[Lou Stefanic]

Just thought I'd start up the politics thread . . .

[Medz]

Our socialist plan is very close to fruition, comrades!

[Billl]

Why do communists get a "manifesto" and socialist only get a plan?

[mn3]

Nice thread title -- we have to give it up to you Lou. You refuse to go gentle into that good night.

[Lou Stefanic]

Originally Posted by Billl

Why do communists get a "manifesto" and socialist only get a plan?

Well, the Unabomber had a manifesto and the Cylons had a plan, so I think that there's a lot of crossover between your various types of evil these days.

[Medz]

[mn3]

April 29, 2009
GOP set to launch rebranding effort
Posted: 11:00 PM ET

From CNN Chief National Correspondent John King
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Coming soon to a battleground state near you: a new effort to revive the image of the Republican Party and to counter President Obama's characterization of Republicans as "the party of 'no.'"

CNN has learned that the new initiative, called the National Council for a New America, will be announced Thursday.

It will involve an outreach by an interesting mix of GOP officials, ranging from 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain to Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and the younger brother of the man many Republicans blame for the party's battered brand: former President George W. Bush.


In addition to Sen. McCain and Gov. Bush, GOP sources familiar with the plans tell CNN others involved in the new group's "National Panel Of Experts" will include:

*Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former national GOP chairman
*Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
*Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

It will report to GOP congressional leaders, and among those signing the announcement that will be made public Thursday are:

*House GOP Leader John Boehner
*House GOP Whip Eric Cantor
*House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence
*Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell
*The No. 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl
*And the Senate GOP Conference Chairman, Lamar Alexander

"However, this is not a Republican-only forum," reads the letter announcing the new effort, a copy of which was obtained by CNN from Republican sources involved in the effort. "While we will be guided by our principles of freedom and security, we will seek to include more than just our ideas.

"This forum will include a wide open policy debate that every American can feel free to participate in," the announcement letter reads. "We do this not just to offer an alternative point of view or to be disagreeable. Instead, we want to ask the American people what their hopes and dreams are. Since January, the President and the Democratic Majority in Congress have - rightfully so - put forward their plan for the future, now we must listen, learn and lead through an honest, open conversation with the American people that will result in building policy proposals that will yield the best results for our nation's long-term success."

The first meeting is planned this Saturday in Arlington, Virginia, just outside of the nation's capital. Northern Virginia is one of the suburban areas that has shifted decidedly in favor of the Democrats in recent years, helping President Obama carry the state for the Democrats for president for the first time since 1964.

Sources familiar with the effort say it was born of conversations between Cantor and the members of the experts panel. After Bush and Romney agreed to take part, the conversations expanded and the idea won the blessing of both the House and Senate GOP leadership. Additional town halls are planned in the weeks ahead, each likely dedicated to a specific issue, with health care, the economy, energy and national security leading the issues menu the group says it hopes to discuss heading into the 2010 midterm elections, and possibly beyond.

UPDATE: South Dakota Sen. John Thune will also participate in the group. The Republican congressional leadership is also slated to travel the country and attend town-hall meetings as part of the new effort.

[Orwellian O.]

Not a big deal. Newt is the biggest force behind branding this days....which is a good thing...as long as he focused...

Looks like they will do what they did in 1996, get more conservative, giver this "new" conservatism a fuzzy name (e.g. "Compassionate") and gain tons of seats.

It will likely work. Even if Obama manages to keep his throne in 2012.

[Medz]

Justice David Souter is retiring - Obama gets his first shot at nominating a new supreme court justice. I hope he doesn't try to get too bipartisan. They need a strict liberal in there (or better yet, a card carrying Socialist).

[Joe_Loco]

I'd be inclined to cast my vote for "The Party of No" if there actually was one. Can you imagine politicians who recognized real-life trade-offs and took a hard line, instead of trying to placate everyone with an extra piece of taxpayer cake?

Nah, I can't either.

[fredsue]

I can agree with that.

Problem is if you state what you believe in and stick to it you are branded as insensitive.

[Lou Stefanic]

RIP Jack Kemp. Taken too young.

Former Republican VP candidate, congressman Kemp dies - CNN.com

[Whitley]

One of the last moderate Republicans....they are getting to be an endangered species.

[El Axe]

RIP

I never had the opportunity to meet him, but he was a good friend of my aunt and her family. She actively campaigned for him over the years.

Whitley said it well. There aren't enough moderates on either side, but especially few Republicans.

[Orwellian O.]

Most Republicans (really, conservatives in either party) are moderate. It is liberals who want massive social and economic changes.

Conservatives merely (generally) want limited government intervention. There is nothing extreme about that.

I don't think anybody could claim there are many moderates currently in the Democratic party. If they are, they certainly aren't voting like it.

[DTH]

Good luck to Mr. Bing.

Voters head to polls to elect new Detroit mayor

DETROIT – Residents of Detroit are voting in a mayoral runoff between incumbent Ken Cockrel Jr. and professional basketball Hall-of-Famer Dave Bing.

Polls opened Tuesday at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m.

The winner will complete the final seven-and-a-half months of Kwame Kilpatrick's second term. There's an Aug. 4 nonpartisan primary and Nov. 5 general election for a full, four-year term.

Only 15 to 20 percent of Detroit registered voters are expected at the polls Tuesday.

Cockrel moved up from city council president to the mayor's office after Kilpatrick resigned in September. He finished second to Bing, founder of steel manufacturer The Bing Group, in a February primary.

[Dave Bing]

C'mon baby!

[ThaMaestro]

Conservatives want little government involvement... except when it comes to who you can marry, whether it's a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, if an adult can choose to smoke pot, shutting down the borders, or whether it's up to the government to kill someone for committing a heinous crime.

[Medz]

Just stay away from my wallet, my bible, and my guns you fag-loving baby-killing pinko junkie appeaser!

[whoDean]

You guys are confusing fiscal conservatives with social conservatives. Two different animals.

[Medz]

You guys are confusing fiscal conservatives with social conservatives. Two different animals.

Not in today's Republican party.

[mn3]

Republicans! What a concept! Not only is it not your grandfathers party, your grandfathers have been kicked out of your party. (Unless of course you've taken your purity oath).

[fredsue]

Originally Posted by ThaMaestro

Conservatives want little government involvement... except when it comes to who you can marry, whether it's a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, if an adult can choose to smoke pot, shutting down the borders, or whether it's up to the government to kill someone for committing a heinous crime.

Liberals want government involvement...except when it comes to who you can marry, whether it's a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, if an adult can choose to smoke pot, shutting down borders, or whether it's up to the government to kill someone for committing a heinous crime.


WORKS BOTH WAYS.

side note... my argument against abortion is not whether the government has the right to make a choice for a woman but rather if it has the right to take away the rights of another person in allowing it.

[Fool]

That begs the question. Or what many see as "the question".

[hack]

Liberals want government involvement...except when it comes to who you can marry, whether it's a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, if an adult can choose to smoke pot, shutting down borders, or whether it's up to the government to kill someone for committing a heinous crime.

In each case, if I understand you clearly, what you call ``government involvement'' actually in reality translates into giving every person in the country the right to choose from the same set of options. That's the opposite of government involvement. That's government letting people choose.

[ThaMaestro]

Originally Posted by fredsue

Liberals want government involvement...except when it comes to who you can marry, whether it's a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, if an adult can choose to smoke pot, shutting down borders, or whether it's up to the government to kill someone for committing a heinous crime.


WORKS BOTH WAYS.

side note... my argument against abortion is not whether the government has the right to make a choice for a woman but rather if it has the right to take away the rights of another person in allowing it.

It's not the same at all. Liberals don't generally go around talking about how they want big government ad government involved in every aspect of citizens lives. Conservatives boast about being for small government and then run campaigns off of government being intimately involved.

This might not have been the intentions of the founding fathers of the GOP, but that's what I know conservatives to be today.

[fredsue]

Originally Posted by ThaMaestro

It's not the same at all. Liberals don't generally go around talking about how they want big government ad government involved in every aspect of citizens lives. Conservatives boast about being for small government and then run campaigns off of government being intimately involved.

This might not have been the intentions of the founding fathers of the GOP, but that's what I know conservatives to be today.

I would have to call untruth to that Maestro...that is exactly what they were doing in this last election.... government run health care....redistribute the wealth and the government will decide whose wealth and how to redistribute it.... How is that not calling for bigger government? You are right they do not actually sit there and use the exact words "I WANT BIGGER GOVERNMENT" but anybody can see through to the truth...

[fredsue]

Originally Posted by Fool

That begs the question. Or what many see as "the question".

Not sure I follow you.

[fredsue]

Originally Posted by hack

Liberals want government involvement...except when it comes to who you can marry, whether it's a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, if an adult can choose to smoke pot, shutting down borders, or whether it's up to the government to kill someone for committing a heinous crime.

In each case, if I understand you clearly, what you call ``government involvement'' actually in reality translates into giving every person in the country the right to choose from the same set of options. That's the opposite of government involvement. That's government letting people choose.

Also not sure I follow you here either Hack.

Liberals want to have the government involvement in the running of health care. They do not want the government to be involved in letting them decide who can get married or not. I see that as wanting government controls on one hand but hands off on the other...which is the same hypocritical view as the republicans with anti big government yet wanting it for somethings...

[mn3]

I think it's a distinction that needs more context. Liberals want little people taken care of. Conservatives in the past 20 years or so want the rich to have every advantage. So there's an economic Liberalism and Conservatism.

There's a "moral"/spiritual distinction between the labels. Conservatives think they've got the moral answers to just about everything. They want control over marriage, gays, country-centric issues (security over liberties - democracy vs every other form of government), religion (everyone has to be a Christian or they're inferior), and guns.

The far right wingers are in some ways indistinct from what we hate about the religious extremists - the ends justify the means - just like what all those people who "hate our freedoms" believe.

[hack]

Well, I see why you would see it that way, though I disagree. The disagreement about government spending is a matter of degree. It's not whether we're going to have welfare or socialized medicine or not, but it is the scope of services that's up for debate. Whereas, with the values-based issues, it's a matter of whether people should decide for themselves or not. The way to call that hypocritical from the right is to argue for government spending on police and defence and nothing else.

[fredsue]

Long story to get to a question....but....

I had to use a friends car this morning...turned on the radio and listen to his station...out of chicago not sure which one. I turned on in the middle of the talking but...they were saying something about wanting to get rid of the voucher program in the DC schools. They mentioned that the program has a proven stats of success yet the government (in there supposition) in support of teachers unions wanted to get rid of it.

I have not had the opportunity to look into this but does anyone know what they are talking about.

On the radio they mentioned that the students that received the services were over 90 % minority from the inner city As I stated they also said it had a strong track record of success. If these are both true why would a liberal government wan tto get rid of this program?

[Dave Bing]

Threatens public school monopolies. May invite disequilibrium based on property taxes. It's a bad decision being fought by DC's new dynamic school chancellor Michelle Rhee.

[Medz]

Liberals want to have the government involvement in the running of health care. They do not want the government to be involved in letting them decide who can get married or not. I see that as wanting government controls on one hand but hands off on the other...which is the same hypocritical view as the republicans with anti big government yet wanting it for somethings...

Liberals don't believe all health care should be run by the government. The question is, can we morally allow 20 million people to continue living without healthcare in the richest country in the history of the world just because they can't afford to pay for it? And if not, who else but the government can provide those basic services? In the end, ideally, one should have a choice to stick with their private health care service, or to opt into the government system if they can't afford their own. Medical bills are one of the highest causes of bankruptcy, and it's a problem that needs to be addressed.

The difference between that type of big government and the type of big government that gets involved in your life is that one is inclusive and one is restrictive. You can believe that gays shouldn't get married, or that women shouldn't have abortions. You can practice and preach that in your churches. When you try to legislate your belief on others, that's when government becomes too big and too exclusionary. The federal government should have no more right to restrict gays from getting married than it should have right to restrict interracial couples from getting married - something not too far in our past.

On the issue of government size, though, it all comes down to money. The biggest waste that needs to be reigned in - while blasphemy to suggest this - is defense spending. We could cut defense spending by half, still be powerful enough to destroy the world a thousand times over, and redirect the funds to more necessary areas. That's how you pay for the things we need without raising taxes, but as a political issue, neither side will suggest it for fear of faux-outrage.

[Billl]

Fedscue -

The Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years

That is the link to the actual results of the program so far. For some reason, this story has resonance with conservative tv, talk radio etc. It is definitely a free market approach to education. However, both sides of the debate seem to be stretching the truth about the success/failure of the program.


The basics;

For the first 2 years of the program, no change was noticed between the students who got vouchers and those who didn't. In the 3rd year report, reading scores went up slightly, but math and overall achievement did not improve. Even in reading, 5 of the 10 subgroups of students showed improvement while the other 5 did not. Overall, it looks as though the kids in the voucher program did no worse than in public school and in some cases may have done better in 1 of the 3 years of testing for reading. Unfortunately, the kids who seemed to benefit were the top performers already. The kids at the bottom of the class didn't seem to be helped at all in any year.

There are still some positives of the program though. Parents seem to love it and think their kids are doing better (even if they really aren't.) Also, at $7,500 per student, the voucher is cheaper than funding public schools for that child. Kids with the most academic potential may have more opportunities in the long run even if they don't necessarily appear in the first couple of years. Just being in a more positive environment might keep some of the kids out of trouble and allow them to achieve their potential.

The complaints are that the program doesn't seem to be of much (if any) benefit to the kids involved at this point. Meanwhile, it takes the kids with the most engaged parents and moves them out of the public school system. That could theoretically make the public schools worse for the remaining kids, but there isn't any real data to support that position. Additionally, the program can't really be scaled up. There are a ton of kids in public school. In the long run, we need better public schools for everyone whether or not we let a small subset go to private schools.

Personally, I don't see a problem with continuing it long enough to see the long term benefit (or lack of.) It is one thing to look for improvement in 3rd graders and quite another to see if they become productive members of society. You certainly aren't going to know that in a 3 year test. However, I suspect it will turn out like just about every other study on education. They will find that a school can only do so much. Most of the responsibility rests on the parents and the student themselves.

[fredsue]

If the fight to provide health care for all is a moral issue and the government should attack it why is it wrong for government to attack abortion on moral issues as well.

abortion is not only a religious issue. You can be non-religious and believe that aborting human babies to be wrong.

Not sure how this gets equated to someone's stance on same sex marriage.

I do agree that defense should be looked at carefully. I think there is quite a number of government spending programs that can be looked at.

[Lou Stefanic]

Actually, I think your standard Democrat is about as moralistic about money as your standard Republican is about life issues.

Or perhaps I should say "other people's money."

[fredsue]

Thank you Billl.

[fredsue]

"The actual total per pupil spending in DC this year on k-12 education is $26,555, while the average tuition at the voucher schools was $5,928 last year. For the official source links and calculations of these figures, see:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...oney-than-god/ "

I found something similar about the cost...that is very interesting. I have personally seen the waste of money in public schools. It is amazing how much different those figures are. In my opinion you could factor that cost per pupil into the effectiveness of the program.

[Dave Bing]

DC schools are not the basis upon which we should be basing national policy. The DC school system is aberrant in the extreme. Hard cases make bad law, right Lou?

[Medz]

If the fight to provide health care for all is a moral issue and the government should attack it why is it wrong for government to attack abortion on moral issues as well.

abortion is not only a religious issue. You can be non-religious and believe that aborting human babies to be wrong.

I'm not advocating aborting human babies - but that's a different topic. Abortion is wrong to some people, and it's right to some people. Just as hunting is wrong to some people, and right to some people. No one is saying abortions should be mandated - but if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to keep the baby, she should be able to go into a hospital and have the procedure done in a safe environment. If a woman feels that abortions are wrong, she should be able to keep her baby. That is a woman's choice whether or not we make it legal and safe. In the end, a woman can get rid of a baby in many different ways, and government can't do anything to stop that from happening.

By the same token, healthcare should be available to everyone, but not imposed on everyone. If you are sick and you don't want to see a doctor, that's your choice. If you want to see a doctor but can't afford one, then that's where it ceases being a choice and becomes a moral issue.

[Medz]

Actually, I think your standard Democrat is about as moralistic about money as your standard Republican is about life issues.

Or perhaps I should say "other people's money."

Ah, the Ayn Rand defense. If you don't like it, we'll just take our money and leave, right? Imagine that, all these millionaires and no one to pick the lettuce for our salads!

[Lou Stefanic]

I must've missed the point where an unborn child can choose to opt in or opt out of an abortion. Was ACORN In charge of conducting that survey?

[DYNOMITE]

What if you are a 400 pound smoker with a chronic breathing problem?

[Dave Bing]

You pro life, Lou?

[Medz]

I must've missed the point where an unborn child can choose to opt in or opt out of an abortion. Was ACORN In charge of conducting that survey?

As soon as that sperm fertalizes that egg (try doing THAT, queers!) and Jesus comes down and places the soul inside the little embryo, we have a moral obligation to see the baby born to fruition so we can throw it in the foster care system to be ignored.

[Dave Bing]

Foster care? Do I have to pay for that shit?

[hack]

Dyno's point is an invitation to an interesting debate.

[Medz]

Foster care? Do I have to pay for that shit?

You do have to pay for it, but you're paying for a great service - we'll make sure those unwanted children wind up starving on the streets before we let two homos adopt them.

[Dave Bing]

Remember, queer means abnormal.