Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[The Black Forrest]

I suspect to him "titles" means "Lord This" and "The Duke of That."

Oh! Titles of nobility That makes since. The republicans should hire you as a translator.

That may be but I suspect he is hinting at social classes as well. There is a great deal of anger towards the 1% who the Republicans tend to coddle, protect and enhance.

You have to give them credit. Talk about touching the upper classes and they prattle on about class warfare......

[New Conglomerate]

I suspect to him "titles" means "Lord This" and "The Duke of That."

That is the problem. He is stating the obvious.

Or, am I looking at this will an over edumacated viewpoint?

I don't know. The last people who argued that social classes were more or less fabrications by the left ended up marching on Rome. Ironic, given that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Googled has compared Obama to Mussolini one or two times.

[Natapoc]

I suspect to him "titles" means "Lord This" and "The Duke of That."

That is the problem. He is stating the obvious.

Or, am I looking at this will an over edumacated viewpoint?

I guess he speaks in a code that is impossible for those of us who did not go to bob Jones university or the local christian school to understand.

[Valkmar]

Considering the candidates for the election choices within the last 50 years, id much rather vote for a steaming pile of sh*t then a old rich guy with the thought process of a steamed vegetable.

[Dracoria]

Considering the candidates for the election choices within the last 50 years, id much rather vote for a steaming pile of sh*t then a old rich guy with the thought process of a steamed vegetable.

I'm kind of waiting for another Nixon. A beady-eyed, paranoid creature who doesn't (indeed cannot) rely on personal charisma or media affection, but who is extremely intelligent and rather moderate.

[Natapoc]

Oh! Titles of nobility That makes since. The republicans should hire you as a translator.

That may be but I suspect he is hinting at social classes as well. There is a great deal of anger towards the 1% who the Republicans tend to coddle, protect and enhance.

You have to give them credit. Talk about touching the upper classes and they prattle on about class warfare......

Oh they have no problem with class warfare. They simply realize that only one side is fighting and that's the side they are on.

[New Conglomerate]

Considering the candidates for the election choices within the last 50 years, id much rather vote for a steaming pile of sh*t then a old rich guy with the thought process of a steamed vegetable.

I'm kind of waiting for another Nixon. A beady-eyed, paranoid creature who doesn't (indeed cannot) rely on personal charisma or media affection, but who is extremely intelligent and rather moderate.

I'd be surprised if one of those showed up.

So far, you've got beady-eyed (Newt), paranoid (Paul), no charisma (Romney), no media affection (Santorum), and extremely intelligent and rather moderate (Huntsman) all separated and fighting with each other.

[Natapoc]

Considering the candidates for the election choices within the last 50 years, id much rather vote for a steaming pile of sh*t then a old rich guy with the thought process of a steamed vegetable.

I'm kind of waiting for another Nixon. A beady-eyed, paranoid creature who doesn't (indeed cannot) rely on personal charisma or media affection, but who is extremely intelligent and rather moderate.

Today Nixon would probably be to far left to even run for the democrats. He'd be more green party material.

[New Conglomerate]

I'm kind of waiting for another Nixon. A beady-eyed, paranoid creature who doesn't (indeed cannot) rely on personal charisma or media affection, but who is extremely intelligent and rather moderate.

Today Nixon would probably be to far left to even run for the democrats. He'd be more green party material.

I don't think so. Nixon would be somewhat out-of-place, but certainly not green-party material.

I'm not sure where a semi-hawkish law-and-order candidate who favors progressive-leaning economic policies would fit in our current political spectrum.

[Dracoria]

Today Nixon would probably be to far left to even run for the democrats. He'd be more green party material.

I don't think so. Nixon would be somewhat out-of-place, but certainly not green-party material.

I'm not sure where a semi-hawkish law-and-order candidate who favors progressive-leaning economic policies would fit in our current political spectrum.

He'd probably be considered a Blue Dog or some form of moderate Republican. Either way, someone the party in question would intend to knock off each and every primary. If he ran as independent without prior success in one of the major parties, he wouldn't even be a footnote. :/

[Natapoc]

I don't think so. Nixon would be somewhat out-of-place, but certainly not green-party material.

I'm not sure where a semi-hawkish law-and-order candidate who favors progressive-leaning economic policies would fit in our current political spectrum.

He'd probably be considered a Blue Dog or some form of moderate Republican. Either way, someone the party in question would intend to knock off each and every primary. If he ran as independent without prior success in one of the major parties, he wouldn't even be a footnote. :/

No Nixon would absolutely be to the left of the democrats (or on the far left of the dems). Just because he was not against the war does not change things.

Nixon supported guaranteed income. Say you support Basic Guaranteed Income today and even the democrats will call you socialist.

[Lackadaisical2]

I'm kind of waiting for another Nixon. A beady-eyed, paranoid creature who doesn't (indeed cannot) rely on personal charisma or media affection, but who is extremely intelligent and rather moderate.

Today Nixon would probably be to far left to even run for the democrats. He'd be more green party material.

Its true. He still had a badass foreign policy though.

[Dracoria]

He'd probably be considered a Blue Dog or some form of moderate Republican. Either way, someone the party in question would intend to knock off each and every primary. If he ran as independent without prior success in one of the major parties, he wouldn't even be a footnote. :/

No Nixon would absolutely be to the left of the democrats (or on the far left of the dems). Just because he was not against the war does not change things.

Nixon supported guaranteed income. Say you support Basic Guaranteed Income today and even the democrats will call you socialist.

He also supported the transfer of more power to the states and initially wasn't heavy on the left-leaning economics at first. Congress authorized the use of price and wage controls only because they thought Nixon wouldn't use them (based on his disapproval of such things earlier in his career) - then he did, using such controls as a tool to curb inflation. Likewise, he initially didn't think much on the environment until seeing how big Earth Day was in 1970, when Nixon realized the environment was politically useful and sought to take control of the situation.

He pushed for a health care plan that was more progressive than the one that was recently passed because Ted Kennedy had proposed an even more inclusive one - using it as a tool to take the winds from Congress's sails. I remember reading one of Ted's laments was that he hadn't supported Nixon's health care plan at the time, thinking they would be able to pass better.

I suppose what I liked about Nixon was that he pulled these weaselly little stunts that actually turned out to be effective compromises. It's like he did the right things for the wrong reasons - but they were the right things.

[Alien Space Bats]

Actually, that's what I envision in the event of a Republican defeat: The only thing is that, under the Seventh Party System, both of those parties - the moderate one and the progressive one - would be part of the same party.

Essentially, the two parties you'd like to see would be the two "wings" of the Democratic Party. Every two years they'd work together to keep the crazies on the right in check, and then when everyone got back to Washington, they'd negotiate with one another to set policy goals and enact legislation for the rest of that legislative session. The compromise and cooperation needed to run the government would occur within the auspices of a "big tent" Democratic Party, and the kind of "new partisanship" President Obama called for would be achieved by cooperation and consensus-building between the two.

The alternative, of course, would be for business interests and far-right fundamentalists to do the same thing within the auspices of the GOP, while the far left opposition struggled to stop them through the auspices of a marginalized Green Party or a crypto-Green Democratic rump. Every election cycle there would be confrontation between the left minority and the ruling party, resulting in the defeat of the left; between elections, policy would be made in smoke-filled rooms through negotiation between the various Republican factions while the left got their skulls bashed in out in the streets in protests, general strikes, and direct action.

Either way, I see a generation in which primaries and intra-party negotiation matter more than fall election results, and in which the marginalized faction - either far left or far right - is reduced to disaffected action in the streets.

That's a very strange vision you had.

Are Parties really that strong, that the defeat of one major party leads to One-Party rule? It's a horrible prospect: voters going to the polls have a choice between the factional representative which the Ruling Party has seen fit to run in their district, or a wasted vote for some other candidate who cannot win.

No. The two-party system would break. If the One Party was Democratic, a third party would arise (Tea Party, Whig Party, whatever voters could choose which didn't railroad them into supporting a faction of the One Party) ... or if the One Party was Republican then the Greens or the Socialist Party.

You don't get rid of Two Party so easily. It's institutional. It follows directly from the electoral method (one member geographical representation) and the institution of Democratic and Republican parties would crumble before it would devolve to One Party.

You should study party systems in America. About every 25-40 years, the fundamental character of our political parties changes. We've had periods in which parties weren't competitive (indeed, even today we have a great many districts and municipalities in which elections are not competitive; I live in Michigan's 15th District, where John Dingell has been our Congressman longer than I've been alive [since 1955, to be precise], while not far from here - in Oakland County - Republicans have run County government there for decades). The system I describe is very possible.

[Angleter]

I suspect to him "titles" means "Lord This" and "The Duke of That."

That is the problem. He is stating the obvious.

Or, am I looking at this will an over edumacated viewpoint?

I think he's harking back to the Constitution- the idea that "all men are created equal" as opposed to being categorised from birth as "working class," "middle class," etc., or indeed given noble titles. Which is a nice enough sentiment.

[Ashmoria]

Well, yeah. Better than many post-season games, though.

So who was the most outrageous in this debate?

I only tuned in during half-time, and got the gay-bashing segment. Gingrich made me the angriest, with his claim that "anti-Catholic bigotry" was responsible for ending Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts. I did know that story: it was not the people in the adoption agency who were saying same-sex couples were worthless as parents no matter how loving; they understood that religious views could not trump the state's anti-discrimination laws, and were sincerely trying to help kids who needed homes, and did not turn away anyone seeking to provide such homes; nor was it the state who shut them down; it was the bishops, who have never done anything charitable for kids in their lives (protecting foul abusers of kids in fact), who ordered them to start breaking the law, or be excommunicated from the church, or shut down. But since it was no use arguing with the set, I went back to the game.

when the question is posed correctly "should we be OK with the catholic church pulling out of the adoption business because they are unwilling to follow the law?" the answer of "it was their choice and we shouldnt change the law to appeal to bigots" is more obviously correct.

the church has done much good in the adoption business but they cant be allowed to hold that hostage so they can get their way on public policy.

[Ashmoria]

That is the problem. He is stating the obvious.

Or, am I looking at this will an over edumacated viewpoint?

I think he's harking back to the Constitution- the idea that "all men are created equal" as opposed to being categorised from birth as "working class," "middle class," etc., or indeed given noble titles. Which is a nice enough sentiment.

yeah he came out against using the term "middle class" but he was fine with using the term "blue collar workers"

i dont know what the difference is in his head when they are both "titles"

[Hippostania]

Rick Santorum's peformance in the Republican candidates debate is really impressing me. While Ron Paul rambled about isolationism like a senile old man, Santorum skillfully explained why that is wrong and how Paul has never accomplished anything!

[Grave_n_idle]

Rick Santorum's peformance in the Republican candidates debate is really impressing me. While Ron Paul rambled about isolationism like a senile old man, Santorum skillfully explained why that is wrong and how Paul has never accomplished anything!

Yep. Way to go, Santorum. You can beat-up the village idiot.

For your next fight, how about someone who can string together a coherent sentence and doesn't smell like pee?

[New Conglomerate]

Romney endorses national right to work legislation. He just lost the general election.

[The Black Forrest]

Are the republican candidates all crazy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16386176

It's interesting to see a Brit understands what is going on with the party. I love their ability to turn a phrase:

"That the debates at times have seemed like a parade of pygmies says something about the state of the Republican party, and I will return to that. "

I don't know why but the imagery just made me go

[Wikkiwallana]

Romney endorses national right to work legislation. He just lost the general election.

It's an asshole hat trick. I'm angrily impressed.

[Tmutarakhan]

I saw this gem while they were replaying clips: Rick Perry promised to go back into Iraq, "literally at the speed of light." Has he invented the transporter beam?

[Natapoc]

I saw this gem while they were replaying clips: Rick Perry promised to go back into Iraq, "literally at the speed of light." Has he invented the transporter beam?

Literally is no longer literally literally literally due to literacy. Like, literally.

[Dracoria]

I saw this gem while they were replaying clips: Rick Perry promised to go back into Iraq, "literally at the speed of light." Has he invented the transporter beam?

Literally is no longer literally literally literally due to literacy. Like, literally.

It's warfare terminology now. Haven't you heard of the USN's Literal Combat Ship projects?