Will Republicans change their tune given the shift in demographics?
2012 Nov 9, 1:43am 18,668 views 46 comments
« First « Previous Comments 38 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
Scagnetti
@
2012 Nov 16, 12:59pm
Plus Dem votes on those Republican bills were defensive, to avoid being demagogued as soft on terrorism.
Just like the Democrat AUMF vote in late 2002, Senate Dems pussied out to avoid being seen as weak on defense or terrorism by their constituents.
Really tough making a vote that can be so easily twisted against you and boot you out of Congress permanently.
Here is part of the problem....politicians and people in general need to stick to their principles. I'm tired of this "political darwinism" crap that says over time (generations) we can make a difference. It leads to defensive posturing to keep gains while you slowly lose.
Bellingham Bill
@
2012 Nov 16, 1:00pm
Did Obama renew the patriot act instead of repealing it?
What about closing Guantanamo Bay?
Passing the NDAA?
HR 347?
Obama is not a Roman Tribune and thus cannot "repeal" laws. Though he does have leeway as head of the Executive in how to enforce them.
What about closing Guantanamo?
"In a court filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, government lawyers said the names of detainees "no longer warrant protection." They had been blocked from public disclosure under a 2009 court order requested by the government.
"The filing includes 55 names out of the 167 detainees currently at the prison.
"President Barack Obama on his second day in office issued an order to close the prison by January 2010 and set up a task force to review the status of prisoners there. The president's plans soon ran into opposition from Congress, where lawmakers raised security concerns, and the target date wasn't met."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578010510465382582.html
The problem with releasing anyone is that if any released person does something bad, that's some bad egg-on-face. Conservatism is the order of the day.
NDAA was bundled in a defense spending bill and since Obama needed FL and VA to win that wasn't a hill worth dying on. He issued the appropriate "signing statements" about the stuff he didn't like in it and wasn't going to utilize. The vote itself sailed through Congress with overwhelming majorities.
HR 347 was unanimous in the Senate and 399-3 in the House.
Bellingham Bill
@
2012 Nov 16, 1:01pm
politicians and people in general need to stick to their principles.
yeah, well, principles and $1.35 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks.
30,000 libertarian voters in Montana picked principle over tactics and now they have Tester as their Senator still. Tea Party extremists in Indiana booted Lugar for a Democrat, too.
Scagnetti
@
2012 Nov 16, 1:06pm
Obama is not a Roman Tribune and thus cannot "repeal" laws.
Sorry, you are correct. He can not repeal a law. What he could have done, is to not sign the 4 year extension of the patriot act. He could have done that!
Bellingham Bill
@
2012 Nov 16, 1:15pm
He could have done that!
It passed 77-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House, veto-proof majorities. Dems were 54-122 against in the House.
Aside from all the BS about PATRIOT, I've never had any problems with the powers it allows law enforcement. I only object to the name, really.
Dan8267
@
2012 Nov 16, 1:28pm
Aside from all the BS about PATRIOT, I've never had any problems with the powers it allows law enforcement. I only object to the name, really.
Stupid link limitation...
www.aclu.org/national-security/patriot-act-victim-speaks-out-spy-bill
patriotactvictims.tumblr.com/
www.zimbio.com/USA+PATRIOT+Act/articles/30/Media+Ignores+Christian+Kid+Patriot+Act+Victim
www.thepolitic.com/archives/2011/10/27/a-victim-of-the-patriot-act-speaks/
www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=110&contentid=1436
www.globalissues.org/news/2012/04/20/13413
And people have a problem with gay sex.
Scagnetti
@
2012 Nov 16, 1:29pm
He could have done that!
It passed 77-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House, veto-proof majorities. Dems were 54-122 against in the House.
Aside from all the BS about PATRIOT, I've never had any problems with the powers it allows law enforcement. I only object to the name, really.
From your numbers, there wasn't a 2/3 majority in the house to overturn a presidential veto. Regardless, Obama signed it, he agrees with it. If he didn't agree with it, he shouldn't have signed it! Same with the NDAA and HR 347.
Bellingham Bill
@
2012 Nov 18, 1:58pm
Disagree completely.
thanks for sharing, LOL
Could it be that the Versailles treaty from WWI completely crippled their economy?
No, the Dawes Plan and Young Plan sorta fixed that. The problems came in 1929 with the global seizure of credit and trade.
Hitler proposed to stop paying reparations and to get out of the league of nations, which in effect would elevate the German people out of poverty.
The German people were far from "poverty". Their economy was just fucked and needed velocity of Keynesian redistribution. Once industry got going again velocity picked up.
A little known thing is that Hitler's immediate predecessor -- von Schleicher -- kicked off a lot of shovel-ready public works and had he been able to stay in power in 1933 he could have greatly benefited from the economic pick-up this effected.
The Nazis came out of opression, not out of complete free will like you claim.
What they came out of was chaos and a bitterly divided electorate, 10% red, 30% left, 20% centrist and 40% radical right.
The centrists thought they could control the radical right, but failed in 1933. The Nazis first eliminated the reds, then connived with the centrists to eliminate the left (with the Enabling Act). And with that, the totalitarian dictatorship and secret police state was established.
We're probably going that way, too. 2025 is my guess. The result won't look like Germany 1935, but it will rhyme.
I don't see a grass roots movement in support for the Patriot Act, NDAA, and HR347. Where were the masses that were fighting for this?
what you don't understand is basic game theory and the adversarial nature of politics. PATRIOT is about not having another 9/11 happen and FBI insiders then leak that they "coulda caught that terrorists" had Congress not failed to give them the tools they had asked for.
Same thing with NDAA. Clinton caught shit from the Republicans for not blowing up Osama when he was "on a silver platter":
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75807.html
That's politics, and it works because we have a very stupid electorate.
MisdemeanorRebel
@
2012 Nov 19, 7:07am
Romney lost because his voters were composed of aging, dwindling groups; Obama won because his voting demographic was more in line with middle aged and young adult voters.
In fact, Romney's voting groups are even more conservative than old farts generally.
We had peak Evangelical Right Winger around 2000. It would have faded much faster but was kept alive by the GWOT for a few years longer. It's over. The number of college educated people is sky high, skepticism over superstition is growing, and the Jesus Freaks of the 60s and 70s, who grew up on Sercy, Arkansas A/V bullshit and brought the Reagan bullshit are now wearing Depends or will be shortly.
As soon as we have a few million more hip replacements, perhaps by the next Presidential Election, the country will turn solidly to the left.
The real challenge is to make sure the Left turn gets channeled into productive "Salt of the Earth" issues like minimum wages and taxation, and doesn't get lost in the fruitless disputes (and misuse of the term) about "Privilege" and the Oppression Olympics(tm) ("Transgendered people can't use Womyn's safe space bathrooms, that's just for Womyn born Womyn!" "Why, you bigoted RadFem!" "Chinaman is a derogatory term!" "Like Scotsman? Irishman? Frenchman?" etc.).
What they came out of was chaos and a bitterly divided electorate, 10% red, 30% left, 20% centrist and 40% radical right.
Word.
« First « Previous Comments 38 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
Given that much has been made of the shifting demographics and its role in this year's election: That even though a huge percentage of the typical Republican voting demographic voted for them it wasn't enough to overcome the sheer number of minority voters who overwhelmingly support Democrats. A lot has been made out of this because it indicates that Republicans will need to get more people to vote for them beyond those who currently do so.
As indicated by some of the right-leaning comments on this and other sites, its fairly clear that their current base of voters probably isn't going to change. They will keep right on using the same talking points and arguments that are not appealing to minority voters. So this is more a conversation about what the Republican politicians plan on doing.
Its a potentially sticky situation. How to keep their traditional base happy yet at the same time appear to be reaching out to other groups? How do they move forward with a kind of rhetoric that is more inclusive versus exclusive? Lastly, is it possible for them to untangle themselves from the heavy influence of right wing entertainment and if so, would this be a good thing?
The thing is that Republicans will have to change if the hope to remain relevant in the future. So the question is how can they do it, and will they even do so?
#politics