Ship of Fools: Why do Republicans hate Hagel?

Thread: Why do Republicans hate Hagel? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024580

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I don't get it. He's a Republican, after all. Why has his nomination triggered so much angst and so much spending to block his approval?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

True enough. They need no other reason.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I misread that as Hegel, the philosopher! They wouldn't like him either because he advocated change and republicans like things to stay the same.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I don't get it. He's a Republican, after all. Why has his nomination triggered so much angst and so much spending to block his approval?

That's pretty much it. On the major issue that Republicans are holding against him, ie. insufficient support for Israel, Republicans are just as "bad", and probably "worse", than Democrats.

Hagel refused to sign a letter asking the EU to condemn Hamas. If that makes Hagel a bad guy, it also makes about twenty percent of the Republican senate caucus bad guys, since that's the percentage of THEIR caucus that refused to sign the letter. Whereas only two Democrats didn't sign, and one of them only failed to do so because he was sick.

Oh, and Hagel said some nasty stuff about gays, which as we all know, really offends Republicans. Or at least it offends certain pro-gay lobby groups with ties to Republican strategists and mysterious financial backing.

Seriously. Obama could have nominated Mitt Romney for Defense Secretary, and the Republicans would say he was a threat to American security.

[ 27. January 2013, 19:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

A pretty snappy ad from the aforementioned lobby group.

Looking at it, they seem more generally liberal than pro-gay. With the bit about Israel sandwiched in nicely between the various progressive causes.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Pick your battles.

Took down Rice.

Couldn't take down Kerry.

Try to take down Hagel.

They seem in it to win it. Unfortunately, its increasingly looking like that a Charlie Sheen version of "winning".

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.

But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?

You've got it right. The reality is that the Republicans have fallen under the sway of the same neocons who wanted us to invade Iraq to create a new American order in the mideast. These wingnuts have not been chastened by the mess that they created -- just the opposite. They are doubling down on crazy, and Hagel just doesn't fit their freaky mold. I doubt that Obama would be willing to nominate anyone that these psychos would support for Secretary of Defense, but I have high hopes that their opposition will not determine the choice. Obama was right to oppose these whackos, and right to not expend a lot of political capital trying to get Susan Rice as Secretary of State.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Hate Hagel? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Hate Hagel? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

Well, in politics, people often feign sentiments that they don't really hold, in order to score points. That being said...

When you call someone who is not an anti-semite an anti-semite, we can only conclude that you are making stuff up in order to trash his reputation unfairly. So, even if the people calling Hagel an anti-semite don't personally hate him, they're pretty obviously trying to encourage others to hate him, or at least hold him in extremely low regard.

Long and the short, the thread title might be hyperbolic, but not incredibly so.

[ 28. January 2013, 13:19: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.
But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?

Yes. All you have to do is Google "obama nomination blocked" and you'll see lots more than just Chuck Hagel. Here's just one random example:

quote:
In April 2010, President Obama nominated Peter Diamond, a Nobel Prize–winning economist and MIT professor, to a seat on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. On three different occasions the Senate Banking Committee approved his nomination. Yet Republicans in the Senate, led by Alabama’s Richard Shelby, blocked his confirmation because they disagreed with his economic policy views. “Dr. Diamond is an old-fashioned, big government Keynesian,” Shelby said. Diamond, who finally had enough of the endless delay and partisan attacks, withdrew his nomination today, explaining why in a New York Times op-ed. “Last October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market,” he wrote. “But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve—at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination.”

Senate Republicans Block Yet Another Well-Qualified Obama Nominee

The've blocked jucidial appointments, which slows the justice system down for everybody. There hasn't been a director of the ATFE for 6 years, and one of Obama's "dictatorial" executive orders was to ASK for the Senate to confirm an appointment. State Department posts like the Ambassador to Russia are also blocked.

It sucks, and it's not just political, it's racist.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
it's racist.

I don't follow much of the politics that goes on in the colonies ( [Devil]

) but I would be interested to know how the recent decisions to block Obama's plans etc. are racist...

The blocking of legislation in America seems to be the national recreation of politicians of all shapes and colours, everyone seems willing to play at politics with each other until the cows come home.

Just some examples of how what has been going on recently is racist for your uneducated audience would be useful.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
it's racist.
I don't follow much of the politics that goes on in the colonies ( ) but I would be interested to know how the recent decisions to block Obama's plans etc. are racist...

Racists are bad. [major premise]
Republicans are bad. [minor premise]
Republicans are racists. [Undistributed middle -- close enough to logic in political circles]

--Tom Clune

[Edited to more accurately identify the fallacy.]

[ 28. January 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.
But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?

I think that if they all got together, chose the candidate for a position that they believe to be best..and then Obama nominated that person...they would object. I think that while it may be racist for some, for most it's just that he is a Democrat.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I don't follow much of the politics that goes on in the colonies ( )

Two drinks, everyone!

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

The Reps hate him because he isn't tied to the NeoCons and he has been critical of the Israel Lobby. At this point I still think he gets confirmed.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Neo-cons, and McCain/Graham in particular, hate him because he dared to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

In fairness to the Republicans' sense of political gamesmanship, Hagel in 2007 sorta kinda maybe floated the possibility of impeaching George W. Bush.

I had forgotten about this, if indeed I ever knew it. Perhaps I should revise my original view that GOP opposition to Hagel is just a case of Republicans going after any nominee that Obama proposes. From a purely political standpoint, it's understandable that Republicans would have little affection to one of their own senators who did that to a sitting GOP president.

Though it surely must be testimony to the unpopularity of Bush and his legacy that Hagel's criticism of Bush and the Iraq War has not figured more prominently in the Republican campaign against him.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Just some examples of how what has been going on recently is racist for your uneducated audience would be useful.

Colin Powell: GOP Holds 'Dark Vein Of Intolerance'

However, I'm pretty sure that won't satisfy Sergius-Melli or tclune, because I've seen this movie before. No matter how many examples of GOP racist language and policies I list, the response will always "Well, that's just some individuals". People who don't want to see racism will claim that talking about the "food stamp army / food stamp President" is fair comment on SNAP and its beneficiaries. And that calling a black person "uppity" isn't any different from calling a white person a snob or an elitist. And that pointing out that W was a C+ student is equivalent to John Sununu calling President Obama "lazy and not too bright."

"Look, do you wanna play blindman? Go walk with the shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fucking open." - Pulp Fiction

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I think it's because he has expressed some reservations about spending the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors buying everything that the military-industrial complex tries to sell.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I think it's because he has expressed some reservations about spending the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors buying everything that the military-industrial complex tries to sell.

Don't forget the senators and congressmen bound and determined to have such spending come to their state or district.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law? If the allegations are true then should he be allowed in public office?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law? If the allegations are true then should he be allowed in public office?

I don't think there would be a legal problem, since the terminology is vague enough, and doesn't make explicit allegations. It's not like saying "Chuck Hagel painted swastikas on a Nebraska synagogue" It's closer to something like "So-and-so doesn't care about the American people" or what have you.

And, by some reckonings, Chuck Hagel WOULD be considered anti-woman and anti-gay. He has a "pro-life" voting record, and came out against a particular diplomatic nominee in the 90s because the guy was "too openly gay" or something. And "anti-Israel" is a relative term; if you're someone who thinks being pro-Israel means doing every single thing the Likud party wants, well, you could logically consider Hagel to be anti-Israel.

What's funny for me is seeing Republican front groups pretending to care about abortion and gay-rights, plus ignoring the "anti-Israel" voting record of Hagel's GOP senate colleagues.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Just some examples of how what has been going on recently is racist for your uneducated audience would be useful.
Colin Powell: GOP Holds 'Dark Vein Of Intolerance'

However, I'm pretty sure that won't satisfy Sergius-Melli or tclune, because I've seen this movie before. No matter how many examples of GOP racist language and policies I list, the response will always "Well, that's just some individuals". People who don't want to see racism will claim that talking about the "food stamp army / food stamp President" is fair comment on SNAP and its beneficiaries. And that calling a black person "uppity" isn't any different from calling a white person a snob or an elitist. And that pointing out that W was a C+ student is equivalent to John Sununu calling President Obama "lazy and not too bright."

"Look, do you wanna play blindman? Go walk with the shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fucking open." - Pulp Fiction

Well yes, and no. There are individual members in the Republican party that are racist, and have expressed racist views (I am only working of the write up underneath as I can't listen to the audio on that video atm, work computer doesn't allow it) and therefore there is a certain part of the Republican party (not just one or two individuals I grasp, but a small group) that is racist and might well be acting in a racist manner towards Obama but you can not tar the entire party as racist because of some members (in the same way that I can't class all of the Labour party as Communists despite some of its members who express particularly Communist views.)

As for your link between calling someone 'uppity' or 'snob' etc. (or rather your implied point that there is a difference) there is no difference, especially when those two terms can be, and frequently are, attached to people of all ethnicities. It is no more racist to call Obama uppity than it is to call Cameron a posh-boy. The use of language does not suddenly become racist because it is applied to someone of colour as opposed to someone who is anglo-saxon in origin, it is demeaning to both, and no greater or lesser crime in either situation. Similarly to ascribe the view that someone is 'lazy and not too bright' is racist because it is direct at someone who is black, but it would be ok if they were white is wide of the mark as well adn selective application of the rules.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law?

Ya'all ain't from around heah, are ya boy?

--Tom Clune

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law?
Ya'all ain't from around heah, are ya boy?

--Tom Clune

I don't think is really a case of cultural differences. I can't imagine there are too many western democracies where it would be illegal to say those sorta things about a politician.

Stephen Harper: anti-woman

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I found this today. It suggests that it's not really Republicans who hate Hagel, but neocons and other supporters of the military-industrial complex. A Venn diagram would show a large overlap between the groups, but they're not the same.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

As for your link between calling someone 'uppity' or 'snob' etc. (or rather your implied point that there is a difference) there is no difference, especially when those two terms can be, and frequently are, attached to people of all ethnicities.

In the United States, calling a black person "uppity" does have a specifically racist meaning.

Congress opposing or delaying presidents' judicial nominations just out of spite, though, was getting more and more common even before Obama was elected. Clinton and Bush both went through it too. So I think it's more likely a symptom of polarized politics in general than racism in particular.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I found this today. It suggests that it's not really Republicans who hate Hagel, but neocons and other supporters of the military-industrial complex. A Venn diagram would show a large overlap between the groups, but they're not the same.

Thing is though, I think it's still Republicans qua Republicans who have the most at stake in this nomination battle.

The neo-cons want a foreign-policy that's gonna be conducted along neo-con lines. Ultimately, foreign-policy depends on the president, not on the Secretary Of Defense. If Obama decides not to back an attack on Iran(or does decide to back one, as the case may be), that will be the administration's policy, regardless of who's running Defense. Same thing with military-speending cuts. The SOD is going to carry out the orders of the president in that regard.

Republicans, on the other hand, have an interst in making Obama look bad, by defeating one of his most prominent nominees. And they probably don't really care if he gets brought down because he's ticked off the neo-cons, or because enough gays and gay-allies have been duped into thinking that the anti-Hagel movement is Stonewall II, or whatever. At the end of the day, they just wanna be able to say "Ha ha! We blocked your nominee Barry!!"

That said, I don't doubt that neo-cons(as opposed to Republicans) are behind a lot of the attacks on Hagel. At the end of the day, though, they're probably not the ones with the most riding on this.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

From Josephine's Nation link, another good article focussing on Hagel's support for the Iraq War. The writer likes a lot of Hagel's subsequent poitions and statements, but thinks he should have to account for his vote in 2003.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

The GOP is against just about anything that Obama does because O. is a Democrat, in the same way that Clinton had to put up with a huge load of crap because he was in the WRONG Party.

ButO. has na extra "problem", because he is "black" and that fires up the racists. And the racists were attracted to the GOP by the Southern Strategy, after the Civil Rights laws came in. But being in the WRONG Party is a godsend for the racists, because they don't actually have to say "n****r", but they can still attack on just about any grounds. Something called "fair and balanced".

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

A word cloud from the Hagel nomination hearings.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

It's actually somewhat unusual for cabinet nominees not to be confirmed. If this is indeed an extension of the oppose-Obama-in-everything movement, we may be seeing a genuine decline in the functionality of American government.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... The writer likes a lot of Hagel's subsequent poitions and statements, but thinks he should have to account for his vote in 2003.

I'm confused. Hagel is supposed to account for realizing invading Iraq was a mistake? Or is he supposed to account for initially supporting the mistake?

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but is Colin Powell really the only person who has accepted any responsibility for Iraq?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

My prediction: Hagel will get at least 55 votes. You only need 51 to be confirmed.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My prediction: Hagel will get at least 55 votes. You only need 51 to be confirmed.

The real question is whether he'll be filibustered. I would be surprised if the Republicans would create that much animosity for such a meaningless gesture, but you never know with those guys...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My prediction: Hagel will get at least 55 votes. You only need 51 to be confirmed.
The real question is whether he'll be filibustered. I would be surprised if the Republicans would create that much animosity for such a meaningless gesture, but you never know with those guys...

--Tom Clune

You never know, and according to most of the Talking Heads on the teevee, Hagel apparently didn't acquit himself well in the hearing. (I didn't see the grilling, so have no opinion, but assume the panel raised all the usual pointless queries meant to make the questioners look re-electable).

Did anyone actually see the process? Did Hagel flub?

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I misread that as Hegel, the philosopher! They wouldn't like him either because he advocated change and republicans like things to stay the same.

I thought that, too, leo. In fact, right wing Republicans do seem to hate Hegel, the philosopher, also. I'm not sure why -- because Marx capitalized on his ideas? Ignoring the Right Hegelians like Charles Taylor, of course.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

For Sergius-Melli Republicans are racist.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law? If the allegations are true then should he be allowed in public office?

No they maybe defaming someone but they have the right under the 1st amendmant to the Constitution st free speech. Now IF you can prove defamation or libel maybe there is a xase, if you have the money to fight it. [Smile]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Well, Hagel committed the ultimate sin by saying what everyone knows but can't say: Israel has a powerful lobby which influences (and often complicates) U.S. Middle Eastern policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) exists and does have a lot of power, but you're not supposed to talk about it.

Nothing Israel does should ever be criticized; doing so makes one a raving anti-Semite (in a way that criticizing PRChinese policy vis-à-vis Tibet doesn't make one anti-Sino, evidently.)

It's bad enough when a Commie-pinko-Muslim-loving Democrat does it. It's worse when one of their own does it.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I didn't think Hagel did particularly well, but a big part of it was the Senators asking a lot of "have you stopped beating your wife" questions and demanding "yes" or "no" answers. Some observers have said he was poorly prepared, but I do think it is really hard to prepare for STUPID question.

I also think John McCain is losing it. It was really obvious that he has a serious grudge against his old friend and campaign advisor over Iraq (and possibly also Vietnam) and was just being an asshole. Once a fierce opponent of torture, he's now making jokes about waterboarding John Kerry. Not funny, and not the way he used to be.

ETA Hagel did correct himself over the "Jewish" lobby comment, acknowledging that he should have said Israeli.

[ 04. February 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
ETA Hagel did correct himself over the "Jewish" lobby comment, acknowledging that he should have said Israeli.

What's ironic about that whole canard is that, in Israel itself, where people would presumably know anti-semitism when they see it, there does not seem to be a tabbo against referring to a "Jewish lobby" as having influence over American mideast policy.

Haaretz

quote:
Some observers have said he was poorly prepared, but I do think it is really hard to prepare for STUPID question.

I'm sure a lot of the questions were idiotic, and designed for purposes of political pandering(see the word cloud I posted earlier). Nevertheless, Hagel is, I believe, a former member of that very committee, so he shoulda had some idea about what to expect.

[ 04. February 2013, 22:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Scanning through that Haaretz page, it seems that no less than the Israeli paper of record is running pro-Hagel editorials.

It really is amazing how cut-off the American pro-Israel lobby can be from actual public-opinion in Israel. Oh well. The Americans do have their own take on these things.

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :

If we assume that none of the Senate Dems would support a filibuster against Hagel, enough Senate Reps have stated that they, too, would not support a filibuster so that possibility seems unlikely at best and Hagel will be confirmed.

I must wonder if Harry Reid is questioning the wisdom of his deal with the Senate Reps regarding the filibuster. Harry should have used the Nuclear Option when he had the chance. He'll have to wait at least another two years to try again. He should never have trusted McConnell & Co. to honor any sort of deal especially with McConnell coming up for reelection is a state that elected Rand Paul.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Well, if anyone is still watching, history has been made. For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.

Let me say that again: For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.

The Republicans, of course, are filibustering because Hagel is anti-Israel. And because he insulted a gay nominee. And because he figured out what was really happening in Iraq. And because Obama is a Democrat. It couldn't possibly be racist bullying when there's all those other possibilities to explain something that has never happened before.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Certainly the filibuster move was OTT! But I wonder why Sen. McCain is still sounding his victory about asking "Were you right or wrong about the Surge in Iraq being the biggest blunder since Vietnam?"

ISTM that he was wrong because the BIGGEST blunder since Vietnam was the vote to go into Iraq; a vote endorsed by Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain were you right or wrong?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, if anyone is still watching, history has been made. For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.

Let me say that again: For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.

If I understand the rules, you need to say it thrice before it must be so. In reality, there have been two other filibusters of cabinet nominees, C. William Verity for Commerce Secretary and Dirk Kempthorne for Interior Secretary. A little less heavy breathing and a little more fact-checking is perhaps in order here.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

And let's not forget that a filibuster is small potatoes in the category of "Senate interfering with Presidential cabinet appointments" when compared with the Tenure of Office Act. So yes, the current Senate is being ridiculously obstructive, but not unprecedentedly so.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

According to John McCain filibustering Hagel's nomination for Secretary of Defense is payback for Hagel not toeing the Republican line during the Bush years.

quote:
But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.

McCain voted to support the filibuster, so I imagine this is to some degree an explanation of his own vote. What a maverick! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Ignoring the Right Hegelians like Charles Taylor, of course.

Charles Taylor stood for election several times for the NDP in the sixties, which as I understand it is a left to centre-left liberal party. He's not right-wing even by Canadian standards.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

If you recall seeing the conventions, the Republican delegates were almost all monochrome. Democrats had a wide mixture of colors.

If you look at where Republican vote is the strongest you will find it in states that don't have much color.

If you listen to some of the comments made by Republican leaders

If you look at how Republicans want to limit the vote of certain people

You can say they are pretty racist.

Now, all of the sudden they are realizing they have to at least appeal to Hispanics because, if they don't, they will lose Texas and even Georgia in the next presidential election.

The Republican party is largely made up of old, angry, white, people.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Ignoring the Right Hegelians like Charles Taylor, of course.
Charles Taylor stood for election several times for the NDP in the sixties, which as I understand it is a left to centre-left liberal party. He's not right-wing even by Canadian standards.

Grateful for the correction. Another academic classification proves to have no basis in real existing politics.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Republican party is largely made up of old, angry, white, people.

You can kind of see their point as the endless parade of do-gooders who seem hellbent on spending more and more generations into bankruptcy would wear on most any fiscally prudent folk.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Republican party is largely made up of old, angry, white, people.
You can kind of see their point as the endless parade of do-gooders who seem hellbent on spending more and more generations into bankruptcy would wear on most any fiscally prudent folk.

Yeah, these same "fiscally prudent folk" spent like drunken sailors during the Republican ruled era with the mantra "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
[Disappointed]

[ 16. February 2013, 22:12: Message edited by: Niteowl ]

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

So:

Why do Democrats hate Reagan?

(Personally I think it's because he won so decisively. [Devil]

)

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
So:

Why do Democrats hate Reagan?

(Personally I think it's because he won so decisively. )

And that point just sailed right over your head. Here's a hint: it had to do with spending money like crazy - not just something Democrats do. And BTW, I'm not a Democrat. I hate both parties equally.

ETA: I voted twice for Reagan. I began to regret it in his second term.

[ 16. February 2013, 23:41: Message edited by: Niteowl ]

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
And that point just sailed right over your head. Here's a hint:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002P4J2P8/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_7?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=AR8XJJ19SNPNX

It seems like the kind of toy you might want to invest in.

[Votive]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
So:

Why do Democrats hate Reagan?

(Personally I think it's because he won so decisively. )

He was a result of the final conversion of hippies into libertarians. I hear over and over again from conservatives around where I grew up that they used to be liberals until they decided that liberal policies weren't working. For people who held on, I can see how they'd resent his popularity.

If it matters, I tend to vote democrat whilst holding my nose. It's been a long time since I've seen a major republican candidate I could even think about supporting.

[ 17. February 2013, 02:03: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Excuse me! Cut it with the personal attacks.

Thanks.

Gwai
Purgatory Host

(Crossposted with Bullfrog)

[ 17. February 2013, 02:03: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

If someone could actually come up with a decent moderate candidate I'd vote for them. Both parties at present are more interested in their power than they are about the issues and the best interests of the country as a whole. When the GOP was in power spending was good and the Dems were for deficit control. Now the Dems want spending and the GOP says it's for deficit control. I know better than to trust either party. The GOP will continue to lose though, as long as they are the party of aging white men - especially with the extremist comments of Tea Party candidates. To win elections one must appeal to all races and be more moderate politically.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

Interesting backdrop: the New York Times Sunday Magazine article this morning: "Can the Republicans Be Saved from Obsolescence?"

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Interesting backdrop: the New York Times Sunday Magazine article this morning: "Can the Republicans Be Saved from Obsolescence?"

They managed to get W elected twice so how hard could it be.

And it is interesting in how much people are focusing on the campaign mechanism rather than the candidate. Does anyone think Al Gore or John Kerry would have done as well as Obama, with the exact same organization?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Does anyone think Al Gore or John Kerry would have done as well as Obama, with the exact same organization?

Pretty much. The exit poll evidence points to the unpalatable truth which GOP supporters are going to have to live with. That African Americans and Latin Americans vote predominantly for the Democratic Candidate, regardless of sking colour or gender or religion.

The idea that "the American Way of Life" is somehow threatened by those who are different, that the entire philosophy is somehow "exclusive" is the biggest handicap to any GOP POTUS candidate. What's happened? It's simple really. There has been an ethnic shift in the composition of the electorate which is dangerous to a party which lionises the traditional values of the historical majority.

I know something about this stuff from my origins in NE England. It was said of my local constituency that if the Archangel Gabriel stood as a Tory candidate and a donkey stood as a Labour candidate, the donkey would get in by 20,000 votes. Why? Because Tories were not to be trusted with "our" interests.

I'm afraid the GOP is just going to have to suck it up. The electoral world has changed. The GOP will have to find ways of wooing this significant voting sector - or live with the alternative.

[ 19. February 2013, 12:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
It was said of my local constituency that if the Archangel Gabriel stood as a Tory candidate and a donkey stood as a Labour candidate, the donkey would get in by 20,000 votes. Why? Because Tories were not to be trusted with "our" interests.

A similar bit of hyperbole gave rise to the term "Yellow Dog Democrat", to describe a white southerner who would vote Democrat no matter what(ie. even if they ran a yellow dog for office) back in the days of the Solid South.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
A similar bit of hyperbole gave rise to the term "Yellow Dog Democrat", to describe a white southerner who would vote Democrat no matter what(ie. even if they ran a yellow dog for office) back in the days of the Solid South.

Yellow dog? I've only heard the expression blue dog Democrat. Is this a regional variant, or a different term entirely?

--Tom Clune

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
A similar bit of hyperbole gave rise to the term "Yellow Dog Democrat", to describe a white southerner who would vote Democrat no matter what(ie. even if they ran a yellow dog for office) back in the days of the Solid South.
Yellow dog? I've only heard the expression blue dog Democrat. Is this a regional variant, or a different term entirely?

--Tom Clune

It's a bit of a regionalism. It referred to the fairly conservative voters in the southern portions of the United States who were extremely loyal to the Democratic party from the late nineteenth century through the mid-twentieth century, mostly on the grounds that Lincoln and the Republicans were the ones who freed the slaves. The term "blue dog Democrat" means much the same, but is less regional and is usually applied to politicians, not voters.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Yes, according to wiki, the variation is more over time than region. In the mid-90s, a faction of conservaitve Democrats(roughly the ideological heirs of the Yellow Dogs, though not exclusively southern) started calling themselves Blue Dogs. This is possibly attributable to the group holding meetings in a room with paintings of a canine so-coloured, though there are other explanations.

And of course, unlike "Yellow Dog", "Blue Dog" is not meant to symbolize undying loyalty to the Democrats and hatred of the Republicans. Somewhat the opposite, in fact.

Blue Dog Coalition

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

One thing that I've always found interesting is that in both 1952 and 1956, only the south and a few border states went with the Democrats, despite Adlai Stevenson being the epitome of the urbane northern liberal. Such was the tenacity of the Solid South even at that late a date.

[ 19. February 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
One thing that I've always found interesting is that in both 1952 and 1956, only the south and a few border states went with the Democrats, despite Adlai Stevenson being the epitome of the urbane northern liberal. Such was the tenacity of the Solid South even at that late a date.

Even more interesting is comparing the electoral maps for 1956 and 1964. Despite the long-running tenacity of the Solid South its collapse was fairly rapid, completely reversing the (presidential) electoral map in the span of just eight years.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I grew up in the 50's and 60's it was the Democratic Party that emphasized States Rights. It was the Republican Party that emphasized the Federal Government. That all changed under Johnson who signed most of the civil rights bills. This caused such a split in the Democratic party that the Republicans saw an opening for a Southern Strategy. But in doing so, it forced out the liberal and moderate members of the party, and the party has become more white.

While the Republicans did get W elected president, I would say that was its last gasp unless it can change course. By the next Presidential election Texas and Georgia will likely go Democrat because of the increase in the Hispanic and African American vote.

Why do the Republican's hate Hagel? Because they hate Obama. McCain once said Hagel would be a great Secretary of State. Hagel has not changed. McCain changed. Why? Sore Loser, maybe.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

This photo describes American and especially Republican politics for the last 4 1/2 years.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

G. W. Bush lost the national popular vote by half a million votes in 2000, and won the popular vote in 2004 as much due to patriotic fervour accompanying the Iraq invasion as anything. (He ended his term with a 27% approval rating).

Even so, the problem for the GOP in 2013 is that George W. Bush is a relative moderate-to-liberal in comparison to the current crop of GOP congressmen and senators (incl. Rand, Rubio and Cruz.) This, at a time when the country is becoming more urban, less White and less focused on baby boomer obsessions (culture wars, size of government) than before. Many minority groups that voted Republican in large numbers as recently as 2000: Asians, Muslims and Hispanics, have been turned off by its anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and hyper-evangelical Christian crusading. The GOP has only won a single popular vote in a Presidential election since 1992. In 2012 not did Obama win a Presidential election by nearly 5 million votes in a bad economy, the Democrats gained Senate seats and received more popular votes for House candidates than Republicans (the Republicans keeping the House only because of gerrymandering.)

My sense is that people are tired of unwinnable ideological battles and more concerned about things like how to pay for out-of-control college, healthcare and retirement costs, all of which are slipping out of reach for younger people especially. And, on these issues, at this moment, the Democrats have the rhetorical advantage. Perhaps the Republicans will start speaking to middle class people about these issues directly. Actually, I hope they do because this country needs at least two functional parties, but for now they seem to slide from faux crisis to faux crisis while masking the internal civil war between the Tea Party and the old line business establishment.

WRT to Reagan: Most liberals I know were angry at Reagan because he kicked off the bash-the-poor with the veiled racist "Cadillac driving welfare queens" rhetoric; ignored the growing AIDS epidemic for political reasons until it got out of control squandering years of research; overturned Carter's environmental and energy conservation initiatives (which will bite us down the line); popularized the Laffer Curve tax policy which has since been debunked by most economists who are not allied with partisan political think tanks and other specific policy reasons.

Many conservatives are also angry at Reagan because he transformed the GOP from a truly fiscally frugal party to its "borrow and spend" policies (while blowing rhetoric to the contrary) which it has followed ever since. He also kicked off an expansion of government intrusion into our personal lives through domestic monitoring and surveillance. Finally, there are some conservative evangelicals who recognize that he was the first who publicly apparently embraced their issues to win votes while having absolutely no desire to follow through on their policies.

I suspect that in a few years time, people will realize that Reagan finalized the transformation of the GOP into a White Baby Boomer's party, which led to the current crisis when those people and their issues stopped resonating as the generational and demographic change occurred.

[ 22. February 2013, 03:43: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
WRT to Reagan: Most liberals I know were angry at Reagan because he kicked off the bash-the-poor with the veiled racist "Cadillac driving welfare queens" rhetoric; ignored the growing AIDS epidemic for political reasons until it got out of control squandering years of research; overturned Carter's environmental and energy conservation initiatives (which will bite us down the line); popularized the Laffer Curve tax policy which has since been debunked by most economists who are not allied with partisan political think tanks and other specific policy reasons.

You forgot his outrageous firing of the air traffic controllers -- which jack-booted Republicans memorialized by renaming Dulles International Airport for him. That kind of fuck-you to people you've already screwed over is hardly designed to win friends and influence people.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
WRT to Reagan: Most liberals I know were angry at Reagan because he kicked off the bash-the-poor with the veiled racist "Cadillac driving welfare queens" rhetoric; ignored the growing AIDS epidemic for political reasons until it got out of control squandering years of research; overturned Carter's environmental and energy conservation initiatives (which will bite us down the line); popularized the Laffer Curve tax policy which has since been debunked by most economists who are not allied with partisan political think tanks and other specific policy reasons.
You forgot his outrageous firing of the air traffic controllers -- which jack-booted Republicans memorialized by renaming Dulles International Airport for him. That kind of fuck-you to people you've already screwed over is hardly designed to win friends and influence people.

--Tom Clune

Point of clarification...Not Dulles. National. Washington National Airport is now Regan National, and there is a large statue of the Gipper as you drive in. Sad.

Dulles is still Dulles. Named after a Secretary of State under Eisenhower.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Dulles is still Dulles. Named after a Secretary of State under Eisenhower.

I stand corrected.

--Tom Clune

[ 22. February 2013, 13:48: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Hagel confirmed as defense sec.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0