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

[Aeson]

CA is real nice if you live W of I-5 (limited areas E of I-5 may be included)

[DinoDoc]

As far as leaving to "better" places?

California has more debt than any other state in the union. Twice as much as New York. California's debt levels top Greece's and the population seems to feel no need to rein it in. You've had a net migration of 3.4 million people out of California since 1990 and currently have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. If this were the EU, Germany would have invaded you by now.

[DinoDoc]

As Ben and DD can see, we live in a real cesspool of collapse and despair out here.

Greece has nice scenery too.

[MichaeltheGreat]

California has more debt than any other state in the union. Twice as much as New York. California's debt levels top Greece's and the population seems to feel no need to rein it in. You've had a net migration of 3.4 million people out of California since 1990 and currently have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. If this were the EU, Germany would have invaded you by now.

Why not compare California to Alaska if you want to be irrelevant? Outside of NYC, New York doesn't have a huge population, aka need for state level services and infrastructure. California had at its peak double the population of New York, and has three times the area (e.g. more need for roads.

Net exodus of 3.4 million? You mean a tenth of the peak population? Or more than 20 states' total populations?

If you factor out California's ag economy based counties, then California's unemployment is in line with the rest of the country.

State GDP per capita? The only decent size states that are higher than California are New York and New Jersey, which is mostly driven by Wall Street. BTW, how does Mississippi rank?

Calfornia's debt levels top Greece? With 3 times the population and 4.5 times the GDP, so what? If you want to make random, meaningless comparisons, let's see how Mississippi stacks up with say... Burkina Faso?

[Straybow]

The McCain of 2000 would have won. McCain didn't lose because of running to the center - he lost because he'd got old and tired and allowed himself to get painted into a Bush's third term corner from both sides. Then he picked motor mouth trailer park queen as a running mate and sealed the deal. Romney ran nowhere and lost. Too many gaffes, too much arrogance, and things like the "etch a sketch" comment were gifts that just kept on giving.

No, McCain was not willing to run as a conservative in 2000 and Bush was. Bush won twice, which you seem to forget. We do know McCain was unwilling to run as a conservative in 2008, and he lost against a guy who was a complete empty suit. There was absolutely no substance to the O campaign, and McCain managed to look weak in comparison. I'll bet you think Palin said she could see Russia from her back yard...

Only the modern Republican party could call its "old guard" members limousine liberals. But yes, by all means, the Republican party should run candidates further to the right for national office.

Yes, because only the modern Republican Party has the benefit of sunshine. We are no longer dependent on the liberal media to tell us what's going on. We are no longer dependent on the self-reporting of the party leadership. We can see how party insiders are more interested in looking good in the mainstream press than working for, say, fiscal conservatism. We have a Speaker who feels proud about fighting for a few paltry billions when the deficit is 1½ trillion. And you would seem to be OK with that...

If the Republican party tries keeps to the right in general elections, the only way they'll ever win again on the national stage is to clone a Democrat.

Again, the only Republicans who've won in the last 10 elections ran as conservatives, and they won 5 times. Romney was the closest to a Democrat clone as exists—the godfather of Obamacare. You aren't very observant since you seem to have missed that. He inspired 3 million fewer Republican votes than McCain's moribund campaign. Why didn't he win, O master political strategist? He should have been a shoo-in by your estimate.

[kentonio]

It's deeply amusing that you think a man who wrote off 47% of the electorate as scrounging bums and chose a VP who wanted to destroy Medicare was a progressive.

[giblets]

It's deeply amusing that you think a man who wrote off 47% of the electorate as scrounging bums and chose a VP who wanted to destroy Medicare was a progressive.

It's simple. Any Republican that fails is a liberal, and any Republican that succeeds is a true conservative. Also, don't make the mistake of assuming that because a policy was supported by one of the true conservatives, who are known to be true conservatives because they won elections, that such a policy might be conservative. So what if Reagan gave amnesty to a bunch of illegals and Nixon thought universal health care was a good idea and Bush Sr. raised taxes and Bush Jr. kept pushing for immigration reform? They don't represent conservatives.

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, McCain was not willing to run as a conservative in 2000 and Bush was. Bush won twice, which you seem to forget. We do know McCain was unwilling to run as a conservative in 2008, and he lost against a guy who was a complete empty suit. There was absolutely no substance to the O campaign, and McCain managed to look weak in comparison. I'll bet you think Palin said she could see Russia from her back yard...

I heard enough (and by now, most of the country has heard more than enough) out of Palin's pie-hole that I didn't need anyone to interpret or quote her. Her RNC speech was enough. Substance in an election campaign is the sure path to defeat. Nobody on either side runs on substance.

Yes, because only the modern Republican Party has the benefit of sunshine. We are no longer dependent on the liberal media to tell us what's going on.

Sunshine, or moonshine? "Liberal" media? What a joke - the mainstream media is all corporate and ratings driven. News is all packaged as a saleable commodity - and whether you're a tinfoil hat lefty outlet, or tinfoil hat righty outlet, or anything else, is driven by marketing and demographics. If being liberal made more money, Rush would "see the light" in a heartbeat. The one thing sacrificed by the full spectrum of the media is objectivity.

We are no longer dependent on the self-reporting of the party leadership. We can see how party insiders are more interested in looking good in the mainstream press than working for, say, fiscal conservatism. We have a Speaker who feels proud about fighting for a few paltry billions when the deficit is 1½ trillion. And you would seem to be OK with that...

And yet the guys you elected just reelected that speaker overwhelmingly, with some rationaliation that getting only 95% of the vote was an expression of dissatisfaction. The deficit is obscene, but it needs to be reined in gradually, and frankly, neither party has sensible proposals. Despite the waste in Federal contracting, earmarks, etc., you see no real effort toward procurment reform, and the GOP is just as guilty as the Dems when it comes to talking out both side of their mouth.

Bush won twice with a (no longer the case) major advantage in fundraising and organization, and against two weak candidates. I tell misguided Dems to my left (which is 99.9% of my party, I'm a green dawg, thank you) that when you're a two term incumbent VP with the country at peace and a good economy, and you lose to someone like GWB, you have bigger issues than whether a few thousand people in Florida can figure out how to vote. Romney was simply flat and uninspiring at best, repulsive at worst, but do you honest to God deep down in your heart believe that Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Huckabee or the like would have done better in the general election?

Again, the only Republicans who've won in the last 10 elections ran as conservatives, and they won 5 times. Romney was the closest to a Democrat clone as exists—the godfather of Obamacare. You aren't very observant since you seem to have missed that. He inspired 3 million fewer Republican votes than McCain's moribund campaign. Why didn't he win, O master political strategist? He should have been a shoo-in by your estimate.

I noticed it. Who was it on your side who referred to it as "Obamneycare?" And Romney tried to repudiate it, rather than embrace it, so he alienated everyone, just like he did on most issues. Romney stuck his foot in so far it came back out of his ass - "severely conservative" lmfao. Romney came across to everyone as having the conviction of a used car salesman and a sense of entitlement to the white house. Romney lost because of Romney - not because of his positions, because nobody knew what they'd be from one speech to the next.

[DinoDoc]

Why not compare California to Alaska if you want to be irrelevant? Outside of NYC, New York doesn't have a huge population, aka need for state level services and infrastructure.

Are we back to you claiming that your population is a bunch of non-producing moochers? Because there is some evidence that you are a welfare magnet, I will admit.

If you factor out California's ag economy based counties, then California's unemployment is in line with the rest of the country.

I see no need to factor anything out wrt that rate other than seasonal adjustments when judging the health of a State economy.

BTW, how does Mississippi rank?

I'm not the one making ludicrous statements that MS is some sort of economic powerhouse. However if you must know we are judged to be much more credit worthy than California.

Calfornia's debt levels top Greece? With 3 times the population and 4.5 times the GDP, so what?

Unlike Greece, you lack the ability to print money and already have one of the highest tax levels in the US. Perhaps you could tell me the value of racking up a higher and higher debt load while pretending it doesn't exist?

[DinoDoc]

It's deeply amusing that you think a man who wrote off 47% of the electorate as scrounging bums

If you'd look at his record in government, you'd be hard pressed to call the man anything other than moderate. Hell Huntsman had a more conservative record than Romney did.

and chose a VP who wanted to destroy Medicare was a progressive.

If Ryan really wanted to kill Medicare, he'd do what Democrats are doing and urge inaction on entitlement spending because it along with Social Security are scheduled to die soon enough if nothing is done.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The concept of cap and trade being a GOP idea suffers from a couple of problems. One it wasn't an idea that was suggested for the case of CO2. Two it suffers from an overarching difference when it was suggested for other pollutants. (Namely, the impact to economic activity.)

While it is true the clean air act mechanisms for emissions trading was a concept inspired by free market proponents (i.e. GOP) the emissions reductions were along the lines of pollutants namely NOx and SOx that the large generators had some measure of control. With Most Achievable Control Technologies (MACT), emitters could scrub stack emissions and thereby bank savings of emissions from baseline emissions. These credits in turn could then be sold to other industries that were looking to increase their productions. Thus it encouraged industries to implement MACT where possible. (A carrot approach as opposed to the hard left authoritarian approach of you 'vill comply with the regulations.)

In the case of CO2 emissions no MACT exists to any appreciable extent that removes CO2 except to reduce economic activity. There are no magic bullets of stack scrubbers, no MACT available, other than to reduce use of combustion as sources of energy.

No one in there right mind supported cap and trade because it did not have the technological underpinnings that could allow it to succeed. In the case of NOx and SOx the technologies were mature and proven and it was much more easily achievable for SOx and NOx emitters without having to reduce their outputs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Straybow's warped view of of history is ridiculously laughable. First of all, he seems to completely have forgotten about Nixon (ie, Ike wasn't the only progressive Republican winner). In addition, he seems to forgotten that George W. Bush ran as a "Compassionate Conservative" in 2000 - seems like tacking to the middle to me.

[DinoDoc]

Imran: Name one Progressive Republican who has won national office in the last 30 years. It's becoming clear that the people clamoring for a return of Progressive Republicans aren't actually going to go to the trouble of voting for them when they are put up for office.

[Hauldren Collider]

The people who lament the decline of liberal republicans are all democrats anyway. There's no percentage in bringing back the oh-so-wonderful policies of ****ing Richard Nixon.

I think it's hilarious that there are people here defending his policies. Just about every part of his presidency was a disaster.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran: Name one Progressive Republican who has won national office in the last 30 years. It's becoming clear that the people clamoring for a return of Progressive Republicans aren't actually going to go to the trouble of voting for them when they are put up for office.

George H.W. Bush

(cue the "he rode Reagan's coattails")