2012 Election NOT a rebuke of conservatism

[Denny Crane]

The Tea Party began like that and I think had good and honerable goals. But in the 2010 election, the people they rallied behind were de facto zealots. Those are the people who have made all the news with the rape comments and they are the ones who have been pushing for stronger anti-abortion legislation.

The religious right took over the Republican party and they have now taken over the Tea Party. The thing is, the religious right is a very motivated group with money and method to mobalize their base. Where are the Reagan Democrats? They are waiting for a more middle of the road party. I don't know what the answer is because I would expect if another party picks up steam, they will be either corrupted by the far left or the far right, there is precious few people in the middle who are willing to devote their lives to moderation.

As I mentioned earlier, a (Tea Party) conservative doesn't have to be religious, but a religious person can be conservative. I mean, why wouldn't a deeply devout person like freedom of religion, small government, and all the other fiscal things conservatism stands for?

Where are the blue dog democrats? They've been forced out of the party over time. Freaking Joe Lieberman was Al Gore's VP candidate and he was forced out of the party (he became an independent). The Party ran a guy against him in the primary for his senate seat and defeated him, so he ran as an independent and won.

 

[Denny Crane]

Would be interesting to see the party registration figures.

barfo

You're losing already.

 

[Further]

I don't want to toss out a conspiracy here but. The pharmacology companies heavily endorse the Democratic party. Are you aware that there have been many "alternative findings and treatments" of cancers or other major illnesses; that the federal government has shut down? I always laughed at how many Democrats bark at how evil the oil empire is; yet they praise the medical and pharmacology industry that makes billions on kimo therapy and flu shots.

The pharmacology companies heavily endorse the Democratic party

I think they give to both, but perhaps more to the D's. Makes sense. Most of the basic research is done off NIH grants and then once that research starts to become interesting, Pharma invests in more research to try and turn the findings into something that makes money. It's a win win. But since the D's want to invest in research and the R's don't, or at least don't want ot invest as much, it seems like a reasonable stance.

Are you aware that there have been many "alternative findings and treatments" of cancers or other major illnesses; that the federal government has shut down?

Shut down, no. I do know that there are areas that are not invested in because they are not hot at the moment, and I also know that Pharma is not going to invest the millions needed to do research something that is "alternative" since they can't make money from something that simply grows from the earch. However, synthetic versions of many things have been made, so Pharma is learning how to make money off plants. Convienence counts. As far as treatments of cancers, I work in a lab closely affiliated with Druker up at OHSU, who discovered the only true Cure for a cancer. Granted, it is a very rare cancer and quite different from most other cancers, so the information gained in the research is not immediately applicable to other cancers. My point is that there is not a person up here who would ever hide any discovery that would lead to advancement of cancer research.

I always laughed at how many Democrats bark at how evil the oil empire is; yet they praise the medical and pharmacology industry that makes billions on kimo therapy and flu shots.

I have no problem with the oil empire making billions. I just believe that taxpayers should not be footing a 4 billion dollar per year subsidy to the oil industry when they are having record years and are not in trouble economically. I am fine with the oil empire making all the money it can, just so long as they don't use their leverage to squash research in alternatives, with will eventually be needed. But I do understand that some liberals are against the oil companies making a huge profit, just not me. I do believe in a tempered capatalism, and think that inovation and hard work should have a great reward. The oil companies are figuring out how to get oil from new places, produce the oil with fewer emissions, and working hard to make sure all corners of our nation (and world) have the power we NEED to thrive. They are important and they do deserve a hardy profit. I would hope for a company to share more profits with the workers via higher pay, but the market determins that and so it's not their fault. Likewise, I have no problem with Pharma making money, Porn making money or any industry making money. I simply feel that they should be taxed at a rate commensurate with what other people pay, and if they are given lower taxes it should be for the specific reason of competition with overseas companies or as a benefit for keeping production local.

 

[Denny Crane]

While I agree that Oil (or any company for that matter) should not be getting any sort of welfare...

$4B in tax incentives to companies that generate at least $2T in sales? I don't think they really care all that much about the incentives.

Sure, it beats a sharp stick in the eye, but they're not going to chase $4B at the expense of any sizable chunk of the $2T.

 

[barfo]

You're losing already.

Not sure what you mean by that.

barfo

 

[noknobs]

And I wonder who those 10M who didn't show up really are? The popular vote actually went down, Obama was the first reelected president to have a lesser popular vote than his first election that I know of. Isn't that a rebuke of his first term and policies? I think so!

Only partially, I think it's more a rebuke of our faith in the government as a whole. If it was merely a rebuke of Obama, then we'd have seen an increase of voters voting against him. Instead we see, for example, a 15% decrease in turnout in the state of Texas.

When congress has a 9% approval rating, there's a problem. Neither side was willing to work with the other and so nothing got done. Faced with the options of shit or more shit, millions more decided to vote by not voting.


As for the original question of if this was a rebuke of conservatism... I think the more accurate statement would be it's a rebuke of what a younger generation and minorities THINK conservatism stands for. If that's an inaccurate perception, then maybe that's something conservatives should think about.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure what you mean by that.

barfo

I think there may be as many as 5 who post here who want big government.

 

[Denny Crane]

Only partially, I think it's more a rebuke of our faith in the government as a whole. If it was merely a rebuke of Obama, then we'd have seen an increase of voters voting against him. Instead we see, for example, a 15% decrease in turnout in the state of Texas.

When congress has a 9% approval rating, there's a problem. Neither side was willing to work with the other and so nothing got done. Faced with the options of shit or more shit, millions more decided to vote by not voting.


As for the original question of if this was a rebuke of conservatism... I think the more accurate statement would be it's a rebuke of what a younger generation and minorities THINK conservatism stands for. If that's an inaccurate perception, then maybe that's something conservatives should think about.

Obama didn't hold onto the voters that voted him into office. In a country where other presidents get reelected with MORE votes than they got the first time.

Given the choice to vote for Obama, or Romney, or stay home, they didn't choose Obama (or Romney).

 

[barfo]

I think there may be as many as 5 who post here who want big government.

I don't think this forum is very representative of the population at large. Otherwise, Gary what's-his-name would be president now instead of the answer to a trivia question.

barfo

 

[noknobs]

Obama didn't hold onto the voters that voted him into office. In a country where other presidents get reelected with MORE votes than they got the first time.

Given the choice to vote for Obama, or Romney, or stay home, they didn't choose Obama (or Romney).

Right... so basically what I said.

 

[barfo]

Obama didn't hold onto the voters that voted him into office.

So he got 61 million new voters? Very interesting.

Given the choice to vote for Obama, or Romney, or stay home, they didn't choose Obama (or Romney).

Lots of people don't care enough to vote. This shocks you why, exactly?

barfo

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Reality has made Palin go off on a scripture spree.

Reality? Try this:

"Republicans have won the popular vote just ONCE in the last 23 yrs. They've lost it 5 out of the last 6 elections."

Death.

To.

The.

GOP.

 

[noknobs]

Lots of people don't care enough to vote. This shocks you why, exactly?

barfo

It's not that people don't care, it's how many. I read the turnout could even be less than 2004, even though population has increased by over 20 million. Given the importance of this election, how divided the country seems to be, and our current economic climate, this does surprise me.

 

[Minstrel]

It's not that people don't care, it's how many. I read the turnout could even be less than 2004, even though population has increased by over 20 million. Given the importance of this election, how divided the country seems to be, and our current economic climate, this does surprise me.

It may be a reflection of the political climate. To me, it's less that the candidates were horrible and more that the increasingly negative campaigning and vicious rhetoric from both sides is either convincing people that both candidates are terrible or else causing people to disengage because they don't want to wade into what has increasingly become a blood sport.

After typing that, I actually looked up voting percentage of voting-age population per election year and it looks like the trend since 1960 is generally downward with three notable exceptions: 1992, 2004 and 2008. 1992 and 2008 could be described as "optimism cycles" of truly gifted campaigners (though that then begs the question of why 1980 didn't have the same effect)...2004, though, is hard to explain.

 

[Denny Crane]

It may be a reflection of the political climate. To me, it's less that the candidates were horrible and more that the increasingly negative campaigning and vicious rhetoric from both sides is either convincing people that both candidates are terrible or else causing people to disengage because they don't want to wade into what has increasingly become a blood sport.

After typing that, I actually looked up voting percentage of voting-age population per election year and it looks like the trend since 1960 is generally downward with three notable exceptions: 1992, 2004 and 2008. 1992 and 2008 could be described as "optimism cycles" of truly gifted campaigners (though that then begs the question of why 1980 didn't have the same effect)...2004, though, is hard to explain.

I've come to the conclusion that the negative ads are actually true. Both candidates are terrible.

I'm thinking the really big story of this election is the decline in turnout for a race between a messianic figure and a guy who might actually pull our fat out of the fire.

 

[barfo]

I've come to the conclusion that the negative ads are actually true. Both candidates are terrible.

I'm thinking the really big story of this election is the decline in turnout for a race between a messianic figure and a guy who might actually pull our fat out of the fire.

I don't think I'd describe Romney as messianic.

barfo

 

[ABM]

I don't think I'd describe Romney as messianic.

barfo

He was a mess, alright.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think I'd describe Romney as messianic.

barfo

I wouldn't either. The Messianic guy got 10M fewer votes than last time he ran.

 

[Minstrel]

I've come to the conclusion that the negative ads are actually true. Both candidates are terrible.

Well, yeah...I don't think anyone's unclear on your position on that.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, yeah...I don't think anyone's unclear on your position on that.

The ads for the mayoral race here were about how one guy (the democrat who got elected) assaulted a woman and spent some time in jail (was arrested, pled no contest) and the other was accused of being a crook.

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting read on the Tea Party:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34291.html

There’s no centralized tea party organization, and anecdotes suggest that many tea party participants hold socially conservative views. But those views have been little in evidence at movement gatherings or in public statements, and are sometimes deliberately excluded from the political agenda. The groups coordinating them eschew social issues, and a new Contract From America, has become an article of concern on the social right.

The contract, sponsored by the grass-roots Tea Party Patriots as well as Washington groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform, asks supporters to choose the 10 most important issues from a menu of 21 choices that makes no mention of socially conservative priorities such as gay marriage and abortion.

...

There’s little data on the disparate tea party movement. One small CNN survey of self-identified tea party activists found that 68 percent identify themselves as Protestants or other non-Catholic Christians, as opposed to just 50 percent in the general population. Only 9 percent of the activists say they’re irreligious, as opposed to 14 percent in the broader sample.

But an in-depth study of 49 tea party leaders by the free-market oriented Sam Adams Alliance suggested that the leadership consciously avoids social issues and plans to continue doing so.

“None of them chose social issues as the sole direction for the movement,” said the group’s marketing director, Anne Sorock, who oversaw the study.

She said that while many of the leaders held conservative views on social issues, “they were completely adamant that [the issues] were not a part of their agenda for the long term.”

“Across the board everyone had the same answer: It’s so important that they achieve their goals that social issues cannot distract them, because they need to cast the widest net of consensus with the widest group possible,” she said.

The rise of the fiscal and economic conservative grass-roots has been cause for celebration in the socially liberal wing of the Republican Party.

http://www.thecontract.org/support/