RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
Yo, Cory: Republican strategerie(50 posts)
|Yo, Cory: Republican strategerie||OldEdScott|
Nov 26, 2003 6:02 AM
|You made an interesting point in a post buried way down below, worthy of bringing to the top:
Cory "The Medicare bill passed...now what?" 11/25/03 5:29pm
In terms of sheer party professionalism, that's the major difference between Repubs and Dems. Repubs DO have an amazing capacity for long-term strategizing; 15 years is NOTHING to them. Democrats can't plan lunch.
Two years ago we had a huge redistricting battle in Kentucky. Repubs controlled the Senate, but Dems had the House and the governor's office. By all rights, with two legs of the tripod, Dems should have got the plan they wanted. But the Repubs outflanked us, got in our rear, disrupted supply lines, and the next thing you know we're in full retreat. It was impossible for us to lose, but we did.
Late that last night, outside the House Chamber, a weary Democrat staffer said to me, "I'm goin home to git drunk. I don't understand how they beat us on this." I told her: "What you just said is how they beat us on this. It's midnight and you're going home to git drunk. But I guarantee you, your counterpart on the other side is right now heading for some office full of computers to start planning for the NEXT redistricting battle ten years down the road."
Once you understand that EVERYTHING the Republicans do is part of some carefully laid out 20-year strategerie, with every contingency anticipated and covered, you realize that it's NOT paranoid thinking to pick apart their immediate stuff for long-term implications. It's absolutely essential. Dems, for the most part, still haven't got that through their bone heads.
Mark my words: This Medicare bill is the first of probably 27 brilliantly crafted moves designed to abolish Medicare by the year 2020. And THEY WILL WIN unless we get as smart about politics as they are, which is probably a forlorn hope.
|re: Yo, Cory: Republican strategerie||bill105|
Nov 26, 2003 6:22 AM
|we can only hope the goal is to end state sponsored medicare. history has proven that a free marketplace with competition beats the crap out of anyuthing government sponsored every single time, always. with any luck they are miles doen the road in planning how to get rid of social security and privatize that as well.|
|Interesting over generalization. Got proof? (nm)||eyebob|
Nov 26, 2003 10:01 AM
|Interesting over generalization. Got proof? (nm)||bill105|
Nov 26, 2003 11:01 AM
|youre really too easy. how about ... oh i dont know...say the post office vs. fed ex?|
|isn't the post office....||rufus|
Nov 26, 2003 11:41 AM
|while technically an organization of the federal government, supposed to operate as a stand-alone entity, relying only on the revenue it brings to operate? that it doesn't get its operating budget from the government, unlike social security, medicare, fema, etc. which basically negates your point, in that the postal service is simply a poorly run business, not an example of federal mismanagement.
then again, i don't see fed-ex delivering millions of letters for 37 cents a pop. could they do it for that price? rates for shipping packages are fairly close.
|Government bad! Private sector good!||czardonic|
Nov 26, 2003 11:46 AM
|That is all you need to know.|
|Government bad! Private sector good!||bill105|
Nov 26, 2003 12:04 PM
|now youre getting it|
Nov 26, 2003 11:57 AM
|it depends on when and why youre talking about the post office. the government has HUGE control over it. if it doesnt operate well and make money who pays for it? why does the federal government prosecute mail fraud then? does the post office report to a board of directors, is it listed on the stock exchange? fed ex and ups took the profitable part of the post office domain which was stuff that had to be done correctly and quickly. thats doesnt sound like a govt specialty to me. and i bet delivering letters for 37 cents a pop isnt very profitable.|
|so you're saying........||rufus|
Nov 26, 2003 12:21 PM
|that if fed ex or ups were required to do what the post office has to do, then they wouldn't be any good or profitable at it either. if the postal service didn't have to deliver the mail, who would, if it wasn't profitable?
why does the federal government prosecute drug trafficking? why are some crimes federal but not others? primarily, i would assume, having much to do with interstate commerce, of which the mail would presumably fall under.
Nov 26, 2003 12:45 PM
|they might not be. i dont think its reasonable to think you can deliver a letter from boston to seattle for 37 cents. but somebody would deliver the mail if the post office didnt if there was a market for it. nobody would purposely lose money at it except the government, therefor the post office is the government.
the government, ie the post office, lost the quick and accurate delivery business because they sucked at it. its not fed ex's fault the post office couldnt do what the consumer needed.
|That's your best?||eyebob|
Nov 26, 2003 1:27 PM
|Excellent example. If it's so (in a broad based sense) true that business is "good" and govt. is "bad" then surely you can come up with an example that actually supports your argument. Let alone support your claim that business is better all of the time.....
Nov 26, 2003 1:44 PM
|the airline industry, the trucking industry, the aerospace industry including commercial space applications, etc. all began thriving once the government got their hands out of it and turned americans loose who had ideas and were willing to work hard. the government had death grips on all three 20 years ago including who and where they could serve and what they could charge and not charge, eyc. for those of you disputing the fact that americans ingenuity and creativity beats government sponsored business, are any of you over 20 years old or out of college?|
|the airline industry.....||rufus|
Nov 26, 2003 3:15 PM
|last i knew, there wouldn't be an airline industry if it weren't for massive government bailouts on more than one occasion.|
|please keep up||bill105|
Nov 28, 2003 6:10 AM
|billions, i repeat BILLIONS, have been saved since deregulation on the cost of airfare. its my business to know and its a fact. airlines, discount and full service, have sprung up from nothing other than the government getting out of the way. there have been no massive bailouts. the last one was 1.2 billion with us airways taking 1b. united too 200m. get off if you dont know the subject. both would be in the same shape with or without the money. the marketplace will decide who stays and who goes. thats called a free market society and capitalism.|
|no bailouts after 9/11?||rufus|
Nov 28, 2003 8:16 AM
|perhaps too much deregulation is the reason why all these airlines are in the red.
anyway, in my book, a billion dollars does qualify as massive, but i can see how you big money brokers just see it as chump change.
Nov 28, 2003 10:13 AM
|i just mentioned them. after 9/11 actually there were 3 airlines that took money but it was 1.2 to 1.3b. the reason there are so many airlines losing money is too many seats, too many airlines, over spending in good times, not enough cutting in bad time, just overall mismanagement. but hey, thats how a free market operates. without dereg you wouldnt have all the discount carriers and prices. sure you could have more regs and instead of a $89 ticket somewhere you would be paying $289.
billion is alot. but its not a handout, its supposed to be in the form of a loan. after 9/11 bush would have been crucified if he had let that many employees (hundreds of thousands) just tough it. liberals are for spending money to help people so there you go.
|so you excuse mismanagement in private companies||rufus|
Nov 28, 2003 7:26 PM
|and accept that as "just the way free enterprise works", but you pillory government for mismanagement, and expect them to bail out mismanaged businesses if they're on the verge of failing. so i guess government is good for something after all, huh? if there are too many airlines, then why not allow them to go belly up like any other company? surely there's another jet blue out there just waiting to be started.
but i guess that depends on the size of the business, right? my local hardware store owner can't expect a government bailout just because home depot is driving him out of business, can he? that's one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. liberals like government handouts for individuals in trouble, the right likes them for big corporations.
|while you think we can hand it out to everyone||bill105|
Dec 1, 2003 7:47 AM
|yes, if a PRIVATE company is mismanaged, tough. dont invest in it or work for it.
yes, government often mismanages with MY money.
youre right, there is another jet blue out there and companies should be allowed to fail. i didnt say handout were ok for anybody.
i guess you would have demanded bailouts for rake makers when blowers came along too. you cant save everybody and thats the liberals failing. thats life, too bad, tough luck. besides, liberals only like handouts if the handout keeps the reciever on the liberal plantation voting liberal.
|Bill105: Serious question about privatization.||Cory|
Nov 26, 2003 10:12 AM
|I've asked this in a newspaper column with 70,000-odd readers, most of them conservative, and didn't get a single answer (for comparison, when I said Reagan's Alzheimer's shouldn't surprise anyone, I got more than 200).
Suppose we do, God forbid, privatize Social Security. Just kill the thing off and tell people, "You're on your own--put your money where you want."
Some will obviously p!ss it away on food, medicine, single-malt scotch, whatever. Forget them--they had the choice and they blew it.
But some take it seriously--they study, they invest wisely, they live frugally and are looking good when they retire, and then the market, as it did a few years ago, tanks.
Ignore the thieves who run the show, the Enrons and the mutual fund managers who've stolen billions but don't need federal regulation. Let's say it's a legitimate market collapse, caused by whatever forces cause those. My "portfolio" dropped by 40 percent in the dot.com debacle, and I saw the crash coming and dumped some stuff before it happened. My father-in-law, retired and heavy into high tech, lost two-thirds of his. Fortunately he had enough that he can survive.
But not everybody is smart, not everybody is lucky, not everybody has the knowledge or education or the money to invest for retirement (give yourself a salary of 8 bucks an hour and work out a budget that allows both shoes for your children and a fully-funded IRA).
So--and thanks for sticking with us this far--here's the question: WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE PEOPLE? Do we let them starve? Beg in the streets? When smart, educated, experienced investors with huge resources are losing money in the market, what do we do about the retired couple that's tried hard and believed the bullsh!t and still has no money?
Seventy thousand readers tried to pretend nobody asked. Any of you who favor privatization, take a shot at it.
|We let them, I don't know, work?||TJeanloz|
Nov 26, 2003 10:29 AM
|Why is their some cardinal rule in this country that nobody over 65 can work? All of my grandparents continue to work, in their 80s - not because they need to, but because they want to. We also do what people have done for millenia - we support our parents in old age as they supported us in youth.
Your tech bubble example highlights a real problem. Your father-in-law, who was "heavy into tech" knew he was gambling with his future. And if he didn't, he shouldn't have been investing his money in equities in the first place. What people who lost a lot in the .com bubble neglect to realize is that their accounts were never really worth as much as they appeared to be worth. The balance here is that as long as people know they're working with a safety net (social security), they tend to be more risky with their investments. Would somebody have gone heavy into tech if they depended on their savings for living expenses? I don't believe they would.
|See, Cory? The answer is SIMPLE.||OldEdScott|
Nov 26, 2003 10:49 AM
|Your readers must be collectively and scarily dense.|
|Obvious, really (nm)||TJeanloz|
Nov 26, 2003 11:00 AM
|So my 84-year-old father, dying of cancer, can hustle McFries?||Cory|
Nov 26, 2003 12:52 PM
|Too theoretical, TJ, for the real world.
True story: My dad died about six weeks ago at 84. He was a decorated WWII vet who worked hard all his life, busted his ass until he was in his late 60s, raised three successful kids, stayed married 53 years until my mother died. Never took a dime from the government until he collected social security. At 80, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and lingered nearly four years with that. Fortunately he had a family to care for him, but not everyone does. Tell me again how a guy literally on his deathbed, unable to get out of it to piss, could hustle down to Walmart and get a good job (though without health insurance) if he'd just apply himself.
Nov 26, 2003 1:23 PM
|sorry to hear about your dad. my dad is going through similar health problems now. fortunately my dad will have family to care for him too if it comes to it. the point above though is that social security as it is now is dying too. people who put in to ss should have a say in how its managed. it is still our government. allowing people to invest part or a percent if they want to is the right way to manage it.|
|"Raised three successful kids"||TJeanloz|
Dec 1, 2003 6:19 AM
|I hope these kids were reasonable enough to help their father on his deathbed. I'd hardly consider them successful if they weren't. But, you're point is taken, that some people need somebody to care for them. And I actually would support a nationalized hospice-type program that comforted (but didn't try to cure) those who are terminally ill. The reason healthcare is so expensive is that we're trying to cure 84 year old men, so that they can live another six weeks.|
Nov 26, 2003 11:06 AM
|i went too far. actually i like bush's plan to partially privatize ss up to a certain percent. but i agree with other posters too. its your responsibility to take care of your parents and not mine. if my parents gamble it all away on tech stocks, i promise i wont show up at your door asking for a donation or call my senator and ask for food stamps.|
Nov 26, 2003 7:09 AM
|Maybe a fundamental difference is that Democrats have historically relied upon grass roots emotionalism and media support and bias to implement their will. It was almost a given that their programs would succeed for the last 40 years. However, more and more Americans are being informed by alternative (to the big 3 networks, at least) and thinking for themselves. Republicans are more ideologically rooted, so thinking and planning is required. Democrats are flailing because emotionalism is not working as well anymore, and when it might, Republicans are co-opting it a bit.
When Joe Sixpack With the Rebel Flag on His Pickup starts to be informed about issues and facts through Rush or Fox News, etc., the emotional appeals and biased presentations of the past are less effective.
The difference is *not* that Democrats are not staying up late working on long term plans. The difference is that it would be useless. How do you create a long term plan of pure emotional appeal?
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
|Some of that's true, but redistricting has nothing||OldEdScott|
Nov 26, 2003 8:04 AM
|to do with emotional appeal or issues or anything else, it's pure, 100-percent nut-cutting stategic and tactical politics, and the Repubs outpoliticked us because they were 40 moves ahead of us, and that involved leaving nothing to chance.
They apply that discipline to issues too. We HAVE no party disciplne, ergo ...
Nov 26, 2003 8:19 AM
|You hit the nail on the head||Live Steam|
Nov 26, 2003 11:08 AM
|The Republicans and conservatism in general, never really had a voice in the media. The original triumvirate and CNN made sure they kept their thumb on anything that didn't meet their approval (read agenda). Now there are conservative news outlets and conservative talk shows that provide a contrasting voice to the liberal mantra we were forced to listen to since the early days of the Columbia Broadcasting System. I really think this is what helped turn the tide. Well it's that and we just have better ideas and ideas that speak to the majority of the people. That's why we're the majority! The Dumocrats know this and it is why they so vehemently attach FOX News and the like. This is also why they are trying to establish their own Liberal Talk Radio station.
HAPPY TURKEY DAY EVERYONE!!!! :O)
|I think it's particularly funny that||No_sprint|
Nov 26, 2003 11:37 AM
|in addition to the radio, some liberalish Dumos are trying to start a competitive, liberalish *think tank* (conspiracy according to the youknowwhos). The foolishness is they think it's not the ideological content of conservatives or the lack thereof of their own, rather the ability of the rightish to market their ideas, that has led to recent conservative success.
From articles I've read from the usual suspects (CNN, etc.) their focus is completely on marketing and I've seen no substance whatsoever.
|what the heck do Democrats stand for these days, anyway?||DougSloan|
Nov 26, 2003 2:07 PM
|I know they stand for civil rights, union power, the "working man" (and woman), the environment, and socialized health care. However, particular policies or agenda do they have, other than just Anti-Republicans/Bush?
|what the heck do Democrats stand for these days, anyway?||No_sprint|
Nov 26, 2003 2:17 PM
|I think from your list, it's down to union power, the environment and socialized health care. Arguably, Republicans are equally for civil rights, according to some, more so, others, less so. Also, the working man? Undoubtedly a Republican stronghold. I'm one. It seems that liberal Dums try to tear at everything we middle class workers have worked so hard for so the non-workers get it easier. They don't have a "huge" pro-choice stronghold either from my middle class perspective. Only Republican MORs will never vote on that single issue. They of course, have lost forever any of the pro-life vote.
Where are they? I know they're in a better place than if one of their own were in office, if they're a patriotic taxpayer that is.
|Obviously, they are for hating Bush and hating freedom.||czardonic|
Nov 26, 2003 4:04 PM
|Millions of Republicans simply could not be wrong.|
|I think a fundamental problem,||TJeanloz|
Nov 26, 2003 7:20 AM
|I think there is a fundamental flaw in Democratic strategy in that Democrats have, for years, portrayed and believed that Republicans are ignorant and stupid. The Democratic intelligentsia brushes off Republicans as "morons" and in doing so, ignores the fact that they have a real agenda. Democrats have been routinely out-foxed because they don't seem to realize that Republicans are smart enough to play the game.
It amazes me how unwilling Democrats are to really defend their policies, and how easily they brush off Republican policies without thinking about them. I'm just baffled by the number of Democrats who believe themselves to be the intellectual superior of any conservative. And I think that this superiority prevents them from addressing the issues as real.
|I believe the word is 'hubris,' and||OldEdScott|
Nov 26, 2003 7:46 AM
|that has indeed proved a fatal flaw.
Although I don't know of any member of the Democrat 'intelligensia' that 'brushes off Republican as morons.' The stuff I just posted, which credits them for being very smart indeed, is pretty much the thinking of the party 'intelligensia' right now, and has been for a decade. The problem is to get that recognition generalized within the party.
|I believe the word is 'hubris,' and||TJeanloz|
Nov 26, 2003 7:54 AM
|It depends how you read "intelligensia" - I assume that at the top levels of the DNC, people are all too aware of how crafty the Republican party can be. Here in Boston, we have plenty of ivory-tower Democrats who don't have any official role with the Party, whose defense of their policies are "but the Republicans are such morons, how could you ever agree with them?" I'm saying this is a problem at the grass-roots level, not necessarily at the DNC. But if the DNC can't convince the grassroots that there's a problem, it could be tough sledding.
Our Governer, a Republican, is widely respected by people on both sides, because, like him or not, he is undeniably bright, and explains his positions in terms that everybody understands, whether they agree or not. His gay marriage position, while a majority of MA residents disagree with it, is respected - the man's a devout mormon, nobody expects that he would personally champion gay marriage.
|Ah. You have to realize that when you talk to||OldEdScott|
Nov 26, 2003 7:59 AM
|me about 'the party,' I think of the actual party apparatus because that's where I work.
Yes, there IS a problem with Democrats out there who are members of the 'intelligensia' (college professors, artists, what you call ivory tower Democrats) who DO take the 'moron' line, and it's a problem. Indeed.
|I think another part of it is,||TJeanloz|
Nov 26, 2003 8:16 AM
|Another similar, broad issue, is that Democratic policies tend to be rather amorphous. The policies themselves tend to be too complicated to be fairly squeezed into soundbites, so they end up with a: "middle class, this will be better for you, trust me" statement, instead of something that is clear: "I'm going to cut your taxes XX% - decide for yourself whether you would like that or not."
And then you get haughty people like Al Gore saying that the tax cut won't work, and that his policy is better, but its too confusing for you to understand, you just have to trust him. And you get grassroots people on the street saying that anybody who supports the tax cut is a moron. Well, a tax cut would help me, and you think you're winning votes by calling me stupid? Democrats do a TERRIBLE job of explaining why their policies matter, and how they will effect people. 41 million Americans are without healthcare, but what does that really mean for the other 240 million Americans? And why should the insured 240 million pay to insure the others?
I'm not saying these are questions I need to have answered - I'm saying that the Democratic message seems to be nothing more than: "we're the good guys, trust us on that."
|Plus, Dems are all over the board on||OldEdScott|
Nov 26, 2003 8:23 AM
|the issues. Though many here lump all Democrats into a wad called 'you liberals' who agree on everything, it's simply not true. Repubs tend to be more cohesive in ideology, which --coupled with their simpler message -- makes it had to win a sound-bite war with them.|
|I'm not sure about that,||TJeanloz|
Nov 26, 2003 8:29 AM
|Republicans tend to be loyal only to the perception of fiscal conservatism (note, the perception). Republicans have a Newt Gingrich for every Democratic Ted Kennedy. I'd say the Republicans are every bit as divided as the Democrats - except that the core ideology is usually considered better than the Democratic core ideology. So even if you don't agree with a Republican candidate on 3/4 of the issues, it's likely that you really disagree with the Democrat on the most important issues to you. Democrats seem to have more willingness to cross party lines than Republicans, at least for now.|
Nov 26, 2003 9:13 AM
|Ed, Can you explain to me exactly what is the Democrats ideology? Seriously. And what policies do they promote to further this ideology?
For the life of me, I can not figure out where they want America to be in 10, 20 or 30 years.
|Well, that's kind of the point.||OldEdScott|
Nov 26, 2003 9:38 AM
|The Repubs actually HAVE an identifiable ideology that can be explained in a few sentences. The Dems don't.
If I had to boil our core belief down to a sentence, I might say it's that government is the proper and appropriate means for a nation to accomplish collectively what its people could not accomplish individually. We think that much falls under that maxim. The Repubs, if they agree with the maxim at all, find little it applies to. National Security and your personal sex life and library habits come to mind.
Part of the problem may be that we accomplished most of what we set out to do. The 'progressive' ideas the Dems pushed are so ingrained into American society now that we can't even see how dangerously 'liberal' they were once seen as being, and how virulently they were opposed by the Right.
We've discussed 'left creep' here before. Hard to believe that liberals fought conservatives less than a hundred years ago just to get women the simple right to vote. Today, not even the most vurulent conservative would argue that women shouldn't vote. Same with Civil Rights for blacks. Liberals fought the battle, but nowadays it's a rare conservative who'll say blacks should go back to their status pre FEDERAL Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation.
|wait a minute||bill105|
Nov 26, 2003 11:29 AM
|in regards to civil rights, wasnt lincoln a republican?|
|Dude. . . (nm)||czardonic|
Nov 26, 2003 11:36 AM
|Check your facts||Tri_Rich|
Nov 26, 2003 12:21 PM
|As has been pointed out repeatedly, frequently my me, when Lincoln was president the "Republican party" was the LIBERAL of the two parties.|
|my facts are correct||bill105|
Nov 26, 2003 1:04 PM
|he was a republican. i doubt he would honor the LIBERAL party of today with his membership.|
|Ed - Civil rights||moneyman|
Nov 26, 2003 2:03 PM
|Don't forget who the biggest obstructionists to civil rights were: The Dixiecrats of the 40s and 50s. Dick Russell, the most respected man in the Senate, chief among them. Perhaps they were conservative (?) Democrats, but they were, nonetheless, Democrats.
|So what is the GOP's excuse now?||czardonic|
Nov 26, 2003 2:20 PM
|It seems fairly clear to me that Ed mentioned civil rights in the context of liberals and conservatives, no doubt in (vain) hopes of pre-empting the usual b.s. about Lincoln and Dixiecrats.
If the Democratic party was on the wrong side of slavery and civil rights at the time, their position now represents all the greater an accomplishment (and the GOP's position all the more an embarassment.)
|Meanwhile, the GOP is a paragon of humility.||czardonic|
Nov 26, 2003 11:45 AM
|Disagreeing with the GOP is "hubris". Accusing the Democrats of treason any time they fail to toe the GOP line, well that is the kind of decent political professionalism that Americans will rally around.
I think you have been out-flanked yet again.