Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yep.

[DinoDoc]

Says the unreconstructed Rebel.

[DaShi]

I'll quote DaShi by saying So?

Finally, some props.

[Guynemer]

If you're about to tell me that he's a conservative, then I would be an admirer of Hitler and Mussolini.

No, of course he isn't a conservative.

He's a moderate.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Says the unreconstructed Rebel.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The point is that the people doing the electing can't directly change the process, and neither can the guys they elect until they have seniority. So far, too few have been able to stomach the process long enough.

Seniority doesn't apply to leadership votes. If the tea party aligned house members voted as a block for anyone other than Boehner, do you think he'd be around long - with a clear signal that a substantial minority of his own party doubted his leadership ability? Sure, the leadership could retaliate on committee assignments, but that's pretty minor on a large scale - and could easily be used against Boehner next time. Reality was very few people voted against Boehner, so they're either content with his leadership, or else going along to get along. Either way, supporters or bootlickers, it doesn't give much credibility to the notion that there's any alternative to the party establishment. FWIW, I feel the same way about the Dem caucus - I find it disgusting that there are so many Pelosi bootlickers.

Gore's performance was panned in the media shows that only the politically active watch, not the evening news, the headlines and front page, or anywhere else the majority of people would actually hear or read it. GWB was hardly more effective as a speaker or campaigner, except that he had a conservative message and Gore had a liberal/green message. The message is what killed Gore, and what elected Bush.

Sorry, I beg to disagree. The liberal media you pan let Gore do a good job of hanging himself. One episode I remember particularly was after Bush had breathed into his microphone in another appearance, Gore doing the same thing repeatedly, in a really exagerated way, mocking Bush. Some of the hardcore base lapped it up and laughed. Everyone I talked to (I don't hang out with many loonie lefties, sorry), found it (a) immature, (b) shallow, because Gore was more interested in being an ass than talking any substantive policy, and (c) beneath the dignity of the Presidency, even for campaign antics. George W. Bush came across as a more approachable, more sincere candidate, despite the legacy, draft, silver spoon stuff. Gore came across pedantic and entitled and smug. Even my loonie left acquaintances who couldn't stand Bush didn't feel any real passion for Gore. They just took him as "not Bush."

... none of which has anything to do with what I'm saying. The majority is more conservative than liberal. However, many people are only exposed to mainstream news because they don't want to take the effort to educate themselves. Second, I contend that W didn't have to soft-pedal the conservative message. That was Rove and the political consultants. It was a successful end-run because the media couldn't think up an effective counter to it.

The majority is changing. If you try to run in 2016 based on a view of Reagan or W, good luck.

I agree he is an etch-a-sketch, but he actively pushed the progressive healthcare policy that we call Romneycare. He still stands behind it as "right for Massachussets but not necessarily for the country," even after signing the pledge to repeal Obamacare. That makes him a progressive.

We can label anyone any way we choose, but one issue doesn't make Romney or anyone else progressive. He'd laugh at that labelling, and so would progressives.

Oh, you mean the conservative base that elected W twice? The conservative base that kept electing the nominally "conservative" Republican majority for 5 elections in a row until 2006? The conservative base that voted against Clinton in '92 and '96 but, because it was divided between Perot and the Republican, Clinton was elected with less than a majority vote? The conservative base that elected Reagan twice and GWHB once as Reagan's successor?

If you want to look at it as a conservative base, go for it. General elections are won in the center - it's like OT in football. Occasionally you air one out and get a landslide, but more often than not, you move the ball a few yards until you're in field goal range. You look at voters, I look at quality of candidates. Carter beat Ford not because he was a strong candidate, he was an outsider. People wanted change. Reagan came in as an outsider after Carter's failure to deal with the economy and the humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis. You think it was just the base? Where do you think the term Reagan Democrats came from? As far as the string of Republican wins goes, look at what the Dems scraped up - Carter? Fritz and Tits? Dukakis? Gore? C'mon, as a Republican, could you ask for anything better? Well, maybe Kucinich. You don't need much base to win against candidates like those, and the center moved.

Ah, so you admit the mainstream is overwhelmingly Dem, overwhelmingly lib, and knows that the informed conservatives won't listen to them so they don't even bother to try to be unbiased.

I admit that news is a business, and if there wasn't demand for alleged "lib biased" news, it wouldn't exist. I know it's mantra for the GOP, but it's a little tough to square corporate news media driven by ratings and profits with a notion that "the country is conservative" but "the media is ultralib." The sit on their ass sitcom crowd doesn't need to work to change channels - it's not like the 60s when you had three choices and had to actually get off the couch to change a channel.

I am moving on, saying that conservatism sells while spineless moderation and liberalism does not.

Cool. How about a Palin-West ticket in 2016? Please. Pretty Please. With a cherry on top?

So, on what basis did the Dems "overreach?"

Remember those bumper stickers that said "The only change Clinton wants is your last dime" or the ones that had the C in Clinton replaced with a hammer and sickle? Then just about out of the gate Clinton (the draft dodger, remember that?) starts in on gays in the military? (did you ever get one of those "Ballad of the Queen Berets" emails? Clinton played right into the "vast right wing conspiracy" playbook by coming out as way too far left of the country, then he waffled on the gays in the military issue due to backlash, so he pissed off everyone and gained the respect/support of noone. The difference is after the mid-term whuppin', he learned.

So, again, you have no rebuttal for the facts I present. Conservatism won in 1980, 1984, 1986 Senate, 1988, 1994 House and Senate, 2000, 2004, and 2010, and will win when it is made the issue by a real conservative. No openly liberal, socialist, or progressive candidate has ever won the White House.

You're presenting conclusions, not facts. 1988? You mean GHWB, who as Reagan's primary opponent in 1980 joked that Reagan's campaign plane had two right wings? As far as current electoral demographics, 1980 is as relevant to 2016 as 1880. As far as "socialist" or "progressive" goes, the US spectrum doesn't swing that far. Then again, the conservative side doesn't swing as far as fascism or the Know Nothings. So let's just stick with "liberals" You mean like (in comparison with their times) TR, FDR, Truman (civil rights) JFK, LBJ (civil rights again - domestic liberal), Clinton (reinvent to the center) and Obama?

[DinoDoc]

I guess Graham needs attention. Apparently it's better for the US to be without a SecDef and DCI because one Senator feels entitled to have a little tantrum.

What's the upside to the Senate for rubber stamping a Sec Def nominee who is not at all shy about admiting about how ill prepared he is for the job the President wants to give him or one that doesn't even know what the President's policies are?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Turning him into the President's albatross. But his qualification or preparedness has nothing to do with Graham's stated reasons.

[DinoDoc]

Turning him into the President's albatross. But his qualification or preparedness has nothing to do with Graham's stated reasons.

I'm simply referring to the reasons he should be filibustered.

[DinoDoc]

FTR, the Jewish Lobby in Hagel parlance seems to have had at least a temporary victory is keeping the nomination from his grasp: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...efense-nominee

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm simply referring to the reasons he should be filibustered.

The reasons things should be done are irrelevant if they're not the reasons why things are being done.

[MichaeltheGreat]

FTR, the Jewish Lobby in Hagel parlance seems to have had at least a temporary victory is keeping the nomination from his grasp: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...efense-nominee

I'm more pro-Israel than most posters here, and most Americans, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think there isn't a very substantial pro-Israel jewish lobby in the US. They're not stupid. Hell, everyone else has their lobbyists, why wouldn't they?

[Straybow]

Seniority doesn't apply to leadership votes. If the tea party aligned house members voted as a block for anyone other than Boehner, do you think he'd be around long - with a clear signal that a substantial minority of his own party doubted his leadership ability? Sure, the leadership could retaliate on committee assignments, but that's pretty minor on a large scale - and could easily be used against Boehner next time. Reality was very few people voted against Boehner, so they're either content with his leadership, or else going along to get along. Either way, supporters or bootlickers, it doesn't give much credibility to the notion that there's any alternative to the party establishment. FWIW, I feel the same way about the Dem caucus - I find it disgusting that there are so many Pelosi bootlickers.

Seniority controls the party, and the party controls the leadership vote. They don't have a party organization. The TEA party conservatives are generally outsiders who don't have support in the party (in case you haven't been paying attention). They are maybe 25% of the Republicans, so even if they could organize as a caucus for the speaker vote they'd have to convince a third or more of the not-so-conservatives who already like Boehner.

Gore's performance was panned in the media shows that only the politically active watch, not the evening news, the headlines and front page, or anywhere else the majority of people would actually hear or read it. GWB was hardly more effective as a speaker or campaigner, except that he had a conservative message and Gore had a liberal/green message. The message is what killed Gore, and what elected Bush.

Sorry, I beg to disagree. The liberal media you pan let Gore do a good job of hanging himself. ... George W. Bush came across as a more approachable, more sincere candidate, despite the legacy, draft, silver spoon stuff. Gore came across pedantic and entitled and smug. Even my loonie left acquaintances who couldn't stand Bush didn't feel any real passion for Gore. They just took him as "not Bush."

The mainstream media didn't let Gore hang himself, they did everything they could to stop it. They didn't highlight Gore's gaffes and hound him, as they do with Republicans and conservatives, they made any passing reference as brief as possible. W's message was sincere, approachable, and personable despite his poor speaking abilities and all the interference the media could summon.

The majority is changing. If you try to run in 2016 based on a view of Reagan or W, good luck.

I think 2010 showed the majority hasn't changed that much. We don't have a Reagan, and I can't even see a W to run. W's organization surprised everyone, so maybe we'll be surprised in 2016.

We can label anyone any way we choose, but one issue doesn't make Romney or anyone else progressive. He'd laugh at that labelling, and so would progressives.

I'm talking about how the conservative base sees him, and judging by the turnout I'm pretty much spot on.

Oh, you mean the conservative base that elected W twice? The conservative base that kept electing the nominally "conservative" Republican majority for 5 elections in a row until 2006? The conservative base that voted against Clinton in '92 and '96 but, because it was divided between Perot and the Republican, Clinton was elected with less than a majority vote? The conservative base that elected Reagan twice and GWHB once as Reagan's successor?

If you want to look at it as a conservative base, go for it. General elections are won in the center - it's like OT in football. Occasionally you air one out and get a landslide, but more often than not, you move the ball a few yards until you're in field goal range. You look at voters, I look at quality of candidates. Carter beat Ford not because he was a strong candidate, he was an outsider. People wanted change.

No, the media had been beating on the Republicans for 3 years over Watergate. The whole "people wanted change" thing is a suckers game. Just look at Obama, promising to "fundamentally change America" and then when the changing starts everybody says, "Whoah, I didn't want that kind of change!" Obama just went down again in the Gallup polls.

Reagan came in as an outsider after Carter's failure to deal with the economy and the humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis. You think it was just the base? Where do you think the term Reagan Democrats came from? As far as the string of Republican wins goes, look at what the Dems scraped up - Carter? Fritz and Tits? Dukakis? Gore? C'mon, as a Republican, could you ask for anything better? Well, maybe Kucinich. You don't need much base to win against candidates like those, and the center moved.

The Reagan Democrats were Dems who realized the Dem party had become far too liberal after hearing a real conservative campaign. The Dems kept nominating duds because they are duds. They only win when they claim to be something different, like "New Democrat" Clinton and "Hope and Change" Obama. But there isn't a hair's breadth difference in terms of politics and policy. Carter won in part because he claimed to be a born again Christian and captured a significant chunk of otherwise conservative votes who probably would have sat out.

Ah, so you admit the mainstream is overwhelmingly Dem, overwhelmingly lib, and knows that the informed conservatives won't listen to them so they don't even bother to try to be unbiased.

I admit that news is a business, and if there wasn't demand for alleged "lib biased" news, it wouldn't exist. I know it's mantra for the GOP, but it's a little tough to square corporate news media driven by ratings and profits with a notion that "the country is conservative" but "the media is ultralib." The sit on their ass sitcom crowd doesn't need to work to change channels - it's not like the 60s when you had three choices and had to actually get off the couch to change a channel.

One of the majors (NBC, I think) admits its news division loses money every year, but the corporation feels it can't just cut the news and won't try to toss out the old and bring in the new as they would with a primetime lineup. I'd bet you the other two majors are not doing much better. They are ideologically driven.

So, on what basis did the Dems "overreach?"

Remember those bumper stickers that said "The only change Clinton wants is your last dime" or the ones that had the C in Clinton replaced with a hammer and sickle? Then just about out of the gate Clinton (the draft dodger, remember that?) starts in on gays in the military? (did you ever get one of those "Ballad of the Queen Berets" emails? Clinton played right into the "vast right wing conspiracy" playbook by coming out as way too far left of the country, then he waffled on the gays in the military issue due to backlash, so he pissed off everyone and gained the respect/support of noone. The difference is after the mid-term whuppin', he learned.

Sorry, I didn't think of the gays in the military bit, add that to Hillarycare and environmentalism for the liberal trifecta. Clinton overreached by revealing his not-so-New-Democrat liberalism, and the conservative majority of the country (including a substantial chunk of Democrats) reacted against it.

So, again, you have no rebuttal for the facts I present. Conservatism won in 1980, 1984, 1986 Senate, 1988, 1994 House and Senate, 2000, 2004, and 2010, and will win when it is made the issue by a real conservative. No openly liberal, socialist, or progressive candidate has ever won the White House.

You're presenting conclusions, not facts. 1988? You mean GHWB, who as Reagan's primary opponent in 1980 joked that Reagan's campaign plane had two right wings?

No, the facts are who won. You are forgetting that GWHB's 1988 campaign was based on "four more years" of Reagan's policies. I didn't say GWHB was conservative. As I mentioned way back, he tried to "be himself" in 1992 and flopped, which is why he's the perfect example of how conservatism works with the majority of voters.

As far as current electoral demographics, 1980 is as relevant to 2016 as 1880.

So why are you bringing up all the liberals before 1980?

As far as "socialist" or "progressive" goes, the US spectrum doesn't swing that far.

Except for Teddy Roosevelt, who became a Progressive and lost all support. In modern politics the majority can only be spoon-fed socialist/progressive quack remedies in small doses. As soon as they see the whole bottle of snake oil they reject it. Everybody knows it. Successfully paint a program as socialist and it goes down in flames. Pelosi only got Obamacare passed by hiding its content from even her own party.

[regexcellent]

I'm more pro-Israel than most posters here, and most Americans, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think there isn't a very substantial pro-Israel jewish lobby in the US. They're not stupid. Hell, everyone else has their lobbyists, why wouldn't they?

Yeah but they don't have an iron grip on politics the way conspiracy theorists say they do, and to the extent that pro-Israel politics are dominant it's due to the will of the voters and not fat cats making backroom deals with briefcases full of money. But you know that.

[kentonio]

I didn't say GWHB was conservative. As I mentioned way back, he tried to "be himself" in 1992 and flopped, which is why he's the perfect example of how conservatism works with the majority of voters.

That's some pretty stupid **** right there.

As soon as they see the whole bottle of snake oil they reject it. Everybody knows it. Successfully paint a program as socialist and it goes down in flames.

You don't think that might have had anything to do with the mass propoganda program that spent 40 years indoctrinating Americans into hating anything connected to Communism? Hell, you can ask Americans whether they like/dislike a whole range of socialist ideas and they'll say they love them, but then ask them if they like the same things but describe them as socialized or socialist ideas and they'll say they hate the same damn things. Look what happened when they polled about individual parts of Obamacare for goodness sake.

Americans arent any different to any other nationality, you still want a home, family, medical care for your kids etc etc. Pure capitalism is never going to provide that for everyone, and as the fear of reds under the bed starts to fade socialism will continue to grow in the US. You might need to give it a new name, but it won't be any different than anywhere else. Survival of the fittest just isn't going to cut it.

Pelosi only got Obamacare passed by hiding its content from even her own party.

Please tell me you don't actually believe that stupid crap?

I'm simply referring to the reasons he should be filibustered.

Go for it, why not. Then next time you have the White House the Dems will take great enjoyment out of denying the GOP their appointments too. It'll be a great new America, where cabinet appointments stop having anything to do with whether the person involved can do a job, and become all about pure partisan politics.

Do you really think this childish gamesmanship has anything to do with his ability to do the job? If you do, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.