Grew up there, went to college there and started my career there.

Caucuses are tomorrow...

We were home over Christmas and the political circus was insane. I think my parents were getting about 40 calls a day from the candidates campaigns and their PACs.

This is a great response :hihi:

Warning - NSFW does contain some foul language, yes, even Iowans will swear when provoked.

Iowa Nice - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y)

-spence

Is that your brother?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a slight resemblance.

-spence

He's slightly more caustic than you (sometimes) are :jester:. Pretty funny.

What would your Dad think, Spence?
Have you converted him yet. :huh:

What would your Dad think, Spence?
Have you converted him yet. :huh:

He thought it was hilarious.

There's no conversion necessary. We talk politics all the time and usually agree on most things.

Aside from an evangelical contingent, most Iowan Republicans are pretty moderate.

-spence

He thought it was hilarious.

There's no conversion necessary. We talk politics all the time and usually agree on most things.

Aside from an evangelical contingent, most Iowan Republicans are pretty moderate.

-spence

Oh, my memory must be failing me as I thought you mentioned one time
your Dad was a Repub, and if so being most Iowans are Mod Repubs he
would be on a different page than you. :huh:

Oh, my memory must be failing me as I thought you mentioned one time
your Dad was a Repub, and if so being most Iowans are Mod Repubs he would be on a different page than you. :huh:
I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...


The right Republican

Although the presidency is theirs for the taking, America’s Republicans are in danger of throwing it away

Dec 31st 2011 Print Edition

IN JANUARY the battle to become the world’s most powerful person begins—with small groups of Iowans “caucusing” to choose a Republican nominee for the White House. It is a great opportunity for them. Barack Obama is clearly beatable. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has been re-elected with unemployment as high as it is now; Mr Obama’s approval rating, which tends to translate accurately into vote-share, is down in the mid-40s. Swing states like Florida, Ohio and even Pennsylvania look well within the Republicans’ grasp.

Yet recent polls show the president leading all his rivals: an average of two points ahead of Mitt Romney, eight points over Ron Paul and nine points over Newt Gingrich, according to RealClearPolitics.com. No doubt some rather flawed personalities play a part in that; but so does the notion that something has gone badly wrong with the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Rather than answering the call for a credible right-of-centre, pro-business party to provide independents, including this newspaper, with a choice in November, it is saddling its candidate with a set of ideas that are cranky, extreme and backward-looking.

That matters far beyond this election—and indeed America’s shores. Across the West nations are struggling to reform government. At their best the Republicans have combined a muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualism and entrepreneurial pragmatism. It is in everybody’s interests that they become champions of such policies again. That is not impossible, but there is a lot of catching up to do.

Please sign on the dotted line

Optimists will point out that the Republicans, no less than the Democrats, tend to flirt with extremes in the primaries, then select an electable moderate (with Mr Romney being the likely winner this time). America is a conservative place; every Republican nominee, including those The Economist has backed in the past, has signed up to pretty uncompromising views on God, gays and guns. But even allowing for that, the party has been dragged further and further to the right. Gone are the days when a smiling Reagan could be forgiven for raising taxes and ignoring abortion once in office. As the Republican base has become ever more detached from the mainstream, its list of unconditional demands has become ever more stringent.

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney). Several promisingly pragmatic governors, including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, never even sought the nomination. Jon Huntsman, the closest thing to a moderate in the race (who supports gay marriage and action to combat climate change), is polling in low single figures.

More depressingly, the fatwas have stifled ideas, making the Republican Party the enemy of creative positions it once pioneered. The idea of requiring every American to carry health insurance (thus broadening the insurance pool and reducing costs) originated in the conservative Heritage Foundation as a response to Clinton-care, and was put into practice by then-Governor Romney in Massachusetts. All this Mr Romney has had to disavow, just as Mr Gingrich has had to recant his ideas on climate change, while Rick Perry is still explaining his appalling laxity as governor of Texas in allowing the children of illegal immigrants to receive subsidised college education.
On the economy, where this newspaper has often found the most common ground with the Republicans, the impact has been especially unfortunate. America’s commercial classes are fed up with a president they associate with big government, red tape and class warfare. A Republican could stake out a way to cut the deficit, reform taxes and refashion government. But instead of businesslike pragmatism, there is zealotry. The candidates have made a fetish out of never raising taxes (even when it involves getting rid of loopholes), while mostly ignoring tough decisions about cutting spending on defence or pensions. Such compassionless conservatism (slashing taxes for the rich and expenditure on the poor) comes with little thought as to which bits of government spending are useful. Investing in infrastructure, redesigning public education and maintaining unemployment benefits in the worst downturn since the Depression are hardly acts of communism.

We didn’t leave you; you left us

Elections are decided in the middle. If the Republicans choose an extreme candidate, they can hardly be surprised if independents plump for Mr Obama, or look to a third-party candidate. But there could be two better outcomes for them.

The first would be if Mr Romney secures a quick victory, defies his base and moves firmly to the centre. In theory, there is enough in his record to suggest that he may yet be the chief executive America needs, though such boldness is asking a lot of a man who still seems several vertebrae short of a backbone (John McCain, a generally braver man, flunked it in 2008). The alternative is that the primary race grinds to a stalemate, with neither Mr Romney nor one of his rivals able to secure victory. Then a Bush, Daniels or Christie just might be tempted into the contest. It is a sad commentary that this late in the day “the right Republican” does not even seem to be running yet.

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...

Is it possible to "combine a muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualism and entrepenurial pragmatism," yet still have differing opionions on "God, gays, and guns"? Or different views on taxes, abortion, immigration, environment, health insurance, Israel, and regulatory agencies? Or must the "right Republican" have the "correct" views on all these issues (presumably the infallilble middle/moderate position). And if it is not possible to have different (extreme--that which differs from the middle) views, the middle will automatically "plump for Mr. Obama" who must then, presumably, have the correct middle views. But if he does, then wouldn't the middle vote for him regardless? This is presuming, of course, that he also has the correct "muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualsim and entrepeneurial pragmatism," or that they either aren't paying attention, don't care, or don't have a clue about those things. Of course, If Obama does have those correct attributes as well as the correct middle views on the other stuff--he's in! Why bother about "the right Republican?"

But if the middle insists that it will only vote for a candidate with those correct middle views, then isn't it being as extreme as those even further to the right Republicans?

Isn't it more likely that different "Republican" candidates, as well as different Republican voters, have different views and are not all going to insist that candidates must "sign on the dotted line" for all the correct views? When it comes to the final vote, won't some more simple common threads that divide the parties make the difference, and won't the middle/independent voters have to decide on the difference in those common threads? And when we speak of that middle, aren't there, even in it, differing opinions in all those points ascribed to it?

But, I suppose, it's comforting to compartmentalized minds to have solid categories--right, left, middle--in order to percieve a well-ordered, predictable world.

Isn't it more likely that different "Republican" candidates, as well as different Republican voters, have different views and are not all going to insist that candidates must "sign on the dotted line" for all the correct views?
I think this is the crux of the article.

Hell. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are running for the same slot!

The identity of the "conservative" is a much bigger tent than the identity of the "liberal" in American politics. Usually less than 20 percent of Americans would even self describe themselves as "liberals".

Compare the USA to other successful nations like Australia and most of our Democrats are to the "right" of their Right Wing!

Icons like Reagan wouldn't even be on the GOP primary ballot given the politics of today, yet he led in many ways (not all certainly) as a pragmatist.

There's ideology and there's leadership. The joke that is the Republican primary is all the proof necessary that the party doesn't seem to understand what it really wants.

Ultimately they'll settle on what the enthusiastic crowd sees as the least worst. Fortunately for all of us he's not a terrible choice...

I have confidence in the end we'll have a good race for the next POTUS.

-spence

I think this is the crux of the article.

Hell. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are running for the same slot!

The identity of the "conservative" is a much bigger tent than the identity of the "liberal" in American politics. Usually less than 20 percent of Americans would even self describe themselves as "liberals".

Compare the USA to other successful nations like Australia and most of our Democrats are to the "right" of their Right Wing!

Icons like Reagan wouldn't even be on the GOP primary ballot given the politics of today, yet he led in many ways (not all certainly) as a pragmatist.

There's ideology and there's leadership. The joke that is the Republican primary is all the proof necessary that the party doesn't seem to understand what it really wants.

Ultimately they'll settle on what the enthusiastic crowd sees as the least worst. Fortunately for all of us he's not a terrible choice...

I have confidence in the end we'll have a good race for the next POTUS.

-spence

Sounds like you're confidently in the bag for status quo. But nobody seems to be satisfied with how it is. Down the same road regardless who, eh? If the election depends on the middle, the middle must be satisfied with the status quo (i guess that's sort of a definitionf of middle--status quo). Yet everybody bitches about the results--they keep on voting for the same middle and keep getting the same crappy results. Ain't that somebody's definition for insanity?

Sounds like you're confidently in the bag for status quo. But nobody seems to be satisfied with how it is. Down the same road regardless who, eh? If the election depends on the middle, the middle must be satisfied with the status quo (i guess that's sort of a definitionf of middle--status quo). Yet everybody bitches about the results--they keep on voting for the same middle and keep getting the same crappy results. Ain't that somebody's definition for insanity?

No, we certainly need to address our structural issues. Both parties are in denial here IMHO.

Some real time stats just for you guys...My father just returned (minutes ago) from the Republican Caucus at the elementary school I attended. I'd note it's a mixed but relatively professional community.

Undecided 1
Huntsman 2
Bachmann 7
Perry 12
Gingrich 25
Paul 29
Santorum 39
Romney 84

-spence

No, we certainly need to address our structural issues. Both parties are in denial here IMHO.

Some real time stats just for you guys...My father just returned (minutes ago) from the Republican Caucus at the elementary school I attended. I'd note it's a mixed but relatively professional community.

Undecided 1
Huntsman 2
Bachmann 7
Perry 12
Gingrich 25
Paul 29
Santorum 39
Romney 84

-spence

Seems like latest results have Romney and Santorum tied at 24% and Santorum is rising.

Structural issues . . . both parties in denial . . . duh, ain't that . . .like, the status quo?

i thought the video was great. I had no idea iowa was a state.

i thought the video was great. I had no idea iowa was a state.

Thats funny.
when you put up pictures of you with long hair, I had no idea you were a man....


Interesting turn with Santorum climbing... I read one reuplican blog who (to paraphrase) said 'Oh great, Rickie Santorum, the only politician dumber than Obama'......
It will make NH, and more interestling, SC fun to watch....

Thats funny.
when you put up pictures of you with long hair, I had no idea you were a man....


Interesting turn with Santorum climbing... I read one reuplican blog who (to paraphrase) said 'Oh great, Rickie Santorum, the only politician dumber than Obama'......
It will make NH, and more interestling, SC fun to watch....

He's just the flavor of the month for the whackos in the GOP base who won't vote for Romney because they believe that he's a devil worshipper. :rollem:

I Agree. Romney will be the Nominee, but if Perry, Bachman et al. bow out, then he will get a bump from the religious right.... Romney will sweat a bit more with that, and 'No More Mr. Nice Guy Newt....'

Bachmann Bowed Out.....

He's just the flavor of the month for the whackos in the GOP base who won't vote for Romney because they believe that he's a devil worshipper. :rollem:

they wont back romney becuause he is to the left of obama on key issues. romney was responsible for the blueprint of obamacare, the repubs biggest issue, he's squishy on immigration. He campaigned for the last 4 years and finished in Iowa EXACTLY where he was 4 years ago, he hasnt made any headway. He is getting votes because he is viewed as the most electable and the rest of the candidates are a joke. Unless the independants get behind romney, its 4 more years of O guaranteed. Im pretty sure I stay home on election day

Interesting turn with Santorum climbing... I read one reuplican blog who (to paraphrase) said 'Oh great, Rickie Santorum, the only politician dumber than Obama'......
It will make NH, and more interestling, SC fun to watch....
Exit polling showed something like 60% of voters were Evangelical or Born-again Christians. Is it really that surprising that a social conservative "came out of nowhere"?

Now that he's the flavor of the week, it'll be interesting how he deals with questions like being named the "Most Corrupt Congressman" in 2006. Newt had to answer to his infidelities while at the top, Santorum will not have to answer to this.

Another interesting part of the exit polling was who did and didn't vote for Paul: he got 48% of Independents, over half of the 17-29y/o crowd and (if I remember correctly) only 18% of baby boomers. If the numbers are similar going forward, it demonstrates that "business in Washington as usual" candidates aren't going to fly with the younger crowd. Also, as the baby boomers start dying off, there is a potential for a political evolution moving forward. Obviously, that's a far too deep look into what's merely a sliver of the nation but, I'm actually pretty curious to see how the next few polls work out in terms of the details of demographics each candidate is attracting.

they wont back romney becuause he is to the left of obama on key issues.

Huh?

romney was responsible for the blueprint of obamacare, the repubs biggest issue,

Actually the individual mandate, which Romney has never advocated at the federal level, was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation.


he's squishy on immigration.
His position has moved to the right a bit erratically, but the furthest left it's ever been is still similar to President Bush.

He campaigned for the last 4 years and finished in Iowa EXACTLY where he was 4 years ago, he hasnt made any headway.
No, 4 years ago he finished a distant second 10 points behind Huck. This time he finished in first, over 4 points ahead of Paul who was expected to win.

He is getting votes because he is viewed as the most electable and the rest of the candidates are a joke. Unless the independants get behind romney, its 4 more years of O guaranteed. Im pretty sure I stay home on election day
Isn't that the point, to get elected?

Agree the field is weak overall but the lackluster support for Romney seems to be more about his moderate stances on some domestic issues more than his ability to be a strong executive. He may not rally the religious right, but unless you're really anti-Mormon Republicans and a lot of Independents will vote for Romney over Obama.

Romney will likely shift back to the middle and pick a moderate VP like Condi. If so he has a very good chance of beating Obama.

That's the entire point of the article I posted.

-spence

Huh?



Actually the individual mandate, which Romney has never advocated at the federal level, was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation.

as governor for a liberal state he passed mandatory healthcare legistlation. Repubs dont like that, period.


No, 4 years ago he finished a distant second 10 points behind Huck. This time he finished in first, over 4 points ahead of Paul who was expected to win.

No - In the 2008 Republican Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney received 30,021 votes, 25% of the total, In the 2012 caucuses, Romney received 30,015 votes, 25% of the total. Not a lot of headway Spence.

GWB did a lot of damage to repubs and most dont believe he was convervative. I think repubs may stay home so not to risk further tarnishing their reputation.


-spence

taken from another article which sums up my view-
After 39 months of consistent public hostility to bailout economics, after the rise of the tea party movement, after town-hall opposition to "Obama care," after the long-shot Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, after the 2010 limited-government resurgence in the House of Representatives ... after all of these unmistakable signs of public -- let alone Republican -- sentiment, the alleged party of limited government may be on the verge of nominating someone who is running to President Barack Obama's left on Medicare, who helped pave the way for the Obama policy Republicans hate most and who has no real plan for cutting the biggest growth items in the federal budget.

s governor for a liberal state he passed mandatory healthcare legistlation. Repubs dont like that, period.
Very similar to what was proposed by a leading conservative think tank and subsequently applauded by the self described "most principled conservative" in the race.

What Romney enacted in Massachusetts certainly isn't Obama care.

No - In the 2008 Republican Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney received 30,021 votes, 25% of the total, In the 2012 caucuses, Romney received 30,015 votes, 25% of the total. Not a lot of headway Spence.
Jimmy jimmy jimmy...

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum made serious investments to mobilize support across the entire state while Romney largely ignored Iowa until just before the caucus. Santorum made a late run because of some effective campaigning as well as being the only player left to pick up the evangelical support left by Bachmann and Perry.

So in context of 2012, Romney did pretty well. I don't think anyone expects Paul, Santorum or Gingrich to do well in New Hampshire. In fact, I think Gingrich will get knocked out or nearly out before he has a chance to gain some momentum with a success down south.

Huntsman could benefit from all of this coming out of New Hampshire, but Romney is clearly in the lead.

taken from another article which sums up my view-
After 39 months of consistent public hostility to bailout economics, after the rise of the tea party movement, after town-hall opposition to "Obama care," after the long-shot Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, after the 2010 limited-government resurgence in the House of Representatives ... after all of these unmistakable signs of public -- let alone Republican -- sentiment, the alleged party of limited government may be on the verge of nominating someone who is running to President Barack Obama's left on Medicare, who helped pave the way for the Obama policy Republicans hate most and who has no real plan for cutting the biggest growth items in the federal budget.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. Who ever wrote it clearly knows nothing about Romney care or his quite detailed economics plan.

-spence

fact remains Romney did not gain any more that he had in 2008. Same exact %. Thats important.
You can argue all you want but as the last few months have proven, repubs are going for anyone but Romney. iChrist - wasnt it time or newsweek that had a headline " why dont they like me" with Romneys mug on it? He has few passionate supporters. It aint his religion, its his lack of credibility and changing of his story to fit the current need. He is an oportunist and is viewed as such.

they wont back romney becuause he is to the left of obama on key issues. romney was responsible for the blueprint of obamacare, the repubs biggest issue, he's squishy on immigration. He campaigned for the last 4 years and finished in Iowa EXACTLY where he was 4 years ago, he hasnt made any headway. He is getting votes because he is viewed as the most electable and the rest of the candidates are a joke. Unless the independants get behind romney, its 4 more years of O guaranteed. Im pretty sure I stay home on election day

You're giving them way too much credit. Santorum ran strong in Iowa because 60% of the voters who turned out believe that LDS is a false religion that was formed by a false prophet, and a significant percentage of those believe that they are idol worshippers.

NH's Republicans are just as fiscally conservative, just as anti-immigrant, as any state's, and Romney currently leads there by double digits. And BTW---they, among all voters, should know Romney's record as governor.

I fully expect to see another round of attacks targeting Newt Gingrich from the WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard etc...

-spence

and Mitt, Mr Pinocchio

I'd like to know how we didn't end up with an Amway on every corner?

You're giving them way too much credit. Santorum ran strong in Iowa because 60% of the voters who turned out believe that LDS is a false religion that was formed by a false prophet, and a significant percentage of those believe that they are idol worshippers.

NH's Republicans are just as fiscally conservative, just as anti-immigrant, as any state's, and Romney currently leads there by double digits. And BTW---they, among all voters, should know Romney's record as governor.

You're referring to less than a hundred thousand people vs. millions in the repub party. I'm not out on a limb here, every single pundit shares the same view. In a period of increased focus on conservatism among voters, Romney is a weak candidate. He will get the nomination but reluctantly.

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...



Copy slower, I can't read that fast. :D

here is the article

Why Romney's front-runner status is nuts - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/opinion/welch-gop-iowa/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9)

Santorum: anti-birth control, pro medicare part d

VIAGRA FOR EVERYONE!

If by some reason Santorum could pull this off, we all get to see first hand what conservative means away from the coasts. I wager that most on both sides of the aisle won't like it.

If by some reason Santorum could pull this off, we all get to see first hand what conservative means away from the coasts. I wager that most on both sides of the aisle won't like it.

Nobody will notice him, we'll all have raging boners!

Nobody will notice him, we'll all have raging boners!

Must... not... respond :lama:

here is the article

Why Romney's front-runner status is nuts - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/opinion/welch-gop-iowa/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9)

Romney isn't sexy, he's a bit smarmy and the Right doesn't like his changing positions to appear more "conservative".

That being said, he's perhaps the smartest person in the group that has an executive mindset. Yes, he's not perfect, but he's the best GOP candidate to potentially beat Obama.

What's so hard to understand?

-spence

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...

The Economist, by implying that Republicans are flirting with extremist requirements of their candidates, is, as Spence likes to say, the pot calling the kettle black. It narrows the requirements to extremely narrow and untrue parameters, and disregards the apparent diversity of views both by the candidates and the voters. It's not true that all require that abortion has to be illegal in all cases, nor even in common cases. Most understand that it should be, as it once was, a State issue, and some have called for a federal ammendment only because in those States that have voted for the ban, the constitutional will of the people has been overturned by a Court. But such an ammendment is not the responsibility of the POTUS, so is not an election issue, and there is no debate or requirement in the campaigns. There is no unanimous requirement that all illegal immigrants summarily be deported--not by all voters nor by all candidates. But there is a consensus that illegal is illegal and some method of legalization must be accomplished and the continued influx of illegal entry be stopped. Neither the voters nor the candidates believe that the 46 million that don't have health insurance "have only themselves to blame," but most believe that the Federal Gvt. has no authority to mandate that all must buy it. Again, most believe it is a State issue. There is no solid Republican conspiracy that says global warming is a conspiracy. Most believe there is warming, most don't believe it is either as serious, nor as man made as claimed, and some do believe that there is a political agenda influencing the attempt to create a worldwide government control of emmisions which would unnecessarily cripple the global and especially the U.S. economy. There is no massive belief that any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Most believe in at least some form of basic licensing qualifications and there is a diversity even in the degree of regulation. There is no irrevocable requirement against any or all forms of tax increase. There is certainly a strong desire to reform the tax code. I have not heard the extreme view that Israel can do no wrong or that the Palestinians can do no right. There is strong discussion and desire, but no absolute requirement to abolish all regulatory agencies. And there is a very valid discussion as to the Constitutionality and propriety of those agencies, and to the defacto legislative transfer of power to them so that we have a growing and already huge administrative form of central gvt. rather than a representative one, which is not only unconstitutional, but goes against the Economist's call for sound economics, individualism, and entrepeneurial pragmatism--as do, frankly, lax immigration, government mandated insurance, and unsound anti-business tax increases.

The above views are characterized as cranky, extreme and backward-looking. That is certainly debateable, but they can be colored so if the views are distorted toward the extreme as the Economist has done. And the Economist has some further cranky and extreme depictions such as "uncompromising views on god." So what God does the Economist understand to call for a compromised belief? The Republican electorate is religiously diverse. As are the candidates. Some voters may not vote for a Mormon. Most will. John Kennedy overcame the anti-Catholic prejudice. Such is the price of individualism. And this business that the Republican party is being "dragged further to the right" instead of remaining predominantly right of center. To the right of what? To the right of the Founders? To the right of Abe Lincoln or, to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom it mentions as models? Or Reagan, who had a very different Democratic party to deal with. A Democrat party that was farther to the right of the present day Democrats than the Republican party is to the right of the Founders, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan. The Republican party, in case the Economist has not noticed, has been dragged far to the left of what it once was. Any shift to the right is a necessary corrective if we wish to preserve the republican, representative, constitutional form of government which, I assume, the economist would wish to be preserved. "Right of center" has shifted to the left as well, since the "center" moved with the leftward shifted parties. If elections depend on the vote of the "center," we need a national, educational, discussion on what the center should be--citizens of a government founded on established principles of individual liberty, or collective dependants of centrally orchestrated social experiments.

The Economist, by implying that Republicans are flirting with extremist requirements of their candidates, is, as Spence likes to say, the pot calling the kettle black. It narrows the requirements to extremely narrow and untrue parameters, and disregards the apparent diversity of views both by the candidates and the voters. It's not true that all require that abortion has to be illegal in all cases, nor even in common cases. Most understand that it should be, as it once was, a State issue, and some have called for a federal ammendment only because in those States that have voted for the ban, the constitutional will of the people has been overturned by a Court. But such an ammendment is not the responsibility of the POTUS, so is not an election issue, and there is no debate or requirement in the campaigns. There is no unanimous requirement that all illegal immigrants summarily be deported--not by all voters nor by all candidates. But there is a consensus that illegal is illegal and some method of legalization must be accomplished and the continued influx of illegal entry be stopped. Neither the voters nor the candidates believe that the 46 million that don't have health insurance "have only themselves to blame," but most believe that the Federal Gvt. has no authority to mandate that all must buy it. Again, most believe it is a State issue. There is no solid Republican conspiracy that says global warming is a conspiracy. Most believe there is warming, most don't believe it is either as serious, nor as man made as claimed, and some do believe that there is a political agenda influencing the attempt to create a worldwide government control of emmisions which would unnecessarily cripple the global and especially the U.S. economy. There is no massive belief that any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Most believe in at least some form of basic licensing qualifications and there is a diversity even in the degree of regulation. There is no irrevocable requirement against any or all forms of tax increase. There is certainly a strong desire to reform the tax code. I have not heard the extreme view that Israel can do no wrong or that the Palestinians can do no right. There is strong discussion and desire, but no absolute requirement to abolish all regulatory agencies. And there is a very valid discussion as to the Constitutionality and propriety of those agencies, and to the defacto legislative transfer of power to them so that we have a growing and already huge administrative form of central gvt. rather than a representative one, which is not only unconstitutional, but goes against the Economist's call for sound economics, individualism, and entrepeneurial pragmatism--as do, frankly, lax immigration, government mandated insurance, and unsound anti-business tax increases.

The above views are characterized as cranky, extreme and backward-looking. That is certainly debateable, but they can be colored so if the views are distorted toward the extreme as the Economist has done. And the Economist has some further cranky and extreme depictions such as "uncompromising views on god." So what God does the Economist understand to call for a compromised belief? The Republican electorate is religiously diverse. As are the candidates. Some voters may not vote for a Mormon. Most will. John Kennedy overcame the anti-Catholic prejudice. Such is the price of individualism. And this business that the Republican party is being "dragged further to the right" instead of remaining predominantly right of center. To the right of what? To the right of the Founders? To the right of Abe Lincoln or, to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom it mentions as models? Or Reagan, who had a very different Democratic party to deal with. A Democrat party that was farther to the right of the present day Democrats than the Republican party is to the right of the Founders, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan. The Republican party, in case the Economist has not noticed, has been dragged far to the left of what it once was. Any shift to the right is a necessary corrective if we wish to preserve the republican, representative, constitutional form of government which, I assume, the economist would wish to be preserved. "Right of center" has shifted to the left as well, since the "center" moved with the leftward shifted parties. If elections depend on the vote of the "center," we need a national, educational, discussion on what the center should be--citizens of a government founded on established principles of individual liberty, or collective dependants of centrally orchestrated social experiments.

While I'd agree that there is some rationality within identified Republicans themselves, the point of the article is that inside the beltway things are so extreme the GOP has lost the rational moderate appeal found in a Reagan, Goldwater or Bill Buckley.

It's like every issue has become a litmus test.

I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.

-spence

Also regarding the recent recess appointments.

The situation appears to be that Republicans were blocking the appointment on ideological grounds, where they opposed the laws the appointment was intended to oversee. Without the appointment that area of government would cease to function.

If anything it looks like Republicans were intentionally impeding the President's Constitutional authority to execute existing US law.

Perhaps the real question here is if a pro forma recess is really a recess? I don't think the Constitution is really clear here. It doesn't seem to pass the smell test regardless of who's doing it.

-spence

While I'd agree that there is some rationality within identified Republicans themselves, the point of the article is that inside the beltway things are so extreme the GOP has lost the rational moderate appeal found in a Reagan, Goldwater or Bill Buckley.

Extremism defined by a moderate is a contradiction, and moderation in defence of moderate views is a self-congratulatory vice. That's how I read the article, regardless of what point you or the author thought he was making. As you pointed out elsewhere, so-called "right wingers" in other "successful" countries (such as Australia--and, I presume, England) are to the left of American Democrat "left wingers." So, then, certainly their view of what is "extreme" in Amercian politics would be way left of what actual American "conservatives" would consider extreme. Reagan, Goldwater, or Buckley, would not consider the views that the Economist considered cranky or backward looking as extreme. They would not require a "litmus test" affidavit to be signed by candidates, but most Republicans don't require it either. That some do on abortion in order to get their vote, that's their prerogative. Most of the Republican electorate doesn't subscribe to that. If a candidate will support the pro-life view, he can so sign, or he can sign even if he doesn't--politicians are consumate liers. A hypocritically or sincerely signed affidavit is no different than a campaign promise. Campaign promises are not some new radical-right tactic that all of a sudden deviate from your "rational" moderate appeal. Campaign promises have always done that. No politician campaigns on maintaining a "rational" moderate status quo. Obama won on promises of Hope (not a rational methodolgy) and Change--fundamental transformation (not a moderate proposal).

It's like every issue has become a litmus test.

That's the picture the Economist, with exageration, tries to paint. They take the demands of some pro-lifers, not all Republicans, and magically spread the paint on the entire canvass of "every issue." It's just not true. By the way--Reagan, and Buckley were very pro-life. Especially Buckley, who was one of the strongest anti-abortion advocates on a natural law basis. Pro-life, anti-abortion is not an "extreme" view.

I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.

-spence

"Nice" perspective? I'd say its a British perspective imposed on American politics.

BTW--what happened to all the posts from Jan. 6. They seem to have been deleted?

Also regarding the recent recess appointments.

The situation appears to be that Republicans were blocking the appointment on ideological grounds, where they opposed the laws the appointment was intended to oversee. Without the appointment that area of government would cease to function.

However you, or whatever opinion you read think the situation "appears" to be--and that opinion and those laws and that agency are formed partially if not wholly on"ideological" grounds--the appointment is supposed to be debated in the Senate for its advice and consent. So long as Congress is not in recess, a recess appointment cannot be made. These appointments were not made in time for the debate, a move that Obama made to circumvent that Constitutionally mandated debate. He wanted to wait for a recess to block that debate. Who is blocking who is a matter of politically slanted opinion.

If anything it looks like Republicans were intentionally impeding the President's Constitutional authority to execute existing US law.

No, he does not have constitutional authority to make a recess appointment if Congress is not in recess. And yes, Repubs were intentionally impeding him from avoiding the Constitutional advice and consent of the Senate. He, or you, or the Dems, may not like the process (which they have used to their advantage), But one of the Constitutional purposes of the Senate is to slow down legislation, to debate and deliberate, to oppose what it should oppose. And much "existing" US" law, especially that law that has been created by these administrative regulatory agencies does not have support in the Constitution. They have been unconstitutionally given powers that were granted to Congress, and Congress was not given the authority to delegate powers of legislation to unelected agencies. The power of legislation Constitutionally rests on those representatives that the people elect. These agencies have been given that power to legislate (and therefor tax) without representation--a grievance at the very heart and soul of the American Revolution.

Perhaps the real question here is if a pro forma recess is really a recess? I don't think the Constitution is really clear here. It doesn't seem to pass the smell test regardless of who's doing it.

-spence

The recess power has been "interpreted" for over 100 years by attornees general and those they designate in the DOJ office of legal counsel that an official, legal senate recess is of at least 10-25 days duration. In a 2010 SCOTUS hearing on an NLRB issue, Obama's deputy solicitor general Neal Katyn said "The--the recess appointment power can work--IN A RECESS. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days." And yes, Harry Reid blocked Bush's recess appointmens in his last two years with pro forma recess. It only takes one Senator to block the move to recess for any reason. It appears that this move to overide Congress is another small chink in the Constitutional separation of powers--another transfer of power to the almighty executive.

BTW, have you noticed that the original discussion on this from yesterday has disappeard? Or is it just on my computer? Do the rest of you have yesterdays posts?

BTW, have you noticed that the original discussion on this from yesterday has disappeard? Or is it just on my computer? Do the rest of you have yesterdays posts?
JohnR whacked the server and had to go to a previous backup. I'm afraid all our poetry has been forever lost.

I remembered this open topic so I brought the issue back up.

-spence

JohnR whacked the server and had to go to a previous backup. I'm afraid all our poetry has been forever lost.

-spence

It has to be floating out there somewhere in the great ether. Some future generation of us, or other species, will find it and wonder from what great civilization came this profound literature. Maybe great studies will be done on it. It may solve future crises. Not.

It has to be floating out there somewhere in the great ether. Some future generation of us, or other species, will find it and wonder from what great civilization came this profound literature. Maybe great studies will be done on it. It may solve future crises. Not.
Good point. I'm sure Google already has golden disk backups in a secure lunar base. Next to the Constitution, Rush Permanent Waves, and the Bible.

-spence

However you, or whatever opinion you read think the situation "appears" to be--and that opinion and those laws and that agency are formed partially if not wholly on"ideological" grounds--the appointment is supposed to be debated in the Senate for its advice and consent. So long as Congress is not in recess, a recess appointment cannot be made.

And the Obama Admin is simply challenging the idea that Congress is really not in recess. It was wrong when the Dems did it to Bush and it's wrong when the GOP does it to Obama.

These appointments were not made in time for the debate, a move that Obama made to circumvent that Constitutionally mandated debate. He wanted to wait for a recess to block that debate. Who is blocking who is a matter of politically slanted opinion.

My understanding is that the GOP has refused to hear nominees for about six months. They're trying to hold the legislation hostage unless Obama makes significant concessions in the Government ability to protect consumers.

No, he does not have constitutional authority to make a recess appointment if Congress is not in recess. And yes, Repubs were intentionally impeding him from avoiding the Constitutional advice and consent of the Senate. He, or you, or the Dems, may not like the process (which they have used to their advantage), But one of the Constitutional purposes of the Senate is to slow down legislation, to debate and considerate, to oppose what it should oppose.
Congress isn't trying to "slow down" new legislation. The objective of the GOP is to use procedural trickery to change existing law they don't like.

There's a big difference.

And much "existing" US" law, especially that law that has been created by these administrative regulatory agencies does not have support in the Constitution. They have been unconstitutionally given powers that were granted to Congress, and Congress was not given the authority to delegate powers of legislation to unelected agencies. The power of legislation Constitutionally rests on those representatives that the people elect. These agencies have been given that power to legislate (and therefor tax) without representation--a grievance at the very heart and soul of the American Revolution.

But aren't these agencies a product of Congressional legislation? And if not Constitutional, shouldn't the proper course of action be to challenge the legislation before the Judiciary?

The recess power has been "interpreted" for over 100 years by attornees general and those they designate in the DOJ office of legal counsel that an official, legal senate recess is of at least 10-25 days duration. In a 2010 SCOTUS hearing on an NLRB issue, Obama's deputy solicitor general Neal Katyn said "The--the recess appointment power can work--IN A RECESS. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days." And yes, Harry Reid blocked Bush's recess appointmens in his last two years with pro forma recess. It only takes one Senator to block the move to recess for any reason. It appears that this move to overide Congress is another small chink in the Constitutional separation of powers--another transfer of power to the almighty executive.
Everything I've read on the history of the issue points to the recess appointment power to be available when the Senate can not be readily assembled to consent. I'm not sure though, in modern times, what the difference is if the Senate simply doesn't want to consent.

Both sides have used this and perhaps it's time to get some clarification.

-spence

And the Obama Admin is simply challenging the idea that Congress is really not in recess. It was wrong when the Dems did it to Bush and it's wrong when the GOP does it to Obama.

What is there to challenge. It is up to Congress to decide if it is in recess. Giving the power to the president to decide when Congress is in recess is overstepping separation of powers. The SCOTUS has no say, Constitutionally, about when Congress is in recess. It is solely a Congressional responsibility and prerogative. The dispute should be decided in Congress, not by the POTUS or the SCOTUS.

My understanding is that the GOP has refused to hear nominees for about six months. They're trying to hold the legislation hostage unless Obama makes significant concessions in the Government ability to protect consumers.

Again, that you may not like it, it is a legitimate part of the legislative process. And the burden of protecting consumers should not be a concern of the Federal Gvt. I understand that current view of the Commerce Clause means that the government can do whatever it wants. That it has gotten that far is such an obvious travesty of judicial "interpretation" and government overreach that it shouldn't even have to be discussed. And if there were some some way that the Federal Gvt. were supposed to protect consumers, the proper way would be through law passed by Congress with debate and vote by Congress, not by a creation of some permanent watchdog agency which can dictate law by fiat. It would be perfectly OK to appoint research agencies to advise the Congress, but not so much to give those agencies regulatory power.

Congress isn't trying to "slow down" new legislation. The objective of the GOP is to use procedural trickery to change existing law they don't like.

There's a big difference.

Congress is using existing law and procedure.

But aren't these agencies a product of Congressional legislation? And if not Constitutional, shouldn't the proper course of action be to challenge the legislation before the Judiciary?

Agencies are a product of Congressional legislation, but laws that these agencies propagate are not. Laws passed by Congress are supposed to be debated and voted on by Congress which will be held responsible by the people. Laws are not supposed to be imposed on the people by unelected officials who are not accountable to the people. Of course, Congress would not challenge the creation of such agencies since it can direct them to do things for which Congress will not be held responsible. It's a way both parties can "do things" without being blamed. Not only is current jurisprudence of the opinion that Congress can do whatever it wishes due to "interpretations" of various clauses such as Commerce or Welfare, the judges, for the most part, understand that since it is the prerogative of Congress to legislate, it can legislate as it wishes. The judges merely decide on whether cases are in breach of those laws. We have as a result of judicial "interpretation" a growing central gvt. that regulates through administrative agencies. It is a more convenient way to amass regulations while avoiding responsibility. Beyond the hundres that already exist, you can expect to see more of such agencies expanding the administrative State, as opposed to the representative government, and this was predicted by many, including De Tocqueville, to result in a form of a so-called "soft despotism" which is not opposed by the people since it is ostensibly for their benefit.

Everything I've read on the history of the issue points to the recess appointment power to be available when the Senate can not be readily assembled to consent. I'm not sure though, in modern times, what the difference is if the Senate simply doesn't want to consent.

It is absolutely the right of the Senate not to consent. Why must it?

Both sides have used this and perhaps it's time to get some clarification.

-spence

It won't be clarification. It will be imposition

I think the Justice Department findings provide more detail than I can, although they appear to be saying basically the same thing.

Justice Department Memo Backs Legality of Obama?s Recess Appointments - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/13/us/politics/13power-text.html)

-spence

I think the Justice Department findings provide more detail than I can, although they appear to be saying basically the same thing.

Justice Department Memo Backs Legality of Obama?s Recess Appointments - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/13/us/politics/13power-text.html)

-spence

It would have been nice of you to give a brief summary of salient points. I tried to read . . . then scan . . . then got bored with fine, legal "depends on the meaning of is" type gobbledy gook. Making the Constitution much more difficult than an actual straightforward document, is the method commonly used to subvert it. One phrase caught my eye--something to the effect that pro-forma recess was a way to break the Presidents's power to make recess appointments. No, it doesn't break that power. Nor was that power granted as a means to break the Senate's power to advise and consent. The "power" was not meant to skirt the Senate when Presidents see that they can't get a confirmation. The President was not meant to be a dictator who gets his every wish. There should be agreement between the branches of government, not war. And each branch should respect the others' Constitutional powers. The world would not end if Cordray is not appointed, or if the president had to wait for the Senate to be in session. Nor is it even some kind of emergency that this regulatory agency had to be commissioned STAT--OR AT ALL. And even if it were needed and justified, the opposition to it was how it was structured to give its director sole discretion--too much power in one person that even the other such agencies did not give. The reason for stalling was to change the agencies structure to that which it was originally supposed to have. This is just another Federal Gvt. controlling hand inserted into our lives, and a more dictatorial one than usual. And the executive has, in stepping on Congressional prerogative, become just a little more like the King we rebelled against.

It would have been nice of you to give a brief summary of salient points. I tried to read . . . then scan . . . then got bored with fine, legal "depends on the meaning of is" type gobbledy gook. Making the Constitution much more difficult than an actual straightforward document, is the method commonly used to subvert it.

this appears to be what is
coming out of the Justic Department on a regular basis...

Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”



citing the Obama Justice Department memo backing the Obama actions is, well.....credability is a bit lacking :uhuh:..... but maybe credabliliy has to do with your "state of mind" and "whether or not you have the requisite intent to come up with something that would be "......UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.

-spence

I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.

"The New Road to Serfdom: Lessons to Learn from European Policy" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2o8Vy3uXqE)

I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.

"The New Road to Serfdom: Lessons to Learn from European Policy" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2o8Vy3uXqE)

if we could simply play this instead of the next State of the Union..it would be far more beneficial to America :uhuh:

The Economist, Goldwater, Ayn Rand - They put forth a common sense brand of conservatism that has been lost along the way.

I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.

"The New Road to Serfdom: Lessons to Learn from European Policy" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2o8Vy3uXqE)

It's interesting how few in US politics seem to develop the oratory skills of the Britts.

I did watch the entire video (or at least listen while I operated the meat grinder) and it was very good. I'll probably pick up his book.

Although I'd have to note that there is a flip side as we've discussed quite a bit. This was somewhat of a circle jerk, but at least a right proper one.

Perhaps the most important line was for elected officials to remember the institution is larger than they are. That's an element of conservatism that transcends politics and is getting lost in numerous ways...

-spence

Although I'd have to note that there is a flip side as we've discussed quite a bit. -spence

yes there is...the argument/agenda of the "half-smarts" as he clearly pointed out...who will simply continue to "grind meat".....ignoring history, reality.... and in our case....the Constitution

too bad about Huntsman...tough to win a Republican primary when most of your support is from liberals who say they are satisfied with Obama:uhuh: