes real prosecutions for imaginary crime to achieve that, so be it; that's quite simply abuse of power). That's a completely different level of nefariousness.

Now, to get back to the GOP proper - the current mayhem, as entertaining to watch as it is, will and cannot continue forever. They look like dead in the water now, but they may still be elected if the D's screw up or falter, or generally give the R's stuff that they can work over with their 'Big Wurlitzer'.

 

Well that's a wonderful job hijacking this thread with the Acorn issue, Ragusa. Didn't we already have a topic about that? One in which I actually pointed out that the bill doesn't single out Acorn for punishment, but only as a member of the set of applicable entities?

 

You mean the thread where you erroneously maintained that the the bill doesn't single out Acorn for punishment. Luckily, Mr. Grayson's drives the point home very well - all the better, then I don't need to write it (I want to play Borderlands or Dragon Age instead ).

​

And no, I think that as far as GOP and their election campaigns go, ACORN is clearly on topic. One could say, with a grain of salt, that if ACORN wouldn't exist, Karl Rove would have probably invented it.

 

Ragusa, the only time the Bill mentions Acorn at all is when it says that the bill is applicable to groups of a certain nature, of which Acorn is one.

You're problem with it, if I recall, was that it would likely only be applied to Acorn, not to any other group. In that case, you have a problem with the execution of the bill, which is done by the executive branch.

 

A bill that singles out ACORN by name, and indeed is called the 'defund ACORN bill' (as disingenuous that is as far as suggesting intent is concerned) makes a point about ACORN's conduct as fraudulent, don't you think. And the bill then imposes a non-criminal sanction.

Grayson's point is that such a bill is a trial by parliament and not by court, where ACORN cannot defend itself and where the accuser conveniently doesn't have to prove anything - and they don't get government contracts any more anyway. Now what about due process, separation of powers and the ideas behind them? As you're so into definitions, here's one:

In summary, it is a "a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial", and the clause protects individual persons and groups who are vulnerable to nonjudicial determinations of guilt.

Another argument that you iirc used back then was that they aren't punished because they have no right to government contracts (or to be employed by the government). What constitutes punishment under that provision? The Supreme Court has considered as unconstitutional the permanent exclusion of named people - or even a class of people, such as Communist Party members or people who had given help to the Confederacy - from government office, and treated it as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. Under the Bill ACORN would for the future not receive any government contracts, form acts that not itself by policy but for acts of individual employees.

And there we are, Madison wrote of ... the sober people of America ... finding such a practice abhorrent. Considering great confusion that exists over the matter - are they still sober one wonder? The Republicans who cheer for the law in that case appear to be drunk with partisanship.

 

I'll agree it stinks a little, but it isn't unconstitutional (remember, a name is just a name).

This is one thing I'm a little confused about. How exactly would a bill of this nature be enforced? I mean, would there be a trial? Congressional hearings? The bill lists specific conditions under which an organization would be punished, so how does who determine whether those conditions have been met by a specific organization.

... Ok, wait, so now you're complaining even though the bill won't actually do anything to them? Or did I misread that?

And what about just expecting the government to learn from it's mistakes? The bill actually says not to give government contracts to those who file fraudulent documents (which, in theory, is a great idea). Would you say it's not within Congress's power to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"? Congress controls how Government money is spent, and should be able to place limits on behavior.

One, your summary misses the clear distinction between a bill that impacts everyone and a bill that actually singles out an individual entity. The "Defund ACORN Bill" is titled as one of the latter, but written as one of the former.

This is an interesting question. The point that I make, and I feel it is a reasonable one, is that the wording of the bill is put forward to protect government funds from fraud, a problem that runs rampant through the system today. It's obviously not designed to be a practical document, as a single document is enough to ban you for life, but that is the design. Now, with that intent in mind, who would you expect to issue such a "punishment" (and yes, it can definitely be seen as punishment as well)? Would you expect a court case to have, as sentence, "Shall no longer be allowed to bid for government contracts"? I suppose if it's in their authority, that would work, but it seems like the Judiciary taking over the business of the Legislature now (a Judge deciding how Congress spends money).

But not recieving contracts and being banned from government office are worlds appart. Every American citizen has the right to fill government offices, provided they meet the other criteria. It's one of our fundamental features of government. Denial of that is tantamount to denying someone the right to vote. Recieving government contracts isn't a right for anyone. It's a business araingement, and if one business entity (Congress) decides they want to enact certain safety protocols to prevent sustained abuse, how would you propose they do so?

 

NOG,
on the most basic level being banned from a job at the government is being denied a job contract with the government. Job contract or a service contract with a legal entity (i.e. group of persons) like ACORN - same thing.

 

To get back on topic...

Here's a conspiracy theory. Are the Democrats counting on losing Congress in 2010? Could the gameplan be to pass a health care bill that is so expensive that they know it will never work, but delay the effective date until after 2010? This way when the Republicans shred it, they can claim they gave it to the people and the Republicans took it away? From what I have heard the taxes to pay for the bill are effective immediately, but the implementation is delayed. This could be a way to fill the coffers for other spending. Who is the Democrat version of Karl Rove?

 

Ragusa, there's a huge difference between being an external contract-employee and actually being a member of the Government (which, of course, an organization can't be anyway, so it's a non-issue). The whole point of that part of my post was that our government is a government of the people, which means that the people, any of the people, actually make up that government.

TGS, that's a bit of a conspiracy, but I don't think it's at all impossible, nor would I guess it'd be the first time one group has tried to saddle another with something like this.

 

Explain which aspects of the plan "won't work?" Also, compared to other government programs, such as the two wars, what makes it so expensive in your opinion? In addition, which specific taxes do you believe people are going to object to?

The country is closely divided over the issue of health care reform. Yet, 60 percent of Americans support the government option for insurance, hence the reason it was finally able to make it into the final version of the bill. Personally, I think they just should have extended the Medicare program to everyone. And then let them choose which they wanted - the government run health care or private insurance. That would have given people the most liberty by giving them a choice.

 

While it is true that alienating 20-somethings is a bad idea (they are going to vote for the next 50 or so years), keep in mind that the youngest voters traditionally tend to vote Democrat. As people age, some will inevitiably "flip" to Republican, and many, in old age "flip" back to Democrat.

---------- Added 0 hours, 15 minutes and 49 seconds later... ----------

The only contention I have with your conspiracy is that it assumes that the Dems would lose control of both houses of Congress. While history certainly shows that the party in power tends to lose seats in off-year elections, it is quite a leap to go from there to say that the Dems will not retain a majority, especially in the Senate where they possess 60 seats. Since Biden would cast the deciding vote in the case of a tie, the Dems would have to lose 11 seats in the Senate, which is huge when you consider that there are only 34 races next fall.

 

Aldeth - The demographics for Republicans have been shrinking. For instance, the Republicans have no Congressional seats in New England, none. And as minority groups continue to grow in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, Republicans are gradually being squeezed out of power in those places as well, mostly because they continue to appeal to the same old base, with largely the same message. That message is becoming even more racialized. Unless Republicans can moderate themselves into a more moderate party, they are going to continue to suffer, regardless of how many costume parties they have.

 

I agree Chandos. There was a piece I saw on fivethirtyeight.com a few months back, and the title of the piece was "Operation Gringo". The basic point of the article was that Hispanics tend to vote Democrat by a 75:25 margin. Combined with African Americans who vote Democrat by a 90:10 margin (95:5 margin when speaking of Obama), that the Republicans have to rely on white middle-aged people to get their votes. (Hence the title of the piece.)

Based on current demographics and growth rates, New Mexico and Arizona are going to be more a more difficult for Republicans to win in future elections. In fact, some argue that Arizona would have gone Democrat in 2008 if that wasn't McCain's home state. More surprisingly, based on those growth rates, Texas of all places will be comptetive by 2016, and has a strong chance to go blue as early as 2020. What kind of electoral map would the Republicans be able to put together to get 270 if Texas is not part of it? (Especially considering Texas is expected to gain at least 1, and possibly 2 seats after next year's census.)

As for the Democrats losing seats, you're probably looking at a very small number of lost seats in the Senate - probably only 2 or 3. For the House, they are definitely looking at double-digit losses. I'd guestimate about 15.

 

I know I'm gonna take a lot of flack for this, but here goes:

People who feel disenfranchised either in terms of money or political clout tend to vote for liberal candidates who promise to redistribute wealth and power. They want some help, and I can't say as I blame them. In the US, a liberal vote tends to go to the Democrats.

However, once people achieve some degree of success, they tend to not want to share their wealth and power via the government -- they often forget that they were helped in getting to where they are and feel that they worked long and hard to get that success. They often HAVE worked long and hard as well as having been helped. Quite understandably, they want to retain their wealth and power and help those who they wish to help without government acting as an intermediary. They tend to vote for conservative candidates who will (theoretically, at least) not take their wealth and re-distribute it to people they either don't know or disapprove of. In the US, that means the Republicans*

So, despite the growing numbers of ethnic voters in areas like Texas, I firmly believe that people will vote more with their pocketbooks and their socioeconomic status as time goes on. As people become more successful, they will go with Republicans who promise to let them keep the fruits of their labors.

I'm reminded of the Churchill quote, which I'm sure that many of us have heard a million times: "If you're 20 years old and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're 40 years old and not a conservative, you have no brain."

*Of course, over the past decade, with high taxes going to fund the Middle Eastern conflicts and the money flowing into the coffers of companies like Halliburton, the Republicans are going to have to work long and hard to convince swing voters that a vote for them won't mean a transfer of citizen $$ into corporate pockets.

 

No flack from me, good sir. I don't know if it's necessarily true, as ethnic minorities also tend to hail from lower socio-economic backgrounds, but there's nothing in your post I find patently absurd...

 

Thanks! To clarify, though, I was trying to say that the ethnic minorities, as they entrench into US society, will over time become successful and leave the lower socio-economic brackets and enter the middle and upper class. This can take decades, and sometimes even generations. But once they are there, they have a good chance of starting to hold more conservative views.

 

That's what happened during the last 8 years of Republican government. It seems that GWB expanded the corporate wealfare state to the point that it finally became obvious to enough voters. That you have noticed it as a conservative, LKD, helps make the point. But the rich have always hid behind the Republicans, especially in the old days when they were mostly "country club" Republicans. These conservatives were wealthy, well-educated and sophisticated - but decidely anti-populist. They were East Coast elitists; the Mit Romney-George H. Bush types.

The grassroots movement within the Repbuclian Party really started to change this beginning in 1994. By 2000 GWB was calling the corporate welfare state "his base." He was the son of a country club republican, but his own political roots were in the grassroots/evangelical movement of the 1990s. That's one of the reasons he and his dad never discuss policy when they are together in private, because GHB feels a bit betrayed by his own son, policy wise and also regarding GWB's critical comments about the First Gulf War. It's no wonder that now GWB is called a "liberal" by some conservatives. He could not work through the cross-purposes of his own base.

To add to all this confusion there was Dick Cheney commenting that "federal deficits didn't matter" while he was VP. How different is that from the Republican base of 2009? It's no wonder the Republican Party is in disarray. But there is no confusion among the rich; they understand exactly what's going on. Talk about cutting back on defense spending, construction projects, breaks in corporate taxes and capital gains in order to balance the budget and you can be sure that they will be setting the populist base of the conservative movement straight on that one.

IMO, LKD, the rich benefit more from conservative big government than the working class or the working poor. Hence the reason there never has been "limited government" in modern times. There was no "limited government" under Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II, nor would there have been under Mac. With Democrats, it's a lttle more even. But that really turns on the federal spending, because even though the working class gets a bit more benefit, the rich stll make out, but now they have to pay for a bit more for the benefits they lavishly enjoy. They usually get a token tax hike that causes them to declare "the end times are near," and they expect a giant pity party from the average American over having to pay an extra 2 or 3 percent more in taxes.

Notice that the tea potters just received a tax cut from Obama, but they are complaining that Obama is raising "their" taxes. They don't even understand the reality of their own situations.

Nevetheless, a big tip off is all the complaining about the "huge" cost of health care, but there is no outrage from these same folks over the trillion dollars that were paid to corporate America to save their lack of management and financial skills that trashed the economy in 2007-08. It's A-OK for the tax payer to flip the bill for a billion dollars in bonuses to the incompetent corporate CEOs who ran their companies into the ground, but if you want to get some poor people some health care, we're suddenly on the verge of "a socialist state." We should be so lucky, IMO.

Also, how could I not mention this one?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907681.ece

This guy, LLoyd Blankfein, really believes his own nonsense. He doesn't understand that wealth, real wealth, is created by a REAL market place; a place where people actually develop things, manufacture them, and then, buy and sell them. That creates wealth. Not the world of "virtual assets" that Wall Street resides in. That's how they create wealth for themselves and then when it suddenly meets the real world, they need the government (and the taxpayer) to bail them out. That is because the paper products they sell aren't really worth much more than the paper that they are printed on except in the minds of those who buy and sell it, unless the real market place is generating the wealth to back their paper up.

You can believe that Republicans will let the poor and middle classes keep the fruits of their labors if you find it comforting in some way, LKD. But the government belongs to all the people. And unfortunately the gap between the rich and the other classes is growing wider, rather than narrower. The ranks of the poor are growing larger rather than smaller. And they have as much right to our government as anyone else, at least according to Democratic principles. So as a voting block, it is growing larger.

All of us are the same in that regard, LKD. We all, even liberals and moderates, need our mythology to make us feel a bit better about the social and economic dynamics that seem unjust to one group or another. We just choose whichever narrative we are most comfortable with.

 

50% of the country works for a living, 50% of the country votes for a living. I don't remember where I saw that quote, but I thought it was profound.

I think the past 40 years have shown that the Democratic party has an invested interest in keeping minorities poor, otherwise wouldn't they be doing better after all this time?

 

Think again, Chandos. These same people were up in arms about the stimulus packages. Both stimulus packages. Remember all that talk about "1 trillion dollars"? Guess what that was about.

 

Read again, NOG. I was referring to the corporate bail outs, not the stimulus package.

A lot of lies can seem profound at first glance.

I believe it is the reverse, that it is the Republican Party that wants the poor to stay just as they are. The more wealth the minorities and poor have, the more political power they have.