|
Post by gk on Jan 30, 2009 11:49:59 GMT -6
I understand why Republicans voted against the stimulus package. In fact, I might have even voted against it. Although ZERO is a shocking number. Not a one of the House Republicans thought it was a net positive. Individually I understand, but the collective group-think is a bit puzzling. But nevertheless....
Two, possibly related things have struck me this week... 1) Three out of 178 house Republicans voted FOR the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Now, I think the Ledbetter Supreme Court decision was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I understand what the court was trying to suggest about statute of limitations, even if I 100% think that's a bogus argument when you're talking about an imbalanced pay scale that didn't come into light until years later via an anonymous note telling Ledbetter she was receiving 40% less than her male employees. Decisions like this are why I voted Kerry in '04 even though I was underwhelmed by him.
But that was the Supreme Court decision, supposedly having to with statute of limitations laws. But what is the House GOP's excuse? The Ledbetter act caps compensation at $300,000 so it isn't a frivolous coffee-spilling-on-the-lap kind of thing.
Even aside from the moral standing, even if you're a cynic, you'd think it would make political sense for the GOP to vote for the act. But instead 175 out of 178 said no, potentially permanently alienating the female demographic more so than it already is.
So regarding this, I need two things: a plausible explanation of why the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is bad for the country, and why it makes political sense to bolster yourself as the party that stood firm against such an egregious piece of legislation.
2) The pathetic display of GOP rep Phil Gingrey grovelling before the feet of Rush Limbaugh. This was easily the most pathetic thing I've ever seen in politics. And mind you, I follow Democrats, so that's saying something. But bigger picture, does Limbaugh hold more sway in the Republican party than its own elected politicians? Judging from the $400 million dollar contract Rush got, I think we can assume he's a strong voice for the GOP. But it seems like he's the face of the franchise now.
And this is a good thing... how?
It almost seems like the Republican party is intentionally trying to whittle its numbers down so they can start all over in 20 years. They've spent the last few years alienating: women, scientists, people that live in cities, people that live on either coast, people who have college degrees, and non-fundamentalist Protestents. Is that the goal? Because if it is, they might just be succeeding.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Jan 30, 2009 17:46:26 GMT -6
I don't know why so many Rs voted against Ledbetter. It seems like it would be a good thing to vote for, if not just for something to show your women voters. The frivolous angle probably doesn't hold up because women still have to prove there was discrimination. It's not like companies are just going to cave in and start handing out large settlements.
Ultimately, I don't see Ledbetter helping women as much as they think it will. But whatever.
As far as Rush, I don't consider him to the voice of the anything except his own show. I listen to him every now and then just get my anti-liberal juices flowing, but I don't form my policy opinions based on what he says. I don't know any other R that does either.
Who is our voice? I don't think we have one right now. Hopefully a southern conservative rises up here shortly, but until then we'll continue to lose if McCain and Giuliani and Arnold are our faces.
|
|
|
Post by finkle on Feb 1, 2009 21:20:54 GMT -6
did all the dems vote for it? is that collective group think?
and i wish rush would just go away
|
|
|
Post by finkle on Feb 1, 2009 22:08:35 GMT -6
btw, the dem comment was just me being a smartass
my guess is that the republicans were just trying to make a statement, knowing it was going to be passed to the senate with or w/out their support. from what i'm reading there's a bunch of unnecessary crap in there that ought to be trimmed prior to passing it. when you get up into the $900 billion, you've got to believe that a whole buttload of congressmen have put in a little somethin-somethin for their precinct/district.
it's the perfect opportunity to get something pushed through in the spirit of "doing it for the economy" (sorta like that "do it for your country" plea for sex in grease 2)
that thing's gotta be trimmed.
|
|
|
Post by finkle on Feb 1, 2009 22:10:03 GMT -6
btw, clip here ---
|
|
|
Post by gk on Feb 3, 2009 17:44:18 GMT -6
To Kay Baily Hutchinson's credit, she voted for the Ledbetter Fair Pay act and SCHIP. She'll probably be a good governor.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Feb 8, 2009 19:49:36 GMT -6
I do find it funny that Republicans are now trying to overturn McCain-Feingold after they couldn't keep up with Obama's fund raising.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Feb 9, 2009 10:53:22 GMT -6
Oh and it's official: the Democrats can't handle being in power. Seriously, they have a HUGE majority in both houses and the Executive, and they still can't get what they want. Or they're afraid to.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Feb 9, 2009 19:04:05 GMT -6
I posted something to this effect on the DVR board- the Republican party is seriously in trouble right now because they have no idea where they're going. They fell into the trap of thinking "We just need to keep enough people happy to stay in office"- once the Democratic party got their act together they got back into office (they had a similar failing around 1994 and floundered for about ten years), and the Republicans took the turn of the party without identity.
It's cyclical- the real question for the Republican party is if it can find a single purpose. I hear Rush campaigning for fiscal conservatism to be the core value, and you'll get several libertarians who want freedom as the primary ethic. And quite a few religious types who are calling for social conservatism. No one really knows for certain what the new shape of the party is going to be.
I'm seeing several good things (like the voting down on the bailout) and several bad (Geoff's Ledbetter act). It's a function of the politicians to try to act in the way they think will help improve public opinion and pave the way for reelection. The strategy of the last several years been trying to show they can be moderate in policy and meet the liberals halfway- but they compromised on issues that should've been rock solid and de-energized their voting base. There's a distinct lack of leaders in the party right now; you can identify them when they first appear as the ones who stick solidly to principles- the principles get woven into the fabric of the party, the base becomes fired up and you win elections.
Going into this last election we had a lot of Republicans who wanted to look fair and even handed, so they compromised with Democrats to get things done. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they've realized that compromise made them look unprincipled, and that the Democrats aren't really interested in doing the same (they have the votes and the presidency and don't need to compromise).
So the strategy being tried is "Let's play the role of opposition party and see if it works." I don't think that's a winning strategy- the absolute hate on George W. Bush isn't what got Obama elected, it's that he went out and convinced people that he would actively make changes for the better. He had a positive message even now we all remember his campaign as "hope and change"; he didn't want to waste his time taking pot shots at Bush. I think the Republican party failed in 2006 because they had moved away from party principles. The promise of financial responsibility was what caused the big turnaround for the party in 1994 in the Contract With America- 12 years later that had disappeared. It remains to be seen if the Republican party can revive this idea or find another core value to rally around, before the next election.
Regarding Rush, I think he speaks for a lot of conservatives in the country (particularly the financial ones). But he is ultimately out there to garner ratings and be entertaining- he's at his best "illustrating absurdity by being absurd." His policies are based on his private beliefs, but all he can do is voice an opinion. It's really strange he is being given as much credit for the direction of the party as he is- ultimately he's not driving it, but what he says resonates with a lot of people who listen to him.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Feb 9, 2009 19:07:13 GMT -6
And on the plus side, this is the time for common voters to organize and start pushing the Republican party in the direction it needs to go. To their credit, folks like moveon.org pushed the Democrats farther left after the 2004 elections, got a bunch of the liberals in Congress to act like liberals, take a strong stand on their principles and expose the Republicans as being unsincere. Same thing can happen with the Republican base right now.
|
|
|
Post by grubbi on Feb 9, 2009 19:40:22 GMT -6
The Republicans want to "get along" with the Democrats all the time.
The Democrats want to "get along" when they are not in power. They want to be bi-partisan and working together with the Republicans.
When the Democrats are in power they don't want to get along. They want things their way and only their way.
Just look at how Obama wants the stimulus plan passed as soon as possible even though it is full of pork-barrel projects that have little to do with helping the economy overall.
Sadly, when there was this myth floating around about the US Gov't having a huge surplus, there were Republicans who were trying to spend the "surplus" on their own projects.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Feb 9, 2009 20:22:06 GMT -6
Somehow I don't buy the notion that Republicans have to be "more conservative" in order to win back voters. I think that's what got them in trouble in the first place. The idea that Republicans got away from their principles may be true, but I don't think that's what's lost them elections recently. I mean, you look at a map like this one: 3.bp.blogspot.com/_iVkcP_W5MpU/SRPTHUEsBQI/AAAAAAAAATg/hV4FBzzg4Ug/s1600-h/Picture+1.pngAnd it's clear the only place in the U.S. that R's have a hold of is the most conservative areas. They lose urban areas because they decry "big city values." Even though most of the U.S. population is in the urban areas now. They lose the educated because they piss on higher education and "Science." To that end, they successfully slashed $1.4 billion from the National Science Foundation from the stimulus. And if the NSF is viewed as a pork-barrel project, then we truly are up shit creek as a nation. They lose minorities because they spent years trying to cut programs that helped the poor. They lose immigrants because, well, they kind of hate immigrants. They lose gays because, well, they certainly hate gays. They lose people who read newspapers because they say newspapers are evil. (Side note: how many conservative columnists does the Washington Post need to hire before it's not liberally biased?) They lose women because of things like the Ledbetter act. They lose people that care about the environment because they've spent 30 years telling everyone how wacko they are. It seems to me, becoming more conservative will only help them win the voters they already have: conservative, religious white males. I'm not sure what people they were "trying to keep happy." Unless you mean the aforementioned conservative, religious, white males. It certainly worked for years because nabbing the conservative religious voters was enough. Now, as America becomes more diverse the Republican party seems extremely behind the times. But, like I said, Democrats are simply incompetent, stupid, or scared of being responsible for a piece of legislation. See.. much more like the American population.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Feb 9, 2009 20:22:29 GMT -6
$800,000 of the stimulus part for Texas is going to build a disc golf course in Austin. This stimulus package is so ridiculous. abcnews.go.com/print?id=6719023
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Feb 9, 2009 20:38:57 GMT -6
I'm not sure more "conservative" is the solution the Republican party will pick. But they need to find something to rally around. They really don't have anything at the moment, and it shows. They look like a bunch of idiots who are desperately trying anything they can think of, hence your original question.
I'm tempted to start another thread- I've got some thoughts on your "Republicans are losing potential voters everywhere" comment, but I think going in that direction would really hijack this one.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Feb 9, 2009 20:40:07 GMT -6
By the way, count me in the Paul Krugman camp saying that the stimulus package does not go far enough in terms on 21st century infrastructure spending. The disc-golf course is ridiculous (did it make the final bill? that article was from a few weeks ago).
But what DID get cut? Like I said, the NSF money. Also, STD prevention (even though we spend about 300 times that in treatment of STDs per year). $16 billion for school construction. $80 billion for health care, unemployment, and food stamps.
It's this short term thinking that is going to put us even further behind in education, health care, and renewable energy.
|
|