Thanks for the kind words. I do have to admit, I'm entering into an intense phase in my book project where I'm seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and pushing hard to get to the goal, so I probably will not have a lot of time to be answering comments the next two or three weeks or so. Just fair warning, I'm not ignoring you and I still make time to read every comment everyone writes, but I'm bearing down on getting a book proposal ready and so have to apologize in advance if my participation here gets a little sketchy in the weeks to come. Tuesdays and Thursdays may get a little thin, too, in the article department (well, even thinner than they've been of late...).

Anyway, just wanted to thank you for the support in the meantime. I love to write articles like today's, on the generic theme of: "Everybody's reading the situation WRONG, and HERE'S WHY:" and will continue doing so in the meantime, never fear...

-CW

You definitely hit it. And Newt called him on it. It's kind of sad actually that Republicans will see Romney as a liberal for any mention at all of a social safety net.

If he wasn't playing "who's the most conservative" so hard, Romney doesn't seem like such a bad guy. But he's not so good at playing to the base. Why?

I think part of the problem conservatives face is that they've dug such a deep hole with their Ayn Randian rhetoric, that just about anyone who isn't reciting John Galt sounds like a liberal.

-David

Only if Congressional Republicans were stupid enough to give them that option, though.

Oh, I think they've amply demonstrated that they are plenty stupid enough.

What else would they have to do to convince you?

More disgustingness from the RW:
"We will see what happens with Obama. Israel may attack Iran. Europe may collapse. Something might happen, we don’t know." These guys are praying for disaster to happen so that Mittens can beat Obama.

Irrationality runs rampant.

The way some Democrats were talking about doing it, it maybe-sort-of requires the president of the Senate to be involved.

If the R's get 55 senators you'll see that 60 vote limit drop like a rock to 53-55. The the rules of the Senate can be changed by a majority vote at the start of any 2 year session.

Can't happen, though. Gaining 13 seats in the Senate, while losing the presidential election, is just impossibly skewed. It's going to be a big year for Republicans in the Senate, with 7 Democratic-caucus vacancies and only 2 Republican vacancies. But not that big. They would have to not only sweep the vacant seats but also pick up 6 of the 16 Democratic-caucus seats up for re-election. Knocking out 37% of incumbents in a US election? Not going to happen without something big that would affect the presidential race too.

Have you noticed what's been going on lately? Should the Republicans win an effective majority in the House and Senate this fall, then the executive branch will matter not a whit.

Congress does still matter, but the executive branch matters more. Most law is regulation, made in the executive branch. Foreign policy is almost entirely done in the executive branch.

Have you heard the latest ... the Republican plan is to forget about who wins the White House this fall.

They are now focused on the House and Senate races and have let it be known that whether it's a Republican or Democrat at the head of the executive branch, the legislative agenda will be completely set by Congress.

A Republican majority in the House and Senate will see to it that Obama will be completely "boxed out" or the Republican president will be completely "boxed in" and forced to "do the right thing", so to speak.

You have to hand it to Republicans in Washington and their enablers ... they dream big dreams. Heh.

No need to let that stop you. My record is dismal, but it's still fun.

But, somehow, I don't see 51% in the best state for Romney (outside Utah) as being the resounding victory everyone says it is.

When the Party is solidly resigned to its inevitable nominee, that's still a resounding primary victory for him. His ceiling in polls was in the 20s for a long time, so any majority means he's about doubled his numbers.

The number I had seen was a hair higher, either from partial results or from exit polls. Still, Newt isn't even on the ballot in what was it, Virginia.

it's actually kind-of a reaction to the increased power of the presidency under bush.

The presidency has been gaining ground at the expense of Congress for a long time, not just under Bush. FDR picked up the pace, but even he didn't start it.

Democrats and Republicans are definitely not the same. But they both breathe air, eat food, and so on. The shift of power from legislative to executive isn't a partisan matter.

of course they're not the same, but they interact within the same system of escalation. republicans overreach, then instead of standing up to that overreach, democrats innovate some sketchy tactic to dial it back. republicans appropriate said tactic to overreach even more, and the media treat it as equal because it's the same tactic.

rinse, repeat, and nobody learns anything, least of all the media. i'm not surprised that folks like michale think the two sides are exactly the same, because that's how every mainstream media outlet portrays them.

~joshua

yes, winters seem to treat him much better, except perhaps the winter of '09-'10. and even then his numbers slowed their decline from that summer. any theories on why the numbers have played out like that?

~joshua

Please don't try to tell me that the Republicans are just like the Democrats.

They are not.

liz,

it's actually kind-of a reaction to the increased power of the presidency under bush. they didn't mind such overreach when their own guy was doing it, but when it's the ultimate "other" wielding the power of the unitary executive, then congressional republicans suddenly must obstruct at all costs. one side goes too far and then complains to high heaven when the other side does it too. it's not just republicans either. the democrats were the ones who started the pro-forma sessions to stop excessive bush recess appointments, then the obama administration were long frustrated by the same tactic. it's an endless cycle of escalation that's been going on since the 1980's.

~joshua

This Republican primary season defies predictions and so, you're doing pretty well.

By the way, I hear that this isn't even the most important race in town. What's really important for the Republicans is to maintain control of the House and win absolute control of the Senate and then go on to "box out" President Obama or "box in" any Republican president and have the legislative agenda set entirely by Congress.

When did the congressional Republicans become so intent on usurping the Constitution? Heh.

i've never read either atlas shrugged or the fountainhead, but someday i might try just for the comedic value. i'd say the sci-fi/fantasy books that most impacted me as a pre-teen were ursula leguin's earthsea cycle, madeleine l'engle's murry-o'keefe series and raymond feist's magician trilogy. they weren't the only works i read, but they were the ones i read most.

~joshua

But, somehow, I don't see 51% in the best state for Romney (outside Utah) as being the resounding victory everyone says it is.

Sounds more like resignation to me.

Romney got an actual majority in Nevada. It's not just that the ABR vote is split. It's that the Party has accepted Romney as the nominee. When Gingrich has to buy his plane tickets and robo-calls out of his own pocket, he's not going to keep going for long.

I would replace "absolute" with "simplistic and not to be questioned". The left is more likely to espouse universal values, whereas the right is more likely to espouse American/Christian/whatever-group values. Also, moralistic assertions are much more important on the right, whereas actually doing the right thing is more important on the left.

If moral assertions are true or false, then they're something you might be mistaken about. If they're just an expression of feelings (usually at the level of a whole culture, not just an individual's feelings), then there isn't anything there to be wrong about. The left is much more likely to admit the possibility that we might be mistaken.

That's correct, but politically it's disastrous. Having phony morals makes it easy for the right to look moralistic. Having to struggle with real moral questions makes it impossible for the left to be unified, and easy for the right to smear us as amoral or immoral.

Well, OK, maybe not... looks like I spoke too soon...

Heh.

-CW

Now will you get a delete function around here!?

Just kidding. :)

:-)

-CW

Our 6 yo grandson just informed my wife that he was too old to take a bubble bath with her.

He's right. But she's devastated ... and happy (she HATES bubble baths!)

For R's people on welfare are there because they love it. For D's people are on welfare because they have no other options.

In the R world, violence is a first resort in diplomacy. In the D world violence is done after all else is tried.

In the R univers Right and Wrong are absolute. In the D world Right and Wrong are not clear cut. Circumstances change.

I could go on for hours, but others have done a much better job than I. The point I'm trying to make is that Romney is not hurting his chances of winning the nomination with these fluffs.

Unfortunately, except for firing up Obama's base, I'm not so sure that he's hurting his chances at the Presidency with these gaffs.

That was hilarious.

:)

Heh. That was funny. I've never read Atlas Shrugged, but tried to make it through the other one... The Fountainhead, maybe?... anyway, I got about two-thirds of the way through before I had to stop because the writing was just so incredibly bad...

-CW

Noteworthy lack of cynicism there.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
John Rogers

All in good fun, Liz, all in good fun.

:-)

-CW

When I was in high school I thought it was science fiction. L.Ron Hubbard too. Fortunately, I also read good science fiction so I thought Atlas Shrugged was about the most boring book ever written.

I would rather read a phone book. It's awful.

I do, however, believe that any reading is good reading and so when people bring up Atlas Shrugged, I try to point them at better works ...

http://thereckoner.com/?p=187

-David

Agreed.

Individual TP types seem to love RP. Where's the love going?

I think this question is tremendously interesting and the Republican primary has shined some light upon several interesting facets of the Republican party.

I'll warn you some of this will fall into the complete speculation category, but here's a little bit of what I think is going on.

I think you can break the Republican/Tea Party party down into the following categories:

1. Evangelical Christians
2. Traditional New England economic conservatives
3. The Ayn Randians
4. The South

There's some overlap among these and there's probably some other categories as well, but by and large these are probably the 4 big groups. Mormons might be an interesting 5th group that acts very similar to a combination of 1 & 2.

Notice that the Tea Party, per se, is not included in the breakdown. It's because the Tea Party is really a very similar mix. They don't seem to be as true of a split as the others. I think of them more as a re-branding of the Republican party.

The economic crisis, believe it or not, is what I think brought many of these splits to light because the GOP faced a huge identity crisis.

What to stand for? Trickle down economics wasn't exactly working.

So they've been fighting to rebrand themselves. The logic goes like this. The economic crisis didn't occur because of conservative policies, it occurred because true conservative economics was not being followed.

Hence the Tea Party re-branding. These are our true economic beliefs. We were just kidding the last time. Aspects of this new identity include an overzealous interest in deficits and a sudden discovery of Ayn Rand.

I don't think they've found this new identity quite yet though so they look quite disjointed (with the exception of their shared loathing for Obama).

Both you and Osbourne hit the nail on the head with "co-belligerency". That's about the only thing all these groups have in common right now. Maybe this hate is enough to unite them, but it's going to be a long term problem for them to define themselves only by who they hate.

What happens when the object of their hate goes away for example? You have to constantly keep finding someone new to hate (which they may very well be capable of doing, but eventually people will start to wonder if that's all they offer).

Anyways, how this has played out in the primaries:

- Romney has won the establishment Repubs and the Mormons
- Santorum and before him, Perry, won the evangelicals
- Paul wins the Ayn Randians
- Newt wins more votes in the South (probably because of his Georgia roots)

Romney also wins with the people who don't believe any of the other splinter groups are capable of beating Obama.

Remember, speculation ...
-David

Today's GOP is split into two parts, really: about 55% of the party would like to shut up about gays and abortion, while about 45% cannot shut up about gays and abortion. And yes, if there is anything on which they can rally together it is the usurping Kenyan in the White House. They share a hatred/fear/loathing -- what Jeff Sharlet calls "co-belligerency."

So why aren't they backing him?
What was with the clown car inanity in Iowa?
And why didn't they vote for him in SC or FL???

Something doesn't compute.

We know that they will back totally non-winnable candidates (O'Donnell, Miller, Palatino, Angle, ...) and we know they care little or nothing about what the R'main think. So why did he only get 5% in FL?

It CAN'T be because Newt is so beloved by the TP. For crying out loud, they've taken down people who have a far more rightwing attitude than ShowMeTheMoney Newt. The excitement generated by him in TP circles is positively anemic ... not to say non-existant.

As I said, I truly would like an answer because I think you're right. Individual TP types seem to love RP. Where's the love going?

I guess it depends what you mean by Tea Party. All the people I know who would call themselves Tea Party members love Ron Paul.

The people who don't like Ron Paul are the establishment GOP. The GOP wants the votes, but they don't really believe in any of that Ayn Rand stuff. Except when it suits them.

What Paul would bring as a VeeP candidate would be "authenticity" (if there can be any such thing in the GOP). And legions of dedicated volunteers.

I don't think it's going to happen either, but you have to admit, if you were Romney, it would be something to think about.

Heh.
-David

Ron Paul is not of the TP base. At least he doesn't think so.

Neither does Rush. It is quite likly that a Romney/Paul ticket would cause a revolution within the TP ranks and guarantee a 3rd party.

You also have to remember that the VP cannot overshadow the P nominee. We saw the effect of that in 2008. My guess from Romney will be Cheney type VP. An older, backbench version of Sarah Palin. Of course, I have yet to right about much of anything this year.

Internal factional divisions are showing in public for pretty much the first time at the national level. Those same fractures became public in 2010 bigtime: DE, AK, NV, CA, NY, CO statewide. Congressional districts were a montage of TP vs R'main across the nation. If the current POTUS were a white male, I don't think anyone would question the seriousness of these factions. But, he isn't a white male.

There will be a lack of enthusiasm for {fill in the blank} ... in MS, AL, GA, LA, TN and ID (to name a few). So what? The only real question will be whether the lack of enthusiasm carries over to OH, WS, PA, NH, FL, NC and a few others.

To be really simple about it, who cares what Obama's approval rating is in Massachusetts? He isn't going to lose MA. Further, who cares about the lack of enthusiasm for {fill in the blank} in Mississippi? {fill in the blank} won't lose MS.

You can whip up a lot of enthusiasm with the $$$ both sides have to spend in THIS election.

Maybe Obomney chooses him as a VP candidate?

Weirder things have happened (Sarah Palin). After all, he certainly wouldn't choose Gingrich and I doubt Santorum as well. But he needs someone from the base.

-David

Of course there's some racism against him: in a country of 300M people, there's some of darn near everything you can imagine. But the level of Obama-hate that Republican leadership is trying to appeal to just doesn't exist outside a relatively small cadre of Republican zealots who would feel a similar level of hatred toward Ronald Reagan if he showed up with a D after his name.

But winters seem to be much better for him. Nov-to-Feb seems like his best time of year...

-CW

R's heads are exploding. newter and mittens are tearing new ... and Obama keeps on keeping on.

To quote the King of the second Country in Asia to declare war on the US: 'Tis a puzzlement.

Especially when 7% and 13% (Paul, Santorum) are quite likely to sit this one out.

Interesting times, indeed.

Not only did Romney beat Gingrich by a meets-expectations margin: he also came within spitting distance of an actual majority.

I will seek it out!

Newtie's been interesting for a long time. As in the Chinese "may you live in interesting times" curse...

Heh.

-CW

You must watch it in its entirety. It was priceless.

Newt Gingrich, I am coming to understand, is an extremely interesting character.

Haven't heard his speech, just a brief excerpt. I did laugh at the "46 states to go!" signs, though. Newt's not going quietly into that good night, it seems...

-CW

Talk about alternate history. Maybe Newt is working on a new novel - one in which he wins the Republican nomination and goes on to ...

Romney, Mitt GOP 742,281 47%
Romney, Not GOP 828,621 52%

FL was expected to be a Romney state and the national Party establishment favors Romney. It's speculation, but it sounds plausible on first hearing.

Here's some more rampant speculation. What's the effect of Paul and Santorum running? A win for Romney.

Think about it. If you wanted to split the base, how would you do it?

First, you'd pick someone who was a pure evangelical. Someone to peel off the evangelical vote. Someone like Santorum.

Second, you'd run a libertarian. Who's supposedly more Libertarian than anyone? Paul.

Ok. Pure speculation. But regardless of intent, the result is a split Tea Party. This should be a lesson to the establishment Republicans. If you want to win, split the Tea Party vote.

-David

sheesh.

Elizabeth is right. The Paulites that are actually thinking about electing or influencing RonPaul don't think at all. They have no reason to leave the R party, because they are perfectly at home there at this time. Their political philosophy can be summed up by: I GOT MINE. STAY AWAY

Defining Libertarianism is quite difficult, because the 2 main branches (Left and Right) have only one thing in common: A profound distrust of coercive associations (re: government).

I've discussed the political process with a lot of people who consider themselves to be Right Libertarian. Uniformly, they consider the elective process to be fatally flawed, and participate only to promote discussion of alternative ideas of association. Their support of "mainstream" Libertarians like Ron Paul is predicated on the realization that candidates such as RP have no chance to win. This is a war for the soul of mankind. A revolution dedicated to changing the paradigm of government itself. To actually win a post in the current setup would defeat the cause. An excellent treatment of their ideas is found in Realizing Freedom. Oh, and the ones that I knew thought that Ayn Rand was a weirdo ... and a terrible author.

Left Libertarianism has as many different variants as there are bacteria in cheese. Paul Goodman wrote NY Times OpEd in 1968 that gives a good "feel" for left Anarchism in the late '60's. It should be noted that most LL supporters will have nothing to do with electoral system. Both the IWW and the CNT forbid member unions from endorsing any candidate running for political office.

Or the evangelical Christians ...

They can choose when to vote: that's a state action, under their control. But how on earth can they ignore the rule about proportional delegates, and issue a decision on behalf of the RNC credentials committee? The national convention is in their state, but that doesn't mean it's their show. Or does it?

If I were setting these "rules", I think I would be looking into booking a convention center in Ohio about now.

I'm not sure the Ron Paul supporters think things through that clearly.

yup.

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead — your next stop, the Twilight Zone.
—Rod Serling

When I wake up in the morning I go thru a litany of pain that reminds me of Michale.

sounds like you've had quite an eventful life, and i empathize with the feeling that others (myself included) don't appreciate or understand what you've been through. nonetheless, while michale is most definitely a pain in myriad body parts, i don't think it's fair to hold him personally responsible for events in which he most likely was not involved at all. if every single person in the country who has conservative views is held personally culpable for every evil done in the name of preserving misguided traditions, there wouldn't be many people left in the world to talk with. maybe i don't know jack about the civil rights struggle either, but i don't think i deserve to be put in the same sentence as the Klan or the Birchers because of it.

For one thing, it's not liberal. It's "liberal" on some of social issues: open bigotry against gays or Muslims doesn't get the same even-handed treatment that flat-earth anti-intellectualism does. That's important too, but it's not liberalism.

I coulda been chasing women.

Perhaps. I only know Michale online (though I recognize you're referring to a type).

Who's to know what the actual Michale is like?

I only know him from his posts here and I enjoy his sense of humor and know he believes that strength is the key to winning an argument. Better strong and wrong as some conservative friends of mine have phrased it.

I suppose I could argue other things about Michale based on some of the things he's said, but it would largely be reading something into his words without really knowing the guy. I'm just not sure what good that would do either of us.

It does sound like you have one helluva story though.

-David

I'm of course using Michale as a pointer to a type. A type that I've seen close up and intimate in a number of circumstances. When I wake up in the morning I go thru a litany of pain that reminds me of Michale.

I lost my right shoulder in '75 (Birchers, a baseball bat. I was on guard over a sewage ditch while Spanish speaking organizers were working.).

My left knee to the Posse in '86 in Central West Minnesota. They didn't like Indians getting postal delivery.

Both ankles to the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party, they were using Nunchucks)) in SF in '82. They didn't like the attempt to start a spousal abuse care unit in ChinaTown.

All I actually got from the Nazi's in '72 was a ticket for disturbing the peace. From Judge Goldberg. DA Rickstien acceded to the demand of defence attorney Lt. Isaac Scapiro for immediate remander to the Marines. I was fined 2.50 ... and given a carton of Marlboro's as I walked out.

You don't have to agree with me. I don't care. I know Michale. And America.

Michale stood by while I was hung from a bridge outside Holly Springs MS. '69 Pages 181-182

Michale stood by while I stomped into the ground by Nazis in '72

From nypoet:
money is a kind of power, and liberals (not to mention spider-man) believe that the greater the power you have, the greater the responsibility you have to use it for the public good.

From dsws in a similar vein:
Wealth redistribution, at least from a liberal perspective, is not about fairness. (As a political tactic, appeals to "fairness" do have a lot to do with it.) Liberals are people who care about liberty, and understand that all concentrations of power are a threat to liberty, not just government -- and that wealth is power.

I share both of these beliefs/values but would not have thought to phrase this way.

Anyone else? Thoughts?

Why don't we ever hear anything this good in the "liberal" media?

-David

Hey, DF. Or maybe Michale just hasn't heard someone explain the difference between fair and equal.

To his credit, he did say it was an over-characterization.

And to be honest, I haven't heard anyone in the media do a good job of presenting the liberal position. I felt lucky that I remember John Rawls' description - but do you ever see that in the media?

I disagree w/ Michale on a lot of things and it's tough because Michale comes off pretty strong in posts (we've just learned that that's Michale), but until I see otherwise I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not pushing right-wing propaganda.

-David

Luckily, I don't have to read Michale's bullshit to know what he's saying ... people keep quoting him to "refute" his words. It won't work. His words are not his ... they belong to the vast bumper sticker consipiracy.

He has said nothing that couldn't and HASN'T been put on a bumper.

"Fair" does NOT mean equal. Fair Taxes does not mean everyone pays x%.

Fair means it HURTS the same, in some existenalist sense.

If you have $10 and I take $2.50 you can only get 2 happy meals from McDonalds. For a family of 3 that means one goes hungry.

If you have 10,000,000 and I take 2,500,000 you buy 10 McDonalds Franchises @$750K K/per. "Fair" ??? not quite. For a Family of 3 that means that two of you will have to settle for only 3 franchises.

Let's see: Going hungry vs having only 3 MickeyD's franchises?

Nah. Not fair. Not even close.

Now the above is an example of Economic Analysis: Total Bullshit.

However, the principle is the same: Taking the Same percentage from the rich and the poor is NOT fair. If you are going to fund a social good (getting rid of the debt) you should take MORE from the rich.

Its called "graduated taxation". It works and is less UNfair than anything else we've got.

@dsws- I should have been more specific about this comment. I was thinking specifically in economic terms and was referring to a view of competition espoused by conservatives.

It's a view of competition where people are simply resources who should compete with each other in the open market, and, through this competition lower the price for business. This is what conservatives typically mean when they say competition. It's not competition between companies for consumers. It's competition between individuals to put pressure on wages. This is why many conservatives are against any type of organization (such as unions) which could put upward pressure on wages.

This is actually the only reason why I believe conservatives are so interested in promoting individualism. It's not because they particularly care about individual rights. But if they can eliminate people working together, they believe it can drive wages lower.

The 1% usage of "competition" is only valuable so far as it drives wages and benefits lower.

-David

close, it's about UN-redistribution. as evidenced by the tax rates of Mitt Romney and others of his income level, the ultra-rich are currently having what's left of everybody else's wealth redistributed TO them. while some lefties certainly want to turn the dial all the way back in the other direction, i think most would settle for just putting it back in the middle.

As has been amply proven, the rich already pay MORE than their "fair" share..

it's proven only that you and others on the right think so. you're measuring fairness based not on the percentage of their own money an individual pays, but by the percentage of the average person's money. i've said it before and i'll say it again, that statistic is the worst kind of lie. by percentage of their own income, much less their own wealth, the ultra-rich pay WAY less than the middle and upper-middle classes.

The only reason the Left wants the rich to pay more is because the Left believes that the rich can afford to...

that's definitely one of the reasons, but not the only one. money is a kind of power, and liberals (not to mention spider-man) believe that the greater the power you have, the greater the responsibility you have to use it for the public good.

Wanting a policy that's "good for everybody" (what economists call a "Pareto improvement") is universes away from trying to enforce absolute equality, which you were accusing us of supporting.

The entire "STICK IT TO THE RICH" meme coming from the Left is all about wealth redistribution..

As has been amply proven, the rich already pay MORE than their "fair" share.

Wealth redistribution, at least from a liberal perspective, is not about fairness. (As a political tactic, appeals to "fairness" do have a lot to do with it.) Liberals are people who care about liberty, and understand that all concentrations of power are a threat to liberty, not just government -- and that wealth is power.

A liberal is someone who thinks it's impossible to completely keep money from influencing government, and that therefore there's a level of wealth inequality that's incompatible with liberty, and who prefers preserving liberty over allowing unlimited inequality of wealth.

People can disagree. Your side would rather have trillionaires, even if it means that any one of their second-tier lawyers wields more power than the least-wealthy 99.9%, than have any governmental policy that would limit the concentration of wealth. It's very hard to argue for or against a position like that. You can argue over means, once you've got some level of agreement about fundamental values. But an argument requires premises, and if there are no premises that people already agree on, there's no way for any argument to persuade one side that they've got something wrong.

Part of the reason politics is so polarized today is that we have so little agreement on fundamental values.

[19] akadjian wrote:
It's about time we started remembering what country means and that it's not simply a collection of individuals out to gut each other to death in endless competition.

Gutting each other isn't competition. It's conflict.

Hear, hear ... It's about time we started remembering what country means and that it's not simply a collection of individuals out to gut each other to death in endless competition.

-David

And this is why I respect you. Please keep me honest as well if I over-characterize any of your positions.

BTW- I found a good example where I completely agree with a Republican position. I love Newt's idea to invest more in the space program. Even if it is aimed at Florida, it's still the kind of thing I'd like to see more of from our politicians.

I believe we need bigger ideas like this. Ideas, that even if they don't completely succeed, may lead to innovations in technology. I think he's been unfairly ridiculed for this in the media. A good idea is a good idea.

Also, for the record, I'd say that it's also hard for me to find Democratic ideas which I agree with 100%. Literally, I'm hard pressed to find one except the idea that the extremely wealthy should pay their fair share in taxes. I guess the difference is that I feel the Democrats, by and large, are headed in a better direction (much as you likely feel Republicans would take us in a better direction).

-David

OK, fair (no pun intended :D) enough...

EQUAL distribution was an over-characterization..

Michale

Google away. Please stick to America though and present day (or at least recent).

Even the standard right-wing boogeymen like Chomsky only advocate for fairer distribution of wealth. Not equal distribution.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/10/redistribute-the-wealth-yes-but-not-what-obama-proposes/

Everyone understands that incentives do matter and play a roll in a functioning system.

The issue we have is that, what happens when the distribution becomes exceedingly unfair. What happens, for example, if one person manages to own everything. Or, as it is in our present day, a few people.

You might say, well this is just fine. But I'd argue that this is when capitalism needs some help. Because if a few people own everything, they can distort markets, influence government, and basically dictate the terms of prices.

Riddle me this. In a functioning market, banks would compete for people's money which they could lend out to people at interest. In this type of market, you would tend to see fees being reduced and interest offered on accounts. Does this look like our current market?

In our current market, banks are competing to see how many hidden fees they can charge. There doesn't seem to be any competition working in the consumers favor. Why? Because, in effect, 6 banks own about 60% of the assets of the country. They, in effect, don't have to compete for market share.

This is the type of dysfunctional market I'd like to avoid.

Cheers
-David

As has been amply proven, the rich already pay MORE than their "fair" share..

The only reason the Left wants the rich to pay more is because the Left believes that the rich can afford to..

And, in that, they are probably right...

But that still doesn't change the fact that, no matter how you want to spin it, it's still just redistribution of wealth. From those that earn to those that don't deserve it..

Michale

Obama was (and IS) simply playing politics..

Again, you know how I know??

Because when we have a GOP president and the issue of the Debt Ceiling comes up again, Democrats will be right back to being AGAINST raising the Debt Ceiling, AFTER they were FOR raising the Debt Ceiling...

It's all politics...

dsws,

Great. Before you'll lift a finger (literally, from keyboard to mouse and back again) to substantiate your claims, we have to come up with a list of every nobody in the world whose blathering doesn't matter to anyone but could count as "left" if anyone did bother to read it.

How about President Obama??

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

Call me silly, but when someone says they want to "spread the wealth around", that it's "good for everybody".....

Well, that sounds an awful lot like distribution of wealth to me...

Wait for it... Wait for it....

"That's different".... :D

Michale...

You make a good point ... no, you make a very good point.

Great. Before you'll lift a finger (literally, from keyboard to mouse and back again) to substantiate your claims, we have to come up with a list of every nobody in the world whose blathering doesn't matter to anyone but could count as "left" if anyone did bother to read it.

Actually trying to make the US default on its debt is not reasonable.

When Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, he exposed himself as a less than knowledgeable politician and you cannot equate the effect of one ignorant politician against the ignorance of an entire political party in a position to do great damage to the economic well-being of an entire nation and beyond.

You simply cannot compare the consequences of what Obama did - which were non-existant, by the way - with the consequences of what the House Republicans did to precipitate the downgrade of the US credit rating.

That was not done on the basis of "political disagreement". That happened on the basis of doing everything in one party's power to ensure one president's defeat without any regard, whatsoever, for the well-being of the nation or of its people.

I disagree...

It was a purely political disagreement..

Do you know how I know?

Because, in 2008, when it was a Republican President, *Senator* Obama took the EXACT same position that the GOP took...

Politics, pure and simple..

And you DON'T call fellow Americans "terrorists" simply for political disagreement...

Joshua,

Well said.. I wouldn't argue a thing!!

Please don't do that too often... I have a reputation to maintain... :D

Bashi,

You have it all wrong.

Of course I do... :D

That's OK, as we will continue to remind you when you do it as well...

That's kewl.. We'll compare numbers at the end of the day... :D

David,

But that's just it, Michale. We don't.

*YOU* don't..

But the Left does....

Don't make me GOOGLE!!! :D

No one believes in equal distribution of wealth.

I say again...

Don't make me GOOGLE!!!

I bet you can't find me a person on the "Left" (living) who defines fair as everyone having an equal share. At least a person who anyone takes seriously.

Your gonna make me GOOGLE, aren't you!?? :D

OK, but first you'll have to tell me who on the Left you don't take seriously..

Then I'll have a list of names for you...

Michale

But that's just it, Michale. We don't.

This is what conservatives say the Left says.

In my economics book, there's a chapter on liberal, utilitarian, and libertarian views on wealth. The liberal view summarizes the position of John Rawls.

I'm stealing it because it's very similar to some of my beliefs and just every liberal I know.

He says, consider this thought experiment. Imagine that before any of us are born, we get together to define the rules for society. In this situation, no one knows where they're going to end up so there is concern for everyone.

So while you wouldn't want equal distribution because this would take away any incentives in society, at the same time you might want to provide some type of minimum for the poor in case you eventually fell into this category.

No one believes in equal distribution of wealth. But it makes a great straw man for that very reason, doesn't it?

Just thought you'd be interested. This is from Gregory Mankiw's "Principles of Economics".

I bet you can't find me a person on the "Left" (living) who defines fair as everyone having an equal share. At least a person who anyone takes seriously.

-David

Every day Americans define "fair" as everyone having the same *opportunity* to succeed. Not giving everyone equal success handed on a silver platter..

You have it all wrong. Americans, far from lazy, work some of the longest hours with the least amount of vacation in first world countries. The capitalist right sees China cleaning our clocks in manufacturing mainly due to China having an nineteenth century industrial age workforce that works long hours at low pay with very little worker protections, child labor law enforcement and a government that is extremely hostile to unions. Therefore the right is pursuing policies that increase the divide between rich and poor while eroding worker protections and other paths of opportunity. To compete in the modern world they see a need for our own cheap down trodden workforce...

I am sure I am going to remind everyone of those words the next time Democrats try to demonize fellow Americans or call Republicans "terrorists", or questions people's patriotism simply on the basis of political disagreement.

That's OK, as we will continue to remind you when you do it as well...

Every day Americans define "fair" as everyone having the same *opportunity* to succeed. Not giving everyone equal success handed on a silver platter..

i don't think that's an adequate explanation, and it leaves out the views on the Right. their attitude appears to be that everything is more than fair already and therefore you deserve what you get. just as many on the Left live in a dream-world of everyone deserving to have their needs met as a consequence of existing, the Right assumes that everyone whose needs aren't met must have been too lazy or talentless to earn a better life. that's just flat-out not the case.

everyday americans believe that people who are smart and work hard should have the resources available to improve the condition of their lives. people who are idle should not be rewarded just for sitting around. the tension here comes because sitting around and exploiting the work of others is currently rewarded at every income level, while hard work is only respected if you're fortunate enough to reach the top of the income scale.

"savagely shot"??? As opposed to "kindly shot" or "graciously shot"? It's a pet peeve of mine that people gild the lily when it adds nothing to the narrative.

No, as opposed to accidentally shot, as in the vice president accidentally shot his hunting mate in the face. Heh.

I am sure I am going to remind everyone of those words the next time Democrats try to demonize fellow Americans or call Republicans "terrorists", or questions people's patriotism simply on the basis of political disagreement.

That was not done on the basis of "political disagreement". That happened on the basis of doing everything in one party's power to ensure one president's defeat without any regard, whatsoever, for the well-being of the nation or of its people.

I liked the President's message of fairness. Everyone I grew up with (SW Mo. Hardscabble farms) regarded fair as having the same chance. A level playing field.

We also knew that the American Dream wasn't "fair". Rich kids got a better shake, but the government was there to give a helping hand. I knew many whose only meal of the day was the Gov't subsidised lunch at school. I only knew 1 person who went to college on his dime. All the rest of us got scholarships from Uncle Sam. I got mine from the Marines ... I knew a buncha them.

The current crop reactionaries want to save all that money by not giving grants, scholarships, food for kids, and so on. Its a shame. We now have a race of scorpions from the rich.