Well, there’s a pretty good chance now that the Republicans will have tebagged away what should have been an easy win in NY-23. There’s talk about the tea party candidate, Doug Hoffman, winning, but I think that’s quite unlikely. I doubt his base of support is much higher than the percentage of the district that consists of single issue pro-life voters (probably around 20% in the district — thrown in a more oddballs and you might get to 30% but not much higher). If you read between the lines of this NYT piece, that’s what is going on in the race:
“The No. 1 victory will be to defeat Dede,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which works to elect candidates who oppose abortion.
Ms. Dannenfelser, along with members of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, are helping to coordinate efforts on the ground in support of Mr. Hoffman.
At the Days Inn on Sunday, Ms. Dannenfelser, 43, of Arlington, Va., and three other organizers from the Washington area who have temporarily relocated to Watertown joined a conference call with conservatives from across the country. A small picture of Jesus and the Virgin Mary rested on top of the television, while the Pittsburgh Steelers game played with the volume muted.
Now, Scozzafava may be a bit of an outlier with her support for reproductive rights and same sex marriage, but Republicans in NYS are not, in general, that conservative. In much of the state, union support is crucial, so Republicans generally suck up to unions. Moreover, they tend to support spending on health care, education, etc. This is why the Republican party remains relevant in a state that Obama won by 26 points.
There are also lots of third parties in NYS — a Conservative party, a Libertarian party, etc., and they all have some amount of infrastructure. So it should be pretty easy to teabag Republican office-holders — specifically state legislators — all over the state. My two local State Senators are Republicans — one is a former Democrat who is in the pocket of unions (for better or worse), the other is best known for supporting local arts with earmark money. Neither is as left as Scozzafava on reproductive rights, but both would probably lose if there were a Conservative party candidate pulling even 10-15% of the district vote. They both should be teabaggable.
I’ll be curious to see if the teabagagers teabaggers are emboldened to wage a scorched earth campaign against moderate Republicans statewide. It would accomplish nothing in terms of winning races, but it might radically change the state Republican party and energize the state’s Conservative party.
aimai
Hair Club for Growth look out! Teabaggers ahoy.
aimai
mistersnrub
Night of the long sporks from KFC.
Zam
Why is Pat Buchanan on my tv screaming that we are moving to the right immediately after an election that overwhelming favored more liberal candidates. It’s like he insists that Bush was to liberal so they all these hard line conservatives voted for progressive dems in order to teach them some sort of lesson.
freelancer
What a serendipitous typo!
Gagging teabaggers.
licensed to kill time
@Zam:
Because he dearly, dearly wishes it was so.
two_kittehs
What will that achieve? Will they will elections?
Zam
@licensed to kill time: Well it’s fucking ridiculous. Right after the election he insisted on saying that we are still a center-right country, now he gets to run around saying we are moving even further to the right. This is in addition to his insistence that Obama is the most left President/Senator to ever exist in the U.S.
Chuck Butcher
I’ve done about the same type of analysis with admitted ignorance of the NY electorate.
DougJ
Will they will elections?
Not many, but they could win one or two. And that would make them a bit of a player.
schrodinger's cat
Do the Republicans want to remain a viable political party or morph into a religious cult?
BB
Ok, Doug. First thing first – “teabagged away.”
I wonder when using that phrase as a political verb will stop bringing me the rofls. I also wonder when I’ll grow some maturity. I’ll be certain to keep everyone posted.
The Conservatives (in NY) haven’t had anyone to kick around since Giuliani was thinking about a Senate run in 2000 and Mike Long was absolutely adamant that the party would run a third candidate unless Rudy flipped on partial birth. Of course, they never got the chance to throw that particular tantrum and they were thoroughly emasculated in the next cycle by being bullied into supporting Pataki.
In 2004, during Schumer’s re-election they ran a Brooklyn doctor (Marilyn O’Grady?? Even I can’t remember) against the GOP sacrificial lamb and against Schumer. I don’t know what vote percentage she got, but NO ONE was paying attention to it. The Conservatives barely even perked up.
Seriously, they picked the wrong state to kick this up in. The lull of teabaggery (snicker!) is going to be too strong in Upstate districts where it was best kept from reaching latency. Watch the gay marriage vote- an Upstate Republican State Senator or two will probably back the bill, Paterson will sign it, and then the knuckle draggers will be teabagging up a storm (titter!).
It’s just the opening we need to crack a lot of Upstate Senate seats and get a durable majority in the upper chamber. Also, watch Rep. Chris Lee. He could be one of the final R’s around New York, and these people don’t like him much at all. Moar seats plz, teabaggers!
DougJ
I’ve done about the same type of analysis with admitted ignorance of the NY electorate.
Yes, you’re right.
The amount of damage they could do is pretty large.
Keith G
Would that be a Hail Mary?
calipygian
They are not “teabagging their way out of an easy win”, the are following Jim DeMint’s plan to have 20 good Conservatives in the Senate rather than 40 Republicans.
The Bearded Blogger
That VU song, or the three seconds of it I can remember, are now my earworm for the day
@two_kittehs: Dunno, but I think it democracy would fare much better if crazy people had a separate party from sane conservatives. If the GOP split, the CPP could be an interesting regional party, and maybe sane republicanism could make a comeback.
schrodinger's cat
@DougJ:
What do you mean? Won’t they marginalize themselves by catering to a small minority?
DougJ
He could be one of the final R’s around New York, and these people don’t like him much at all.
It’s almost a truism — if your political beliefs are such that you can win a Congressional race in NYS, the teabaggers don’t like you. Peter King is the one counterexample.
calipygian
@BB: Speaking of Giuliani, Newt Gingrich had a very good defense of Scozzefazo that relied on a defense of Giuliani as a good Republican and Conservative.
Of course Giuliani only got one delegate in the nomination process…
DougJ
Won’t they marginalize themselves by catering to a small minority?
The teabagger types are already completely marginalized in NYS. Winning a race or two and scaring the shit out of the Rockefeller Republicans would be a big step forward for them.
Xecky Gilchrist
@Keith G: Would that be a Hail Mary?
I LOLed.
arguingwithsignposts
that’s the real question.
The Bearded Blogger
@schrodinger’s cat: Yes
@calipygian: I support Jim de Mint’s plan. Both ironically and earnestly, I think it would be much easier on democracy if the party of Beck were different from the party of Lugar.
Sentient Puddle
The way I’m reading the statements, the teabaggers are going to claim a victory in any scenario except for Scozzafava winning. Hoffman winning is obvious. But if Owens wins due to Hoffman playing spoiler, then the teabaggers are probably just going to yell “Well that’s what you get for not rallying around our candidate!” Despite the fact that no, they should’ve been the ones folding.
That I want Owens to win goes without saying. But I’m a little split on who I want for my place and show bets. Hoffman in second would just embolden the teabaggers to self-destruct, but I kinda want to see if I’m right about teabaggers claiming a win if Hoffman is last, and if the media takes them seriously (reasonable chance, I’d say).
DougJ
Hoffman in second would just embolden the teabaggers to self-destruct, but I kinda want to see if I’m right about teabaggers claiming a win if Hoffman is last, and if the media takes them seriously (reasonable chance, I’d say).
I have mixed feelings. I think Scozzafava is a decent public servant and I don’t like the idea of her being humiliated by nut jobs. So I guess I’d like to see her finish second.
Lev
Soon the GOP will have only two reps in NY. That would be as if the Dems only had two in Texas (I believe the correct number there is 12). The teabaggers’ logic doesn’t hold: assuming arguendo that there were tons of conservatives so disaffected with the GOP that they wanted to vote to punish them, why would they vote for the center-left alternative? Why not the Constitution Party candidates? If that political space existed, someone would fill it.
Hey, DougJ, what are the odds of an all-Dem NY delegation in the next few years?
The Bearded Blogger
@DougJ: I want Scozzafava coming in third. I want a really tiny republican party in the near future, and something resembling a democracy afterwards.
dr. bloor
Unfortunately, Hoffman may have self-inflicted fatal wounds this week. This is snipped from one of Benen’s posts at Washington Monthly:
dr. bloor
Ok, the formatting sucks and the link is dead. But you get the idea. Also.
calipygian
Dick Armey, a champion of localism and state’s rights, barges into a local race to tell the local paper that their local issues don’t mean shit to him.
What a fucking cock-bite, seriously.
The Bearded Blogger
@dr. bloor: Hoffman is a Palin! He’ll do all right.
licensed to kill time
@Zam:
You see, he wears Buchanan Goggles, which allow him to see the world as he wishes it was, therefore negating any need to deal with reality and continue to live in PatWorld, where all the right people are white, conservative and properly separated from the liberals and teh gheys and the blackity browns. And there is no Yurrup except when we have to save their wimpy asses from those nice Nazis who only reluctantly went to war.
(shhh – he doesn’t know he’s ridiculous, poor old codger…)
schrodinger's cat
@Lev: Soon they will go the way of Republican party in New England, with no representation in the Congress.
DougJ
Hey, DougJ, what are the odds of an all-Dem NY delegation in the next few years?
Less than 50-50 but possible. If they redistrict Peter King in 2012, he’s out.
But my guess is that Lee holds in 2010 and he’s the one they screw. Or Republicans pick up a seat in 2010 and that person gets screwed.
Zam
@Lev: The political space doesn’t exist, it’s just a bunch of very vocal people who attempt to rope in all those who don’t like to associate with one specific party (anyone who calls themselves and independent), with their hard line conservative view.
RW_Gadfly
Personally, I think the GOP would be wise to embrace federalism with social issues like abortion and gay rights. I’m a pretty disaffected Republican whose sympathies lie much more with the teabaggers than with the party folks.
However, my problem with the party of late has nothing to do with abortion or gay rights. I’m personally pro-life and support gay marriage. But I’m really not terribly energized by either issue….such that I can and will support candidates who differ with me on one or both issues.
What I am energized by is the fiscal path the country is on — and the role which GWB and Congressional Republicans gladly played in stepping on the gas.
So I fully support a scorched-earth effort to thwart candidates like Scozzafava. But that has nothing to do with her social views and everything to do with her supporting Card Check, her record on spending and taxes, etc. They’re deplorable — and I’m more interested in seeing her lose than seeing Hoffman win.
The GOP is badly in need of an enema and has been for some time.
As for how to rectify the impasse between SoCons and moderate Republicans on the coasts, the party really needs to convince both sides of that to take their squabble to the statehouses so we can focus on common ground in DC.
mak
Word of the week: “teabaggable”
beltane
@dr. bloor: Hoffman’s followers are not interested in local issues either. His ads are almost exclusively about the “death tax” in a district that does not suffer from an overabundance of millionaires.
licensed to kill time
@mak:
I believe that was “teabagagers “, which if you think about it, is ever so appropriate.
calipygian
@beltane: Viggo Mortenson is from Watertown. I’m pretty sure he would be worried about the estate tax if he weren’t such a Commienaziliebruldirtyfuckinhippie.
jeffreyw
Was watchin MSNBC on the kitchen tv, eatin dinner, Shuster’s show. They had two kids on talkin about the NY race, the Dem mentioned he thought the teabaggers were gonna throw the race to his side and the repub got all hissy and asked why use “teabagger” to refer to them, don’tchknow that’s Rude? The Dem put on his best angel face and asked “oh, how so? what do ya mean?” The Repub sputtered and swallowed but never did really answer. I LOLed
Notorious P.A.T.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html
calipygian
@jeffreyw: Why was the teabagger sputtering?
K-Lo approves of “teabagger” because more people know about the Revolutionary War than the Urban Dictionary.
DougJ
@RWG
Interesting perspective. Thanks for dropping in.
jeffreyw
@calipygian:
I think it was the bad taste in his mouth.
Xecky Gilchrist
But that has nothing to do with her social views and everything to do with her supporting Card Check, her record on spending and taxes, etc.
How does Card Check affect the fiscal path this country is on?
MikeJ
@jeffreyw: You’ve just been waiting for someone to feed you the appropriate straight line for that joke, haven’t you?
mak
@licensed to kill time
Yeah, I saw that, but was actually referring to another usage in the sentence/paragraph immediately above:
demkat620
@calipygian: She is ridiculous. How that woman got to be the editor of NRO I will never know.
Her only argument for everything is “I’m not doing it so you’re not allowed to either”
Which she uses the fact that she is a catholic to justify. Note to K-Lo, you can be a catholic without being a judgemental and self righteous prig.
mak
. . . But i know what you mean :)
Brian J
It’ll be interesting to see if any of the really conservative/Libertarian-style Republicans get enough support to try to do what they claim to want to do. I’m not really sure where this could happen, but even if it does, I doubt it would be as easy as they think, especially in the Northeast.
RW_Gadfly
@JeffreyW: the repub got all hissy and asked why use “teabagger” to refer to them, don’tchknow that’s Rude?
Speaking as a teabagger myself, I’ve actually grown quite fond of the tag. Besides, I’m less concerned about how we’re referred to by critics than I am our ability to remake the Republican Party….not necessarily into a populist one (though the movement is obviously populist in nature), but one where….well….where we don’t have to worry about being upended by our own Liebermans and Nelsons.
Doing that will obviously delay and complicate any Republican renaissance. But I’m OK with that and I think most of my fellow baggers are too.
Brian J
To continue on with what I said earlier, it will be especially interesting to see what happens if have a situation where some states can opt out of the public option. That will be the real litmus test for some Republicans, and more than taxes, I can see this tearing the party apart.
Mike G
This is good news for John McCain.
Omnes Omnibus
How any of this can benefit Republicans or right-wingers in the near term is beyond me. I do think, however, that this infighting is a process that they need to go through. There is the possibility that a functioning party on the right could eventually emerge from all this. Or not.
In the meantime, I will get some popcorn.
RW_Gadfly
@BrianJ: It’ll be interesting to see if any of the really conservative/Libertarian-style Republicans get enough support to try to do what they claim to want to do. I’m not really sure where this could happen, but even if it does, I doubt it would be as easy as they think, especially in the Northeast.
Perhaps. But, to me, the bigger sticking points are social issues. I’m not a SoCon myself — nor do I despise them. I sympathize with them on some issues, I oppose them on others.
But I think they’re the most impractical voting bloc/lobby that there is. They’d just as soon the GOP’s borders shrink to the Southeast and, well, the Southeast….just as long as the party doesn’t give an inch on its big issues.
They seem fine with losing ground on their agenda…just as long as the party doesn’t dilute the platform. Well, that’s about the height of stupidity.
I’ve long told my SoCon friends that they could enjoy plenty of success with their agenda….just not at the federal level or in probably half of states.
It would be in their best interest not to capitulate on their issues, but to agree to a change of venue….which frees the party up to not be so universally rigid on social issues.
Of course, the social liberals would have to make their own concession, too — they’d have to agree to work to get social issues to the state level….which means agreeing to the judiciary, eventually, overturning Roe.
Would that work? I don’t know. There’s not a lot of trust there, as you might imagine. But I think it’s the best prescription for the party — and the only one that gives it a realistic chance of finding its way back to fiscal sanity.
Frank Wilhoit
This is a preview of 2012, is what it is.
RW_Gadfly
@BrianJ: To continue on with what I said earlier, it will be especially interesting to see what happens if have a situation where some states can opt out of the public option. That will be the real litmus test for some Republicans, and more than taxes, I can see this tearing the party apart.
Well, A) I don’t think it’s going to happen…so it’s probably academic, and B) opposition to the public option is one of the few things that Republicans have broadly been able to agree on in recent memory. Far from putting more pressure on the various factions of the party, the debate’s been quite unifying.
So I don’t think the prospect of having states decide to adopt or reject it is going to tear the party apart at all. It’s pretty widely unpopular among Republicans — and I think we have a healthy dose of the independents with us.
There aren’t too many Republicans across the nation right now who would be enthralled about getting MittCare in their state. Let’s put it that way.
Brian J
Probably. This leads me to ask, exactly who will both satisfy the base and be acceptable to the public at large? No names come to mind, and while these things can change quickly, I think it’s more of a matter of how big Obama’s margin of victory is, not whether there is one. If it goes pretty well, and the resources are there, he and his team could try to pick up all sorts of states earlier than expected, like Texas, Georgia, and perhaps even the Dakotas and Montana.
Notorious P.A.T.
It would make it a little bit easier for the middle class to scratch and claw their way a step up the economic ladder, which means a tiny amount less for the “I don’t know how many houses I own” set. And, thus, it is absolutely deplorable.
Keith G
@RW_Gadfly: How do you see your point of view being able to evolve into a set of policies palitable to a broader range of folks? It seems for all the noise from some of your confederates, a larger “tent” is not being created.
RW_Gadfly
@Omnes Omnibus: How any of this can benefit Republicans or right-wingers in the near term is beyond me.
I don’t think near-term benefit is what anybody’s after with it. Obviously, one fewer Republican in the House of Representatives wouldn’t be good for Republicans in the next Congress.
But the point here is to give the party an enema that it’s needed for quite a while. And it’s entirely about fiscal matters — few people who have engaged that race have been discussing her social views. I think most people, including most SoCons, realize that pro-choice Republicans are a fact of life and always will be.
Omnes Omnibus
@RW_Gadfly: the SoCons on your side don’t really seem to be interested in politics as it is normally understood. Ideological purity is useful and one always should have people keeping politicians feet to the fire, but concepts like incremental progress, limiting damage, and making the best of a bad hand appear to be beyond the grasp the far right.
Bubblegum Tate
@The Bearded Blogger:
The New Wingnut Math: Teabaggers + Palin = EPIC WIN!
RW_Gadfly
Keith G: How do you see your point of view being able to evolve into a set of policies palitable to a broader range of folks? It seems for all the noise from some of your confederates, a larger “tent” is not being created.
Well, it’s well in keeping with polling data that shows — party labels and such aside — that Americans still, by and large, prefer fiscally conservative government.
The problem for the GOP is that the lost any claim they may have ever had to that. And, instead, they became more and more defined by divisive social issues — IMO, the Terri Schiavo fiasco was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I, personally, think we could build a great tent by pushing social issues to the backburner and focusing on pocketbook issues.
Tsulagi
RSSF Gruppenteabagger EE would call bullshit. He’s been going all surgey on this race for weeks goosing his troopers that this is their “hill to die on.” You would hope they would, but then they are retarded zombies so they’ll be back either way.
jeffreyw
@MikeJ: (assumes best angel face) Why no, whatever can you mean?
Sly
I’m waiting patiently for the teabagging of Peter King for his support of the Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion. No Soshulisticism! Get your hand out of my pocket! You’re not dying from a treatable congenital heart defect, little Timmy, you’re dying from an abundance of FREEDOM!
Joking aside, the best part about a surging Conservative Party (read: 27% of the electorate) siphoning off votes from Republicans is that the state legislature likely won’t have to go through the clusterfuck it fell victim to over the summer again.
RW_Gadfly
@Omnes Omnibus: the SoCons on your side don’t really seem to be interested in politics as it is normally understood. Ideological purity is useful and one always should have people keeping politicians feet to the fire, but concepts like incremental progress, limiting damage, and making the best of a bad hand appear to be beyond the grasp the far right.
Tell me about it. But, the thing is, they don’t really have a “bad hand” in a lot of areas of the country. Quite the contrary.
The problem they have is that they want to try to take that and make it useful nationally….which is obviously problematic. It doesn’t serve their agenda well and it complicates things for Republicans on other matters, to boot.
Getting them to buy into this allows them to maintain their purity — which, as you say, is very important to them — without leading us all to an ideologically pure irrelevancy.
Chuck Butcher
@DougJ:
Tnx DougJ, I’m always a bit nervous about analyzing races I don’t really know.
RW_Gadfly
Well, other than putting a lead weight around the ankles of employers who compete with foreign competitors and get unionized….nothing, I suppose. ;)
Card Check falls under the broader sphere of fiscal issues for conservatives — as opposed to social or security ones, that is.
gwangung
How many foreign competitors DON’T have unions?
demkat620
That’s it! I am done with Ed Schultz. He just let Lanny Davis repeat the Fox lie that the Obama WH tried to ban Fox from one of their pools.
Fuck you Lanny, fuck you very much. I am so sick of his schtick. He has no clue what he’s talking about half the time and he spouts these right wing lies constantly. “For the sake of fairness”
DougJ
Tnx DougJ, I’m always a bit nervous about analyzing races I don’t really know.
NYS is a perfect hill for tea baggers to die on. The fact that the state is quite liberal means that there is not much chance of tea baggers winning elections. The fact that the Republican elected officials are pretty liberal and there is third party apparatus means there is lots of chance of preventing current Republican elected officials from being re-elected.
calipygian
Uncorrupted by the power elite? The only reason Palin is where she is is because she gave the ultimate insider, Bill Kristol, a raging boner on an Alaskan cruise.
She was shit out of the power elite’s ass.
demkat620
And now we get Terry McAsshat. Thanks Ed!
Keith G
@RW_Gadfly: You’re quite possibly right, but there is, of course, a fly in the ointment:
Their preferences are less certain if the peoples’ money is being spent on them as many teabaggers have shown.
calipygian
@calipygian: More from Horton’s article:
She is a complete and utter captive of the eastern establishment, Washington power elite and she and her audience of hicks and yokel’s are too fucking stupid to see it.
Chuck Butcher
@RW_Gadfly:
WTF? You write as though you’re literate and yet you go there? Let’s see if I’ve got your concerns down, you think at the lowest total tax rate since WWII you’re taxed to death, that labor is evil, that socialism is run rampant, or that your agenda resonates with anyone outside your narrow circle. If you’re actually literate try reading something other than FauxNews propaganda or grade school history. I’m not going to bother arguing with someone who starts out with rampant stupidity as a qualification.
Fucking Confederate Party of Republicanism.
Chuck Butcher
godddamit typed soshulizm properly spelled
@RW_Gadfly:
Speaking as a teabagger myself
WTF? You write as though you’re literate and yet you go there? Let’s see if I’ve got your concerns down, you think at the lowest total tax rate since WWII you’re taxed to death, that labor is evil, that soc**lism is run rampant, or that your agenda resonates with anyone outside your narrow circle. If you’re actually literate try reading something other than FauxNews propaganda or grade school history. I’m not going to bother arguing with someone who starts out with rampant stupidity as a qualification.
Fucking Confederate Party of Republicanism.
Mark S.
@gwangung:
China!
Bubblegum Tate
@calipygian:
I loved that parenthetical, too. But those people are absolute worshippers of St. Sarah, so it’s to be expected.
terry chay
It’s amusing after all the “out of state money/people/influence” chants of the Republican party this year to see them ruin what’s left of the Republican party in self-imolation.
This stuff worked for years (remember Bush I-no new taxes quip) and now it’s a plan without a purpose.
bago
B) opposition
to the public optionis one of the few things that Republicans have broadly been able to agree on in recent memory.Fixed.
calipygian
And speaking of the National Organization for Marriage, noted bigot Maggie Gallagher comes out as a dirty whore who shilled for Bush for money:
Xecky Gilchrist
@RW_Gadfly: Thanks. I don’t agree with you re: the effect unions have on companies, but I appreciate an answer that you can make a case for and that isn’t just screaming at clouds.
As others have asked, are you sure you want to count yourself among the teabaggers?
schrodinger's cat
Question: Where were all these fiscal conservatives when Bush
turned the big budget surplus into a deficit, I don’t remember most of them having problems with deficits back then.
The Bearded Blogger
@schrodinger’s cat: It’s not spending that’s the problem, it’s spending in order to help people that’s the problem. That’s why Clinton wasn’t a real fiscal conservative, he reduced debt, yeah, but at the expense of helping people
burnspbesq
@DougJ:
Is King staying in the House? I thought he was considering a (kamikaze) run against Gillibrand.
DougJ
Is King staying in the House? I thought he was considering a (kamikaze) run against Gillibrand.
I doubt he’ll leave the House. But who knows?
linda
@burnspbesq:
the expense of a campaign was too much considering he was already feeling at a disadvantage as a republican in a statewide race. poor petey didn’t want to climb that hill.
Anne Laurie
@Xecky Gilchrist:
Shorter RWG response: If American workers aren’t willing to accept the same pennies-an-hour, unsafe, insecure, environmentally-destructive manufacturing jobs as our megacorporations’ friends in the People’s Republic, they’re the real Communists!
Obama Death Panel Chairman (formerly glocksman)
@Keith G:
No, it’s an impromptu shrine in honor of the immaculate reception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Reception
As for the Club for Growth types coming in from the outside to help Hoffman, lets just say that a CfG endorsement is practically the kiss of death if their track record is anything to go by.
tc125231
@Anne Laurie:
Correct. Socialism/Communism has been redefined as “not facilitating every passing whim of the already wealthy.”
Let the Gilded Age begin again!
jibeaux
If the Democrat wins that district, IWHMMD (it will have made my day).
I really want to create a new internet tradition of which we can all be aware, but I lack the rhetorical flair to pull it off. It’s kind of sad.
David
I would think that real Teabaggers wouldn’t want their name tainted by an association with Republicans.
CalD
I actually think this may be the best possible thing that could happen to Republicans. Seems like they could heal a lot quicker if the cancer removed itself.
Chris
@ RW_gadfly
Man…thoughtful commentary, but I still remain unconvinced that any sort of two party GOVERNING is possible anytime soon. We’ll be keepin an eye on this one…
Comrade Darkness
@RW_Gadfly: Well, it’s well in keeping with polling data that shows—party labels and such aside—that Americans still, by and large, prefer fiscally conservative government.
The last president who really and truly worked hard to rectify the county’s balance of payments and national debt was Carter. Yeah, he’s remembered so fondly by the “conservatives”, I can totally see where you are coming from here.
Bill Arnold
And they don’t have to deal with pesky safety or environmental regulations (they’re mostly not enforced). And eminent domain is trivially easy to come by. And there is just one party to bribe. It’s called the People’s Republic Of Capitalism for a reason.
Roger Moore
@schrodinger’s cat:
Fixt.
anonevent
@Mark S.: China is one big union.
gwangung
@Bill Arnold: Well, my real point is that there has to be some more nuanced thought on Card Check and unionization. Using unions as an automatic boogeyman isn’t a real answer, particularly if foreign competition is also unionized. In a lot of ways, we are the ones that are cheating, allowing bigger companies to avoid unions and to circumvent environmental regulations.
anonevent
@RW_Gadfly: And the last president who pushed social issues on the back burner, and really tried to solve fiscal problems – making the government more efficient and cost effective, reduce unnecessary waste, and bring taxes and spending in line was…Clinton. And the American people saw fit to elect a guy who promised tax cuts.
Regnad Kcin
Will the last Whig out turn out the lights?
Ash Can
@RW_Gadfly: “As for how to rectify the impasse between SoCons and moderate Republicans on the coasts, the party really needs to convince both sides of that to take their squabble to the statehouses so we can focus on common ground in DC.”
That’s an interesting point. I wonder, however, to what extent that squabble could be contained to the statehouse level. Presumably, as you imply, decent leadership could maintain (at least to a substantive extent) that dichotomy. But I for one don’t see that capable a leader emerging within the Republican Party anytime soon. How about you? Do you see that kind of leadership anywhere in the party?
@RW_Gadfly: “I, personally, think we could build a great tent by pushing social issues to the backburner and focusing on pocketbook issues.”
I think you’re absolutely right. That’s how I recall the GOP from the 60s and 70s, at least. However, I think the party is going to have to go through a great deal more upheaval before it reverts to that state.
On a more personal level, I too appreciate your commentary and insights. I won’t always agree with your opinions, but you explain clearly and honestly where they’re coming from, and that’s what discourse is all about. After all the asinine trolls we’ve been chasing around here with brooms and big sticks, you’re a breath of fresh air. Don’t be a stranger.
jibeaux
@RW_Gadfly:
People like to say they want fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and limited government. But what is actually popular with constituents is lots of nice spending bills which benefit them and that are not paid for, because people also, go figure, don’t like taxes. It’s a bit like how we all say we value teachers and firefighters, but nonetheless you just seem to make more money if you’re really good with a ball or you’re pretty enough to be in toothpaste ads. Or maybe we’re all collectively the main character in Office Space who doesn’t like his job so he isn’t going to go any more, and when asked what he will do about bills says that he never really liked paying those, either.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@Ash Can: Seconding your comments about RW_Gadfly. I wish I had a few more thoughtful conservative commentators on my personal blog (not the one linked here) like him.
I used to fear debating Conservatives because they brought cognizant arguments to the table, ala John Rogers’ infamous “I Miss Republicans” post. Now, like a lot of people here, including the proprietor, I just down a bottle of Pepto in preparation for their next round of “Obama/Democrats sux!”
Maliki (or whatever his name is), BOB, and so on, aren’t just wrong (and in the case of BOB, esp., sexist and racist). They’re boring. Agree or not with RW_Gadfly, at least they’re bringing something to the cannons other than dirty undies and flatware.
soonergrunt
@schrodinger’s cat: They didn’t exist until after the 20th of January, 2009.
That’s why makewi has never answered my question of yesterday.
kommrade reproductive vigor
I’ll be curious to see how many numbers they’ll add to dial when turning the crazy up to 11 doesn’t work.
Because they’re what’s right with America so everyone who disagrees must be wrong. Right?
Everyone knows you can’t trust polls or surveys. And if you get your ass handed to you during an election, just shout ACORN! and … Well, you’ll still be a loser with his ass in a bag but you’ll get some air time from Faux.
If we were talking about a group that was marginally less reckless, repressive and obnoxious I’d feel sorry for the GOP and their teabagging offspring. There is no good outcome for them.
Popcorn?
Chuck
@RW_Gadfly:
Wal-Mart in China is unionized.
Oh but at least here we have freedom. As long as management says it’s okay.
canuckistani
The problem with a Republican-Crazy split into two separate parties is that they will form a coalition to defeat the democrats and the Republicans will be forced to support the Crazy platform in order for their support.
Ash Can
@canuckistani: I don’t think that’s the only alternative, or even the most likely one. What I think would happen is that the now-sane GOP would attract the right-of-center independents who are currently voting Dem to avoid the crazy. Would this be a problem for the Dems? Sure, but that’s the way a real two-party system works. And I’d be all for it — maybe my own pet issues wouldn’t get addressed by an in-power GOP, but at least I could sleep at night knowing that the Republicans elected weren’t murderous psychopaths or religious crackpots looking to bring on Armageddon.
canuckistani
@Ash Can: I was thinking explicitly of Israel, where far too often the balance of power in a multi-party system is held by the rock-hard fuundamentalist nuts.
Redshirt
NY-23 is my favorite Congressional race of 2009 – by far! And it is a preview of the wingnuttery to come in 2010 and beyond.
And I must say, either RW_Puffenstuff, Teabagger, is either a spoof, or, I’ve got to reassess. He/she sounds literate and reasonable and self-identifies as a Teabagger?!
RW_Gadfly
Yep, and proudly so thanks. I can appreciate that you think that most of us are semi-literate boobs. But let’s just agree to engage each other respectfully and in good faith, K?
Well, for one thing, whatever the total tax rate is at this moment, the problem is spending — both present and future. After all, that’s why we have taxes.
The best way to measure the overall cost of government is by totaling up the federal budget as well as all local and state budgets. A whole lot of the overall growth of the public sector in recent decades has been in the latter two.
In 1928, the total public sector (F/S/L) accounted for 11.7% of GDP.
In 1930, 13%
In 1932, 21%
In 1935, 20%
In 1940, 20%
In 1950, 24%
In 1960, 28.7%
In 1970, 31%
In 1980, 33.7%
In 1990, 36%
In 2000, 33.2%
In 2007, 35.8%
In 2008, 37.4%
In 2009, 45.34%
(source: usgovernmentspending.com)
Now, it’s true that the jumps in latter years (particularly 09) are as much a product of the recession and extraordinary events as anything. Still, the long-term trend is unmistakable.
And the fact that we’re running into flak from foreign creditors on further expansions ought to send a pretty clear message. They see what we manifestly refuse to: entitlement spending on the verge of going haywire. Unless we get our hands around that, and soon, it will result in a perceptible, long-term declined standard of living.
It’s the spending that has me concerned — particularly that to which we’re already obligated without any identifiable means with which to pay for it. There isn’t a tax arrangement possible that would enable us to afford the public sector we’ve created.
So I’m far less concerned about present taxes than I am future prospects. For a good primer on where we stand, go find the film “I.O.U.S.A”. And lest you think it the product of right-wing loonies, its chief contributor is the Clinton-appointed former head of the GAO, David Walker. One of its major funders was Warren Buffett.
I don’t think labor is evil at all. I do think that unionization is either dooming industries and companies or otherwise accelerating their flight from our shores. But “labor” and “unionization” are two different things.
It shouldn’t be lost on anybody that we’ve really had two different American auto industries for the past 15 years or so. The unionized “Big 3” and the non-unionized foreign automakers with plants strewn throughout the midwest and southeast.
The former was in awful shape even before the credit market collapse and recession. The latter was doing swimmingly….and will continue to once auto sales regain some life. Despite their own share of recent problems, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai aren’t flirting with bankruptcy.
Capital is as mobile and versatile as it’s ever been. That means that jobs and growth will, more than ever, favor those places where conditions for returns are most promising and disfavor those places where they’re least promising.
So, far from thinking that labor is “evil”, I want us to create the very best environment we can for jobs to be created. And, no, that doesn’t mean that we have to compete with dirt cheap unskilled labor from Asia or Central America.
Rather, we should accept the fact that they have dirt cheap labor, concede those jobs that need dirt cheap labor, and stay focused on developing a modern labor force that can attract well-paying jobs that won’t be in danger of moving to China or Mexico.
The more energy we devote to trying desperately to hang on to yesterday’s vanishing economic reality, the less we’ll have to devote to preparing for tomorrow’s inevitable one.
As you can probably tell by now, I’m really not all that in to the use of shock-term hyperbolic shorthand. What we call something seems far less important to me than understanding what it is and where it’s leading.
Calling Barack Obama a socialist strikes me as about as useful as calling George W. Bush a corporatist or fascist.
Well, there’s already some polling data to suggest that more and more Americans are waking up to this emerging reality. If the fiscal numbers continue to erode as they’re scheduled to, then I can’t imagine public opinion going the other way as that takes hold.
Besides, the motivating force behind my agenda is less about political salesmanship than it is national and societal preservation. It’s a principled thing, first and foremost. What others think about it is up to them, not me.
And, moreover, I’d say that the Tea Party movement has already impacted the course of policymaking. If it hadn’t, nobody would’ve even paid it any mind.
The ultimate trick will be to see if it’s something that move the ball on offense, if that chance ever comes. As we learned, and as the Dems are currently relearning, it’s a lot easier to stay united on defense than it is on offense.
This is the primary reason why we’re trying to keep the Republican Party from backing candidates like Scozzafava.
RW_Gadfly
Of the most nationally visible leaders in the party, no.
I’m a bit of an odd duck on Sarah Palin in that I’m somewhat agnostic on her.
I think putting her at the top of the ticket in 2012 would be a disaster — for the Republicans if she loses, for the country (and thus the GOP, too) if she wins. She’s never given me confidence in her ability to articulate a cohesive vision, let alone to broadly inspire movement towards that vision.
But neither do I detest her as virtually everybody on the left does, and many on the right do. I like her independent spirit — such as being among the first prominent Republicans to break from the party and endorse Hoffman in this race. And, for the most part, I like her libertarianish aura.
Mitt Romney’s not it, either. While he, too, has some redeemable qualities (he’d make a better president than Palin would, no doubt), he’s about as principled as a weathervane and has already shown a remarkable inability to inspire a following.
The single best elected Republican in the nation right now, for my money, is Gov. Mitch Daniels in Indiana. He’s not an ideological firebrand — on social matters or otherwise. He’s just a very competent, and practical executive. His bent is more towards spending restraint than “starving the beast” with tax cuts….and that strikes me as what we need.
Whether he has the chops to provide the leadership the GOP needs, I don’t know. He’s also said he’s not interested in seeking any more elected offices — I hope he changes his mind.
It’s worth remembering that relatively few Americans had even heard of Barack Obama when he took the stage at the 2004 Democratic convention. Four years later, he was elected president by a pretty decent margin.
He’s an anomaly, I know. But it demonstrates that these things can happen relatively spontaneously these days.
ksmiami
RW Gadfly – go on keep espousing the friggin LIE that Republicans are somehow fiscally responsible- I have a mountain to sell you in Florida. The Repubs have never cared about anything but busting the budget on excessive military spending and lining the pockets of their contributors – I don’t even think Repubs today believe in infrastructure, or science, or logic… Hello – 30 years of trickle down HASN’T worked – have you seen our interstate highway system – you know the one Ike said was supposed to last 50 years, well it isn’t lookin too good – oh and our trains suck, yet anytime we look to a good overseas model, your corner yells “socialist Europe, eeeeww, freedom fries.”
YOUR PARTY IS RIDICULOUS – You guys did not get your asses handed to you because of fiscal responsibility, but because you absolutely SUCK at governing and you don’t believe in it.
RW_Gadfly
;)
I know, I know…there are a lot of nutty teabaggers out there. I remember when the CNN/Susan Roesgen flap happened at a Chicago Tea Party — where she didn’t so much report from the event as aggressively challenge and besmirch it.
As much as people in my realm were talking about how badly she came off (and she did), I was more concerned at how the protesters she interviewed came off. I was thinking: well, I agree with what they’re saying…but do I really want to be associated with people like the ones I saw?
It comes with the territory, I think. There were nutty Iraq War protesters, too — that certainly doesn’t mean that anybody who opposed it and wrote or spoke against it was alike.
Olly McPherson
@RW_Gadfly:
Mitch Daniels pulled a Daley by privatizing the Indiana tollway system. I prefer for public works to remain in public hands.
RW_Gadfly
Believe me, I have no interest in trying to move the GOP back to where it was in the Ike/Nixon/Ford era. Personalities aside (Ike and Ford, at least, were good and decent men), the GOP of that period was hardly committed to keeping tight reins on the size and scope of government. Quite the contrary.
And, while few on the left view him this way, many people of my persuasion look at GWB and see something of a Nixon redux. That’s a paradox for us, because many or most of us also were reflexively defensive of him…while being acutely aware at times that he really wasn’t “one of us.”
The problem with the past generation of fiscal conservatives (and I very much include Reagan in this) is that they were intently focused on reducing tax rates and just as intently sheepish on addressing the reason for those taxes. They talked a lot about curbing spending in the abstract…but didn’t talk, much less act, about specifics
There’s a reason for that: cutting taxes is politically popular and easy…cutting spending, not so much. And on those occasions when Republicans have attempted to make a strong stand on spending (as in 1995), too many Republicans ran for the hills when the heat turned up.
RW_Gadfly
Well, that’s fine if you prefer that. He also got a $4 billion check for having done so — which has enabled the state to afford funding a number of long-needed infrastructure projects that his predecessors failed to make a reality.
It was a controversial thing in Indiana when he did it. But it certainly didn’t seem to hamper his reelection prospects…he won by about 20 points in a cycle where Indiana went in the blue column for president for the first time in 44 years.
So I don’t think he’s making any apologies for it — and I don’t think Indiana voters asked him to. It was a good deal for the state and people figured out that their worst fears didn’t materialize.
RW_Gadfly
While that’s certainly the case, what do you think is more beneficial to our interests: to gripe and complain about how that presents an unlevel playing field….or to accept it for what it is and adjust accordingly?
The chances that we’re going to convince the places that are thriving because of manufacturing jobs that used to reside in major industrialized economies like ours to change their safety and environmental standards so we can compete for those jobs are about nil.
Aside from the Orwellian nature of scrapping secret ballot organizing votes, adopting EFCA would be economically ruinous.
We’ve got to stop chasing setting suns, people.
Olly McPherson
@RW_Gadfly:
It’s a good short-term deal that will starve long-term funding. (See the issues in Chicago with Daley leasing the city’s parking meters for the next 99 years. Sure, the city got a short-term cash infusion, which they promptly spent. In exchange, they gave up control over an important means of generating revenue. They also compromised their ability to carry out policy related to zoning, traffic, etc.)
Beyond the short-sightedness of the deal, the Indiana tollway (and any tollway) is a public work that should be managed for the good of the state. (That leaves aside concerns about access and national defense, the latter being the rationale for our interstate system.)
Leasing the tollway was another Republican short-term fix to avoid the reality that governments need to levy taxes and fees to raise money for their spending. Daniels was re-elected, but “worst fears” about the deal will materialize down the road, when the state needs money and the cash gained from privatization is long gone.
Olly McPherson
@RW_Gadfly:
Shorter: Get your applications in to Wal-Mart.
RW_Gadfly
The problem with approaching the subject from this perspective is that it assumes that the same capital investments would be made regardless of the chances of having a unionized workforce.
And that’s a pretty bad assumption to make.
Rather than looking at this through the old prism of a constant struggle between labor and management/ownership, it’s more realistic to look at capital as being in a competitive global marketplace and labor as being in a competitive global, national, or regional marketplace — depending on the specific nature of the work. And, further, that they’re interdependent.
Capital is a commodity — a dollar’s a dollar no matter where it comes from or where it’s invested. Labor, however, isn’t a commodity. If it were, then the prospect of putting our labor in direct competition with cheap labor from Asia or Central America would be pretty daunting.
But we don’t have to do that at all. All kinds of factors can distinguish an hour of one man’s labor from an hour of another man’s labor.
Our focus, IMO, shouldn’t be on how we try to beat China etal at their own game (or otherwise keeping them out of the game). Instead, it should be on how to create these distinctions of value so that we don’t have to compete with them.
The key thing to remember, though, is that capital investment can’t be taken for granted. So, in your analogy, the prospect isn’t so much that rich people (ie, investors) would have to do with a little less so that the middle class people they employ can have a little more….but that the investors would direct their capital elsewhere and thus not employ those folks to begin with.
So where do I leave the middle class, then? Working for peanuts? Not at all — I want their standard of living to be as high as it can, too. I’m one of them, after all.
But the value of our labor to the people who buy it has to be genuinely commensurate with our costs of living. And that puts the onus on us to make it so.
RW_Gadfly
That’s not what I’m suggesting at all — unless, I suppose, that’s the true extent of one’s abilities…in which case, it’s better than the alternative.
But I’m thinking more along the lines of developing marketable skills that create a quantity of value for the people who employ labor that lines up with whatever standard of living we want or need.
We can tell ourselves that we need an income of, say, $60,000 to support the lifestyle we want to live. But that doesn’t mean that mopping floors for 40 hours a week is actually worth that much to somebody. So it’s incumbent on us to either figure out how to make our labors worth the $60,000 we want or otherwise adjust our standard of living to what our labor is actually worth.
I’d say the former’s a better choice.
But it’s amazing that we’re even having to have this discussion while the ashes of our unionized domestic auto industry are still smoldering. Because, when you get right down to brass tacks, this is the single biggest reason they failed….their labor costs were considerably higher than their competitors, such that their competitors could make a positive margin by selling cars at market prices and they couldn’t.
ksmiami
RW – labor is the only thing in this nation that has brought security and upward mobility to the vast majority of people. Extending protection to the workforce (see writers guild, actor’s guild) is not to take away from capital, but to bring stability to a country’s economic production means. We have turned into a nation of economic Darwinists and while we have built incredible wealth for a few people, we are on a precipice whereby we have to decide as a nation what our priorities are: ipods, or a healthy population, clean energy and air, or more Walmarts. And mind you I am a capitalist, but I can see that the discrepancy between the average American and the top 2% is DESTABILIZING and bad for a healthy democracy. And at every turn, every moment when we could have as a society pulled it together and changed certain priorities, your team has said – no you can have it all; low taxes, (phony) growth, private school vouchers, easy credit and so here we are today; indebted and creaky.
RW_Gadfly
You don’t say? ;)
Are you getting the impression from me that I’m somehow arguing against labor?
I not only want as many people as possible working and producing regularly, I want them earning as much as possible when they do.
I’m simply encouraging us all to remember that labor has a market value, that it doesn’t exist in closed market, that the capital needed to employ it is not a birthright, and that the value of our labor outputs needs to be commensurate with our costs of living.
Well, whatever it’s intended for is immaterial. I’m not sure I ever suggested that unionization (or any other form of labor market distortion) exists to intentionally pressure jobs and capital investment to go elsewhere. I’m simply pointing out that this, in many cases, is the upshot of it…and that it’s not desirable for any of us, including those who lose jobs as a result of it.
It’s a fallacy to equate this to Darwinism, even if only rhetorically. In Darwin’s world, the strong survived at the direct expense of the weak (who ultimately died out).
The idea that keeping a rational relationship between the value of one’s productivity and their own standard of living amounts to giving the strong dominion over the weak who will die out is ridiculous.
For one thing, it assumes that large numbers of people are simply incapable of producing enough to provide for their needs.
For another, it assumes that we’re beholden to others such that they even could exploit us. People show that to be a myth on a regular basis: every time they quit a job…or “take their business elsewhere.”
And for another, it assumes that failures in a free economy are tantamount to some kind of extinction. The truth is that we all have failures of all kinds — and we usually pick ourselves up and carry on.
I’d be interested in hearing you expound on that. I’ve never been convinced that a large “wealth gap” is necessarily sociologically undesirable. In fact, I’ve seen more convincing arguments that such a gap is actually pretty healthy.
The key variable is how well “the average (or even below-average) American” is doing — not as compared to rich people, but as compared to their own expectations of how they should be doing.
Clearly, history is rife with examples of social unrest where a broad population is starving and suffering….while a privileged few is living exceedingly comfortably. The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 is but one.
Like us, Tsarist Russia also had a substantial wealth gap. Unlike us, though, those on the wrong side of that gap were not only not keeping up with the Jonesikovs, they were destitute.
A lot of very wealthy people have taken it hard on the chin the past couple years. I’m not sure how this could be seen as a benefit to average Americans.
Moreover, even in normal times, I don’t see how Warren Buffett’s relative prosperity has any bearing on how I’m doing. Whether he’s worth $20 billion or $40 billion doesn’t have the slightest impact on me or my life.
Well, I’d hardly call the economic growth we’ve had since Reagan “phony”. GDP in 1980 was $2.8 trillion. Today it’s around $14T. Considering that inflation’s been held in check for most of that period, that ain’t bad.
And exceedingly few people have access to school vouchers, sadly.
As for our indebtedness, that’s a more complex issue…particularly on the personal side. You’ll certainly get no argument from me that way too many people and organizations have spent beyond their capacity to afford.
But nobody holds a candle to our federal government in that department. And I’m hardly going to sit here and take the blame for the government largess that has put us in this hole. I’ve never been anything but vocal about fiscal restraint.
My party, alas, has not. And that’s largely what this topic is about: fiscal conservatives trying to wrest control of the GOP to give our country a realistic chance to pull out of this hole.