There's scant reason for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative hawk from the northeast to stick around the Republican Party these days as it continues down its path to becoming a regional party of angry, southern white males.
There's no future in that particular specialization, and niche marketing does not go over well in trying to regain a majority coalition in a two party system.
So Arlen takes a powder. Another Northeast Liberal Republican bites the dust. Christopher Shays got broomed out of office. There hasn't been a popular Massachusetts Republican since my idol, the Carrot-topped WASP, Bill Weld. Jim Jeffords bailed after being publicly humiliated by the Bush Administration for voting against his tax cuts, and in so doing handed the majority over to the democrats. It was a Rovian bit of hubris from which the lesson did not seem to have been learned.
But, hey, we still got Maine! The Pigeon Sisters Collins and Snowe keep upsetting the right wing apple cart by cutting deals with centrists. Undoubtedly they get derided behind closed doors for being RINOs or Republican in Name Only.
Judd Gregg stands tall, but reportedly will retire rather than seek re-election in 2010. This has RNC leadership squirrelly as where once there was an all republican red state in New Hampshire, they now see a race not likely to be won lest they can talk this popular, laconic Republican to burn his 60s down in DC rather than with his feet up on a railing in Rye, New Hampshire looking at the Atlantic and enjoying himself and his family.
I worked for Senator Gregg and consider him to be an honorable man in politics for all of the right reasons. I suspect he's had it. He put in his time.
So where is the representation of that old, traditional wing of the Republican Party from whence my affiliation emanates? Where are the businessmen? Where are the pragmatic foreign policy wonks? Where are the laissez-faire advocates of decentralized government believing in bloc grants and simply letting states determine what is best for their constituents?
That's not a bad foundation for the way in which one handles oneself politically, you know. It kind of follows the adage of, "First do no harm." Don't over tax. Don't meddle. And keep everyone safe as possible. Protect the borders and get out of the way of american ingenuity.
So the rabid right has turned on Arlen. He was going to face a primary battle one way of the other. Perhaps by sliding over to the Democratic side of the aisle where he has more affiliation on social matters he can avoid the battle and take on the new, further marginalized republican party.
Add old Arlen and the two independents to Al Franken being seated in the Senate, and Obama gets to 60 and a fillibuster-proof majority. Is this a good thing for the country? Is one party rule what we need right now? What has Specter been promised? Will he retain seniority in his new party?
Regardless, it does nothing for those willing to stand and fight to restore some balance to the party. It's like watching a few sharp shooters climb over the back wall and bail out of the firefight just before the dawn breaks on the big dance.
There's a time for a reasonable national dialog. We are shaken to our core and, while we want government service, we also want to see some fiscal austerity and efficiency.
Republicans need to stop pillorying government and start pillorying government inefficiency. Government has a role. Even libertarians understand this. Government provides the aggregating mechanism and provides for protection of the commons.
So the country has a national mood for government action, and it also sits shocked at the deficits. What better time for a centrist coalition that looks at policy proposals AND at efficiency-driven modifications?
The country wants both which would enable for the best of both parties to come to the fore. The progressives for new ideas and the conservatives for basic economic principles of how business ought to run and therefore how to graft that onto the public sector while it is at the forefront of the national psyche?
Instead the opportunity gets lost as those who could seek to carve out a leadership role on coalition building seek instead to bail out to better their chances at re-election.
You're going to be 80 in 2010, Arlen. And you are lining yourself up for re-election to have you there until you are 86?
Aren't you old enough to put doing the right thing ahead of election prospects? What impact do you expect to have as an octogenarian turncoat rather than an elder statesman from a dated, but traditional wing of your original party? Is there not value as seeking to be a voice of reason rather than a topical oddity? Have you heard from Jim Jeffords lately?
If ever there is a time for moderate voices to stand and be heard, it would be now, Arlen.
Leaving does not display courage, it signifies surrender.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Deven McKay
Dr. Strangemom
Duane Gundrum
Tea Scrolls
MarkinKentuckiana
David Price
Salon.com
Comments
I think Mr. Specter is suffering from incumbancy disease. He and Mr. Lieberman, remember him, suffer from acute hubris, along with co-morbid indispensibility. I wasn't pleased with Lieberman's decision to run as an independent, as I am with this effort to "get re-elected."
This decisino says more about the person, than about the ideology. I'm not convinced one moment, that Specter is going to embrace anything extremely liberal.
Remember this man voted to confirm, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, and Mike Mucasey. He's not demonstrating courage to me either, Geoff. He's demonstrating ego and self interest. Rated.
You left out Lincoln Chaffee, who I would say is a real class act.
Either way, all it shows is how that old wing of the party has been snuffed out for the most part. It's a dangerous demographic to be fitting specific interest groups such as women and hispanics when their influence grows. Angry white males are not going to put you over the top for crying out loud.
Mary: I won't make that move. The fundamental philosophy over on the dark side is that government knows better than the individual what they should do. I have a visceral and fundamental disagreement with that, and I will fight it at every turn.
Now, I acknowledge government has a role. I acknowledge the need to extend services to the indigent and all of the rest, so it is a fine line to walk, but walk it I will.
So :P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Specter leaving the party isn't going to make that much of a difference one way or the other. It's not the party of non-conformists for nothing.
I don't see the point in Specter being an elderly GOP statesman in today's version of the Repub party.
If Arlen were to stand athwart hysteria and shout Stop!...the dominant right wing of the GOP would burn him at the stake with a fire fueled by copies of God and Man at Yale.
I very much agree with your desire for a balancing influence, but the course of Republican pathology is already firmly set.
I expect I will get some shots from progressives about talking about how I think it is the democrats who think government knows best how to run our lives.
I will get those shots, because the hard right does the exact same thing.
Think of government as a set of guns atop a hill somewhere. It used to be republicans would simply want to capture them and dismantle them. Leave people alone, etc.
Now the hard right wants to capture them and merely turn their focus to a different piece of real estate. Rather than tell you what to eat, or what MPG to get from your car, or when you have to wear a seat belt, or what regulations to which you must adhere to this or that function, these hard right whackos want to sniff your underwear drawer, worrying about your sex life, your marital status, and on and on and on.
I get worked up just thinking about all of this, as it has taken the party and marginalized it.
The Gingrich gang of 74 had such promise. Clinton have overreached, it was a chance for a generational shift and we blew it. That long, slow, slippery slide back into minority party status began with the way Clinton out foxed Newt at every turn, and the grand fucking finale of that slide into oblivion manifested itself in the Terry Schiavo disaster.
Come back from recess during war time to worry about a DNR battle that is quite clearly a state issue? The party of states' rights grinds government to a halt over something like that?
This contributed mightily to the 2006 off year election ax handling. Not uncommon for a two term incumbent party to get hammered like that, but L'affaire Schiavo just poured gasoline on an already smoldering problem.
I had so hoped for a center democrat on McCain's ticket, and have since learned of legal challenges in various states that made such a move nightmarish ON TOP of what would have been convention fur balls coughed up everywhere.
So my party is a mess. It has nothing really to offer yet we have such a prime opportunity to fill a void here. America wants services, but it wants efficiency. Republicans have the image of being the party of businessmen, so, goddamnit, lets show them how to graft business principles onto government.
Government's the largest industry in our economy, and it is most assuredly built arond services delivery. Rather than decry the decline of our manufacturing base as we pivot into an information-driven services economy, let's import those services industry best practices into government and improve its efficiency. Let government learn how to do more with less like the rest of us.
Goddamnit, but this stuff can get me worked up.
But I'm still doing a snoopy dance, if that's alright with you...
PJ: At some point the penduluum turns, but there has to be someone there when it does.
Lonnie: how does leaving the bar fight stop the bar fight? Someone has to have the courage of their convictions to stay there and yell, "All right, that's enough, break it up!" We need voices like that working from within. One party rule is an ugly, ugly concept. You need to delve into Mass Politics to see it. It is horrendous.
Verbal: I love the snoopy dance. You get a hall pass for the snoopy dance based on suggesting I have complete thoughts. The meds must be working today.
(thumbified for complete thoughts and general lack of feral howling --thanks lonnie--)
Mumblety: They most assuredly did humiliate him. They did this in several ways:
1) He was the ranking republican on the education sub committee. Rather than communicate with him they chose to communicate with a different Senate Republican to communicate to that subcommittee. (Remember this was during the No Child Left Behind Act formulation stage.)
2) The educator of the year award went to a Vermonter that year. Protocol says the Senators get invited to the White House for the Photo Op. Jeffords was not made aware of it.
3) Jeffords lived and died by a milk subsidy for Vermont Dairy Farmers. The White House sought to have the farm subsidy killed as retaliation.
And yeah, Bush & Co was shocked and chagrined when Jeffords finally said, "Fuck this" and walked.
And in walking, he handed the majority to the democrats, thereby letting democrats set the legislative agenda and chair the various committees in the senate.
Yeah, old W sure showed Jim Jeffords a thing or two ...
The wing nuts have gotten too much of a hold on the party. There are actually right wingers cheering his leaving. That's stupid on the math side.
I don't agree with most of the blue dog democrats, but The idea that they are allowed to play seems fair to me. The Big wig republicans seem to be trying to get rid of all the people that they should be trying to get to stay... and hell attract more like them.
I draw the line at Linc Chafee though. I've met him a few times. While he seemed to want to do what was right... he is a brick stupid frat boy (I have furniture that is smarter than him). At least whomever was driving his bus was pointing him at a decent voting record.
What I'm surprised at is that Specter didn't go ( I ). GOing ( D ) really is a kick to the balls to the republicans. Not really, he'll still vote the same, but it will be a big deal (already is) on TV. Him going ( D ) is a MASSIVE PR whack to the republicans... little or no real governmental difference, but the appearance is very bad indeed.
There was a lot of speculation during the election, with all the McCain/Palin tension within the republican party, that there may be a party split. I fully expected the Moderate Republicans and the Blue Dogs to spin off to a 3rd party... but the hatchet-jobs going on make that unlikely.
The wingnuts may very well totally kill the Republican party before the moderates can reform it into something viable again. Whatever transition in American politics will happen now is going to be a lot more messy.
But that clearly has not been the case, as evidenced by the fact that John McCain felt compelled to pander to the Right with the spectacularly unqualified Sarah Palin.
Specter -- like a growing number of traditional Republicans -- has correctly concluded that the Rovian dalliance with the devil is going to drag the whole party down in a Pyrrhic death spiral. Just as with Jonestown, religious fanatics are ready to force-feed the rest of the Republican Party the poisoned Kool-Aid rather than relinquish power.
Who's to blame for this? There's plenty of blame to go around, but moderate Republicans are as much to blame as anyone. What they have learned to their everlasting regret is that whether it's Christian or Muslim fundamentalists, it's hard to win an argument with the Party of God. Blinded by self-proclaimed righteousness, the RR actually believes God is on their side and that religion, not politics, is the art of the possible.
Mamoore: Nope, not me. Judd is a good human being. It therefore does not surprise me at all to hear his staffers have that same sense of decency. Did you work with either Joel or Will? Those were two who might still recall me from my time with him in 1980 and 1981.
Traigus: Very good assessment, particularly with Chaffee the younger.
Mumblety: You are right. I did misunderstand you. Mea Culpa.
Cartouche: At least you only *think* I have lost it. I know you lost it a long time ago, sweetheart.
Libertarius: You nailed it.
Tom: Tom, Tom, Tom. When are you going to be able to opine on this without baring your fucking fangs. Get out of attack dog mode. Please? I fucking hate the partisan nastiness. I am so sick of it. I love you, man, but really. You know my stripes. You did not hear any cheap shots taken at Democrats, in fact I lauded Clinton for the way he outfoxed Gingrich. I will applaud Carville for his tactical brilliance. I do not need to hear about what asshole republicans are. That’s amply articulated on here. I consider myself one, and I do not consider myself an asshole.
I propose we found a new party, a third party...The Commonsense Party!
The platform would include term limits of 3 6-yr terms for senators and 5 2-yr terms for reps. Mandatory retirement age of 75. If the economy contracts, everybody takes a freakin' pay cut--not a pay raise for cryin' out loud. There'd also be severe limits on campaign spending, with no contributions from corporations, only individuals limited to $100 a head. The line-item veto would be in place. Riders to bills--gonzo! College tuition? Free--in exchange for four years of public service, kinda like the military academies.
I'll spot the party the first $100 bucks and pay for some signs. How about you?
I do agree, however, that starting a new conservative party, and keeping the extremists out, would be the way to go. Not only would the decent to Green-Party-status cause Rush and the rest to provide us with no end of entertainment, but it would also provide an object lesson as to how to deal with this sort of thing in the future.
Only if the other party is a bunch of racist thieves. Would you vote for Stormfront, just so there'd be an opposition party?
I agree with you here, except for the part about libertarians. All of the libertarians I come across do not seem to understand this. Perhaps that's because they mostly seem to be young, single, childless men?
The bottom line for me is "why vote for a party or any member of a party to govern, when neither the party nor its members really believe in the efficacy of governing?"
Points for tone. Rated.
I can't think of one good reason to do that.
Yeah,that's why Republicans are so strong on human rights.
Sorry, my sarcasm bone acted up. If you want individual freedom, then the Republicans are not the party for you. They offer you all the freedom you can buy, and not an ounce more. For example, under a Republican government, you could have an abortion...if you can afford to travel to another country. Rules are for the poor, choice is for the rich.
Democrats don't tell you what to do, unless what you want to do hurts other people. You know, like teaching them that the world is 6,000 years old, and pi is 3.
I grew up in Massachusetts in the '60s and '70s in a union blue-collar household. My parents abominated Republicans as an abstract breed but voted regularly for moderate-to-liberal (i.e. flaming radical, by 2009 standards) Republicans like U.S. Senator Edward Brooke, Governor Francis Sargent, and Rep. Silvio Conte. Sargent was an old mainline Brahmin, a noblessly obliged Rockefeller Republican; Brooke and Conte were from groups (African-American and Italian-American, respectively) who had been frozen out by the Irish Democratic state establishment. They found (you won't believe this, kids) a big tent in the Mass. GOP that let them follow their principles and serve their constituencies honestly and ably.
I'm not with you on a number of issues, but the tragedy of the present moment is the absence of a true two-party system. The Democrats would be a better party if a principled, pragmatic, sane GOP still existed. In Massachusetts the Republicans kept the Democrats (somewhat) honest, or at the very least provided a platform for independent voices like Brooke's, Sargent's, and Conte's. Our government was more honest, our politics were smarter, and our country was stronger back then. What went wrong? Who knows.
Typical, LOL
Considering what your Party has done to the country since 1980, yes. Hell yes.
You realize, don't you, that the financial services industry, which has taken over the economy on the same scale as the runup (rundown?) is the poster child for "efficiency".
You realize, don't you, that Medicare/Social Security get it done at about 3% overhead. Privates do it for about 30%.
Profit in services is zero-sum, just transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Nothing is created, really, just vapor. If you care to, check out what happened in Uruguay leading up to 1970, and the aftermath. It was quite instructuve. Deindustrialization, now called financialization, destroys an economy. Thank you guys, so much.
I'm with you, my brother, in your desire for a two-party system, but not this Republican Party. It's one thing to be the loyal opposition; it's quite another to be the Just Say No party.
I remind you the Democratic Party went through a similar painful transition after LBJ, when the Southern Democrats (who were Democrats in name only) began to jump ship. From 1968-2008, only two Democrats were elected President, and they were both from the South, and during most of the Clinton administration, Republicans controlled Congress.
The point is that once a party falls from grace, it's a long, hard slog back. But rather than move toward the center, as Democrats had to do, the Republican Party seems bound and determined to keep moving farther right. Now you may take that assessment as baring my fangs, but I'm offering it as advice to anyone who's really interested in restoring the two-party system.
If Republicans really want to begin a comeback, someone in the party needs to publicly condemn extremism and tell Rush Limbaugh to sit down and shut up. Same goes for the clowns on Fox News. These people aren't doing you any favors with the Independents and Moderates your party desperately needs.
There is a precedent. It was Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine Republican, who delivered a Senate speech she called a "Declaration of Conscience". As Wikipedia describes it:
" In a clear attack on McCarthyism, she called for an end to "character assassinations" and named "some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize; The right to hold unpopular beliefs; The right to protest; The right of independent thought." She said "freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America," and decried "cancerous tentacles of 'know nothing, suspect everything' attitudes." Six other Republican Senators—Wayne Morse, Irving M. Ives, Charles W. Tobey, Edward John Thye, George Aiken, and Robert C. Hendrickson—joined Smith in condemning the tactics of McCarthyism."
What the Republican Party needs is more traditional Republicans with that kind of courage. Until they start reversing the direction of their Party, it will remain a party in a decline.
Douglas: glad to know.
Bobker: That’s the usual response. They’re worse, you must stand your ground. Politics is the art of the possible.
James: If that is what it takes, so be it. I’d prefer to try to restore the brand to what it once was rather than leave it, however.
Djohn: That’s a sentiment not foreign in ardent republican circles and it leaves me a little dumbfounded. By his leaving we are handing democrats filibuster proof majority. Was the fight worth it? Know what I mean?
KTM: Maybe I have higher hope for libertarians having been a young, single, childless, male and have figured out the role as I have worked in municipal government. There’s hope for them, honest.
Mamoore: Yeah, it’s a dying breed.
Lsujp: That was a stroll down memory lane on some of those. Yeah, there was an old Brahmin nobles oblige strain that had served traditionally well. It’s pretty much dead and gone at the moment.
LMiko: Who knows the motivation. I do not find it helpful.
Messrs. Young and Havok: Come on. I have not used a level of rhetoric or partisan rancor anywhere near what you have offered here. I am not at all interested in that. Youi wish to engage then refrain from that kind of stuff. I figured I should acknowledge this, but I simply do not intend to engage it. OK?
Now that I am done with dialog from the set of Mad Men, let me say I do not have a huge dispute with your summarization OTHER than the analysis that dems moved to the center in their years wandering the wilderness from 1968 to 2008. You nominated McGovern in 72, which was a huge leftward lurch akin to our Goldwater move. 84 and 88 had very costly panderings to left leaning interest groups including, but not limited to, the Rainbow Coalition. I bring that up as an illustration of Clinton being the one who, like NIXON, tacked to the center.
The rest of it? Nothing too terribly offensive, and I'll try not to be so defensive in the future, particularly if I manage to pick up a few more "fans" putting your commentary into proper perspective.
Not every Republican is a racist, and there are racist Democrats...but the two parties have very different attitudes toward the racists in their ranks. In one party they are referred to as "the base," in the other party they are an embarrassment.
As for this, The fundamental philosophy over on the [Democrat] side is that government knows better than the individual what they should do , I wonder if you could grace us with some examples of what you are talking about.
It wasn't until the Dems nominated a centrist compromiser of the first water, Bill Clinton that they won back the White House. And to tell the truth, I'm still slightly baffled that Bush the First was defeated. I think it was more than the economy, stupid. The only explanation I can offer is that Bush gave off the same vibe as John Kerry -- one cold sonofabitch. Stacked against the most "aw-shucks" candidate since Ronald Reagan, it was no contest.
This has got to be the most self-serving, revisionist drivel I've read in a while. And you're barking at Tom?
Oh, woe is us, Pat Buchanan in 1992, indeed.
Try starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968. (NE Repubs: not our sort, really, but dammit the man's on to something.)
Connect the dots to Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia -- as in Mississippi, not Pennsylvania -- yards from the ditch where they buried Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner (race and ethnicity a given), invoking "States' Rights."
Zoom in a bit more and let's get a good shot of welfare queens in Cadillacs. Let's throw in "Law and Order."
OMG, who's in the picture: Ed Rollins and blues-loving Lee Atwater : Hey, you can't say N****r, N****r, any more so raise it a level of abstraction or two and you can say "Taxes." Haha, "our folks" know who it's coming from and who it's going to ::nudge, nudge, wink, wink::. Give 'em Willie Horton.
And Lee's love child Karl. George W. at Oral Roberts, George w./Rove re McCain's black love child, Harold Ford "Call Me", McCain and "Obama and Paris Hilton"..... the list goes on and on, and continues to this day, as we speak.
Northeast Republicans have been complicit in this sordid travesty for, try, forty years. And now that the demographics of the electorate are moving inexorably away, not all the Pontius Pilate (or Lady Macbeth, if you will) hand washing with all the perfumed oil of Arabia will sweeten your dirty little hands.
"Business principles," "efficiency" -- gimme a fucking break. If you read those in the above narrative, no wonder they won't let you fire the starter's pistol in Hopkinton any more.
WOOF
ok, yep, Specter is being pretty self-serving in this whole deal, but...
your penultimate sentence sums up what is wrong with your argument -
It's not whether it is the TIME, it is whether there is anyone listening. There is PLENTY of room for moderate voices to be heard, it just is NOT within the Republican Party right now.
We can argue over the labels and who owns which label, but it seems to me that we will end up three groups (which may lie in only 2 parties or may take a while to get there, but...) -
1) Progressive Dems
2) the big Middle (will be Dems as long as Dems are in power) - if Repubs had power, they'd be tacking that way, the policies wouldn't be much different, it'd just have a different name
3) the Fringe Right
Recognizing that the Fringe has taken over the GOP may well be surrender, but pretending it hasn't would be political suicide.
>Where is the representation of that old, traditional wing of the Republican Party?
The old wing is completely diminished and I think Caveat Canem Croceum does a brilliant job of laying out just where it went and who conspired to put it there. The Republican party formed an unholy alliance, beginning about 40 years ago, with its religious fringe and this is the end result -- the near last of a dying breed flying the coop.
The moderates in the party were happy to go along with the far right when that group helped their numbers. The time to ask for courage has long passed.
Tom: OK, OK, we’re in violent agreement. You had made the assertion dems tacked back to the center to broaden appeal. I was merely pointing out the fact they wandered the wilderness for a while pandering to their own extremes before figuring that out. So, yeah, we are saying the same thing, I was merely highlighting that point in time in the Democrats’ life that is similar to the low water mark Republicans seem to be in at the moment. We square on this?
MisterComedy and Grif: Thanks. I have discussed this stuff in internet message boards for way, way too long, dating back to the 1994 off year elections. I simply am not going to engage in partisan tit-for-tat or tolerate rude discourse. It’s tough to do sometimes, but it is incredibly necessary to work at seeing that get restored.
Caveat: You start by simply insulting me by calling it self-serving revisionist drivel. You make some half way decent points shrouded in mocking and demeaning behavior, and, as such, I am simply not going to engage. Please check that kind of stuff at the door, ok?
LPSROCKS: It is precisely when they are not listening that you have to stand and assert your points with the greatest clarity. A guy stood in front of tank in Tianeman (sp?) Square. I think a few prominent moderates can remain vocal about the party’s direction.
Lisa: While I respect your opinion, I am not sure I can say I agree with that. He figured out he would lose a primary battle, wants to stay on the job, and has switched parties. I have to believe dems gave him some assurances. Hell, all they have to do is look at the flipping actuarial tables and realize it is a high percentage bet they will have to appoint someone to fill the balance of his term. His having a D next to his name is a cheap way to get the real deal in there. Besides, the extreme right thinks he’s a liberal – excuse me, LIEbrul – anyway.
Suzlipman: Actually the assessment your more civilly suggest is mixing of two. Thee was, indeed, a southern strategy deployed to great success in 1968 that was an offshoot of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LBJ reportedly muttered something about realizing he was handing the south to republicans with the bill as he signed it. So, yes, therein lies the ugly racist slur. That unholy alliance. It was an alliance of 1) Yes, racist elements, and 2) Folks bristling at federalist over reaching, believing it knocked another hole in the wall between state and federal jurisdictional issues.
That’s not the religious right, Suz. That flowed more out of the Roe V. Wade battles and really didn’t come to the fore until 1980 and then 1984. The hardening of the abortion language took place in 1984. Reagan ran on more tolerant language in 1980, drafted in 1976 by none other than Bob Dole. Dole had his ass handed to him in 1996 when he merely sought to reinsert the 1980 language.
Neither is attractive from where I sit, but they are not necessarily one long, entwined relationship. Nothing is further from the truth, in fact.
Suz: I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. The southern strategy was a visceral reaction to states rights, court order bussing and all of the rest. The late 70s was more a reaction to 60s social changes that has been a baby boomer food fight ever since and is incredibly tiresome to watch. And I say this as a younger boomer.
Rampant racism is just the tip of dungheap. Joined at the hip with religious bigotry. Anti-women (Roe v. Wade, of course; remember the ERA). Anti-poor people. Anti-equal opportunity (code for what, I wonder). Anti-gay.. Pro war. Pro ME ME ME. Pro MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative is an oxymoron and a lie. "Socially" merely means "our kind, dear." Because to be liberal towards "not our kind" -- the poor, the disabled, the disadvantaged, needs “our” MONEY, the only concern of the plutocrat property-rights party.
Massachusetts Republicans are a sorry Shamie-ful joke. List one present proposed policy initiative other than smearing Deval (conveniently you-know-what) on "taxes, taxes, taxes" (see Lee Atwater above). And oh yes, let's not overlook the drive to overturn the gay marriage decision.
The Mass GOP's current shibboleths are: Limited Government, Individual Responsibility, Personal Freedom. Same tired subterfuges and code words.
Limited Government : Read “no services for those who need them – not our kind, dear”.
Individual Responsibility: Read “ blame the victims – the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick, the aged”. Previously known as “ lazy n*****s”.
Personal Freedom: Read “except for women or gays – or, dammit, Jews and blacks joining our country clubs”.
This is the hypocritical cant of country club Republicanism. Unless it can go beyond its ugly, selfish, me-first, me-only concerns to look to the common weal, its death cannot come too fast.
WOOF
The discussion of grafting business best practices was for more mechanical and tactical. You do not think there's likely value in systems integration that allows for better data sharing? You know, eliminate stove pipes at CIA, DOD, State and all the rest, such that it's more efficient and free flowing? Such that you could -- gasp -- reduce headcount. The point is that government is a service, it is the delivery of services to the customers, the tax payers. That's what government is. Our economy shifts more and more to services delivery. The assignation of profit does not apply to the private sector. You co-opt the best practices typically driven by personal incentive through management oversight, albeit without that personal incentive given it is government.
But why in the name of god would I wish to engage someone with so bitter and derogatory a tone?
If I thought engaging you would result in an exchange of ideas with respect and civility, I would be the first to oblige, but your opening salvos are lines I have seen far too long doing political discussions, and I am not going to go there.
By all means feel free to pen another one declaring the superiority of your intellect as the reason I have chosen to stay in the fox hole.
I am hear to state quite clearly it is not the intellect that daunts me, it is the rudeness of your delivery that bores me.
Oh, please. States rights = individual freedom? Get a grip, fella.
The "centralized government" that the "states rights" advocates object to is the central government guaranteeing individual rights to things like voting and education and equal protection of the law.
And I'd like to note that you can't provide a single example of your party of individual freedom actually advocating for an individual freedom, just that abstract idea of state sovereignty, which is not individual at all.
I'd also note that when push came to shove and individual states tried to raise their local protections for their citizens, such as in California's attempt to raise its pollution standards, your party of individual freedom came down hard on the side of corporate freedom to poison anyone they wanted. But I guess corporations are legally individuals, eh?
Perfect call. I see rightwingers claiming that institutional discrimination is protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association all the time.
I also have operated in the bowels of government service in small towns. I have had my efforts tied up in knots in some ridiculous edicts coming down from on high that bloat costs and can impede progress.
And the country wants efficiency and better service. It's a perfect time for some coalition work doing just that. There is where benchmarking private sector best practices for services delivery to determine how to graft that to government would come in handy right now. Part of that happens to be designing in delivery flexibility at the transaction point, or face to face with the customer. That's very foreign thinking to government service workers.
Excuse me? You made the claim that the Democratic party was against individual freedom (implying that the Republicans are for it), and you accuse me of making partisan points because you can't defend your claim. Now you're trying to shift the goalposts to some sort of argument about efficiency and unspecified "edicts from on high." All without addressing any points that have been raised.
Boring.
PS playing the game of “Oh, yeah, well your party is worse.”
No one is perfect, and neither is any organization. But yes, we've seen quite clearly how much worse your organization is, and why, due to its basic philosophy, giving it power is always a disaster. So it isn't a game.
Your party is suited only to be back-benchers, because of its root conviction that government is innately corrupt. That makes it an alert watchdog when it is out of power, but a purely destructive force when it is in power.