Patterico's Pontifications

3/27/2015

Jay Cost: Two Reasons Not To Leave The GOP (With Added Graphic Of Current GOP Field)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:58 am



[guest post by Dana]

In the past few years, an increasing number of commenters here at Patterico’s have expressed their disenchantment and frustration with the Republican party. Some have already reached their tipping point and made the decision to leave the party. After all, how long does one keep waiting…and waiting… and waiting to see promises be kept and conservative principles represented?

With that, last week Glenn Beck announced he was leaving the Republican party to become an Independent. Beck’s reasoning was not surprising:

They surrendered on the abortion bill, surrendered on executive orders on illegal immigration, common core. They helped push through $3.5 trillion in deficits this last year. They won’t fight Obamacare. They voted to confirm Katz Unstein (ph). They thwarted the bill on the NSA data collection. They’re still not doing anything on Benghazi. They haven’t done anything on the targeting of conservatives with the IRS. They haven’t done anything on the VA. They also threw an election against Chris McDaniels to Thad Cochran. They actually went to the Democrats and played the race card. I mean, I can get that from Hillary Clinton’s people….

We had to have the house. Then we had to the House. Then we had to have the House and the Senate. Now we have to have the White House. And then when they get the White House, the House, and the Senate then it becomes the Bush administration where it’s just as bad on deficits and everything else. They don’t have any intention of doing anything.

He also noted the establishment GOP’s disrespectful treatment of Tea Partiers like Sens. Mike Lee and Sen Ted Cruz.

His final word on the matter was one of futility:

“Four years ago I was with them. Four years ago I said ‘work from the inside: Let’s change it. Let’s get new guys in there.’ I think it’s too late.”

Days later, Jay Cost offered two reasons why Beck should reconsider his decision: the lack of a viable third party and the belief that party reform can happen.

[T]he Republican party is not going to let conservatives go anywhere else. There has never been a viable third party in the country, at least not one that has persisted over the long run. This has to do with the nature of our elections. Political theorist Maurice Duverger demonstrated fifty years ago that winner-take-all contests centered around discrete geographical areas typically produce a two-party system. There are exceptions, but they’re rare.

Moreover, third parties that do thrive temporarily are co-opted by one of the two major parties — usually to the detriment of the ideological movement that spawned the third party in the first place.

As if all that isn’t enough, even the seemingly easy task of forming a third party is a challenge. The two parties can be thought of as opponents in most respects, but they can also be understood to operate a cartel that restricts entry by competitors. A third party will thus have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get itself listed on the ballot, and even more to be included in presidential debates. None of this is coincidental. The two parties want us to have a choice … between the two parties!

Regarding a GOP reformation, Cost remains optimistic about the future in light of positive changes that have already taken place:

[T]he Republican party can be reformed. It may be very hard to do so, but the GOP is not a political machine. It is not a closed system, impervious to change. It’s open, and grassroots reformers have recourse — in the form of party primaries. They may be seriously out-financed in those contests. Still, it is one thing to be an underdog, and another to have no hope of change at all. And there is hope.

In fact, I’d argue that there has been an extraordinary amount of change within the GOP over the last generation. Reformers have made some real gains.

Further:

…The group of solid conservatives, meanwhile, has grown. The Senate already had many such members, like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Tim Scott. But now they are set to be joined by Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse, and Joni Ernst. My back of the envelope calculations suggest that the number of solid conservative senators has risen from about a dozen in 1995 to 20 or so today.

Cost also notes changes in the House as well, observing that the “insurgent” class of House reformers is now large enough to make real noise.”

And yet, he makes an important distinction: while conservative reformers have won elections, there have been little to no actual breakthroughs. He believes this is by design:

That is one of Madison’s big points in Federalist #10 and #51; he wants our system to be responsive to changes in public mood, but — fearful of fractious majorities — he also promotes a system of checks and balances to slow change down. Moreover, the powers that be in the Republican party have been doing things a certain way for a century and a half. They are not going to give up just because conservatives have won a handful of elections.

Regardless, Cost believes conservative reformers should remain in the party, be inspired by recent conservative wins and continue to push the big rock uphill toward reform.

–Dana

NOTE: I’m adding Nate Silver’s “graphic conception of the GOP field” as I think it’s helpful to have a visual of the various divisions and overlaps of the current GOP field. Thanks to Kevin M. for the link.

Untitled-1

144 Responses to “Jay Cost: Two Reasons Not To Leave The GOP (With Added Graphic Of Current GOP Field)”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Regardless of any reasons to leave or stay with the republican party I will remain. In reality I have no where else to go. The democrats have become so radical left, anti American, and racist there is no way I could join them. And any third party is a waste of time and effort. So I remain a loyal Republican, the only party in my opinion which still reflects the core values of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian work ethic.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  3. what say instead we push the big rock downhill to where it bonks Meghan’s coward daddy on his stupid loathsome head

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  4. “…The group of solid conservatives, meanwhile, has grown. The Senate already had many such members, like Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Tim Scott. But now they are set to be joined by Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse, and Joni Ernst. My back of the envelope calculations suggest that the number of solid conservative senators has risen from about a dozen in 1995 to 20 or so today.”

    Think of this comment. In twenty years, we’ve gone from a dozen decent Senators to maybe 20. Woweee! In another couple of decades, maybe there will be enough to block major legislation that would scatter the stones of the rubble that is left of this country.

    Think also about what it meant to be a solid conservative then and now. Heck, in 1995, Democrats professed that marriage was between a man and a woman, and it was acceptable to endorse welfare reform. Such sentiments now put you on the scary right-wing edge of the Republican party.

    Now, I can’t say that I’ve quit the party, but I’m not sure I was a member to begin with. I usually vote for the (R), but that is the choice of the least evil. (And yes, I don’t consider Libertarians to necessarily be a lesser evil than the Republicans.)

    I’ve grown more apathetic to a third party tearing down the artifice that is the Republican party. Watching what the Mississippi officials did to Chris McDaniels last year eliminated any remnant of doubt that the senior party leadership would rather hold on to their own power and influence than defeat Democrats in elections.

    Virginia SoCon (8eb3c5)

  5. Third parties, formed for a specific and widely-supported purpose and a specific instant, and work. In 1992, the Perot insurgency might have elected an independent President (Perot led the 3-way race in spring 1992) had the candidate not quit his campaign for several months.

    I worked the signature gathering in West Los Angeles, and there was no shortage of signers. Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states in short order. A saner, more committed candidate, standing for what were essentially tea-party values, could have won.

    However, unless they win, they will take the vote from the party closest to their beliefs, often electing someone (e.g. Clinton) who might have lost had the third party candidate not run. Sometimes the establishment candidate for that near-end party will drop out and endorse the independent to avoid such a split.

    That said, once they lose the first time, they become empty shells, soon turned to fringe purposes or disbanded. Standing third parties are pretty much useless, but insurgencies often work.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. *Third parties, formed for a specific and widely-supported purpose and at a specific instant, can work.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  7. Kevin M., what did you think when you learned that Perot was given an inside track to the drafting of Hillary! care immediately after that election? His name and his company were prominent on the “secret” list of attendees when it was finally made public years later. My thought was that this was a quid pro quo.

    Perot was (is?) an interesting guy, and a lot of my friends supported him. But I doubt Slick Willie would have landed in the White House without Perot’s draw on disgusted Republicans (those who were disappointed in “no new taxes” Bush 41).

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  8. I too tried the 3rd-party route in the run-up to ’92.
    Perot was not an option – he seemed to personify the “crazy aunt in the attic” he was warning about.
    Tried Libertarian and soon learned those people are bugg-nutts crazy in their slavish devotion to The Perfect.
    It could be said that BHO has done more to move the GOP to the Right than any other person.
    The constant attacks on the TEA Party has solidified its resolve and brought it strength within the GOP, to the point that it is making a difference today, and will make a bigger one tomorrow.
    Glenn needs to re-think his position.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  9. The problem, of course, is that the system was designed to resist change. You don’t go from 12 conservative senators to 20 overnight, and certainly not to 60. It takes some time for pressures to build up to the point that change is possible. It happened in 1980, 1994 and 2008. Sometimes, though, the change that is delivered isn’t the change that was requested and there is just as sharp a rebuke (2010, 2014).

    It may happen in 2016, or not. Past performance is not an indication of future results.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. bobathome,

    Oh, it took me a while. I went from Perot to the LP and spent a few elections there before I became convinced that third parties were a crock.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  11. Also, in my defense, Clinton wasn’t a terrible president. Nothing really bad happened. Oh, I disagreed with him a lot, and wanted him impeached, but he was not an out-and-out catastrophe as the current craptard is.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. Further in my defense, the core demand of the Perotistas — balancing the budget — was momentarily achieved. Having a crazy man get 19% of the vote will wake even a Democrat up.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Depends on what your definition of “terrible” is, Kevin…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. Beck is a tool, a drama queen. Wasn’t enough attention being paid to him, so he acted out. Good riddance.

    kinlaw (f78c93)

  15. Cost makes some good points. It takes two to tango… Republican leadership need to listen hard to what is being said to them and professed soon-to-be-departees need to think long and hard about their actions. And the party NEEDS NEW LEADERSHIP!!!…. THE HOUSE NEEDS NEW LEADERSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!… THE SENATE NEEDS NEW LEADERSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  16. It could be said that BHO has done more to move the GOP to the Right than any other person.

    I hadn’t thought of it this way. And how sad if that’s what it takes…

    Dana (86e864)

  17. Dana, he worked wonders for firearm sales.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  18. It’s also true that Obama has done more to move state governments to the right and decimate Democrats’s perceived power than anyone in recent memory. But in doing that, has he not also limited the states’ ability to counteract/countermand his rotten policies and executive decrees?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. And, Yes, that is what it takes (historically) to move America.
    You can stand on a street-corner all day and night warning of a coming catastrophe and be ignored, until that moment that the Japanese actually attack Pearl Harbor.
    It is our basic Jacksonian Heritage of wanting to be left alone to pursue our interests, and getting really pissed when something happens to interrupt our serenity.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  20. It has only taken 6 years for the rule of law to be more or less abandoned by DC. The White House ignores it and there is inadequate will/and/or ability to oppose it.

    We don’t have another 20 years for another 8 conservative Senators.

    Whether that means forming a third party I have no opinion on, out of my knowledge base.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  21. the media also abandoned the rule of law

    it’s very scary

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  22. team r is a laughingstock amongst the conservatives of my ilk.
    If they happen to put forth the proper candidates they will get my vote.
    No beltway team r yes boy for v.p.

    mg (31009b)

  23. So, mg… you’d prefer Hillary Clinton (or worse) get elected than having to vote for someone closer (hopefully, much) to your standards?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. Maybe we ought to consider that not all Republicans are conservatives. For all of our conservative desires, the actual Republican primary voters gave the nomination to Mitt Romney, the most moderate of all of the candidates (other than the no-chance-in-Hell Jon Huntsman). Conservatives like to blame the Republican “establishment,” but, in the end, Mr Romney won because he got the votes.

    But, there’s no real alternative: the plurality-winner single-member district system means that it’s a very rare third-party candidate who can win: he has to overcome the almost automatic 35 to 40% of the vote that the major party candidates are virtually guaranteed in contested elections, and that usually takes special conditions, such as Joe Lieberman’s win in 2006, and Lisa Murkowski’s in 2010.

    The Dana who can count votes (f6a568)

  25. Col – In the last 8 years I have given up on team r and it’s loss of fight. But after the last 2 years republicans are either meeting my demands or my vote will not be cast. From nixon to romney i have towed the line. No more. No beltway fanboy for v.p.

    mg (31009b)

  26. Not all Republicans are conservatives. This is a center-right coalition. In such a coalition you have people in the Center (McCain) as well as the Right (Col West), and all stops in between. Not to mention several side axes (e.g. Christian-secular, libertarian-statist).

    Often one of the extremes thinks it is the whole party and tries to get everything its way. T Hat usually ends up a disaster.

    Nate Silver is many things, but a fool he isn’t. I disagree a bit with his Venn diagram of the GOP, but it is basically correct.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. I should have clarified #16 – as far as this post is concerned, I hadn’t thought of that. It would have been a good thing to include. And yes, askeptic, you’re right about the sale of firearms.

    Dana (86e864)

  28. thank you for the clarification

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  29. Depends on what your definition of “terrible” is, Kevin…

    Barack Obama will do nicely for that.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  30. i don’t need to leave the GOPe… they left me.

    look at who they run here in #Failifornia: #CashAndCarry, and other squishes, because they’re “electable”… and look at how what few “Republicans” make it to Sacto sell out their constitutents for personal advantage…

    then look at how Boner, Mitch the Biotch, McLame and all the others roll over and play dead in Congress, remember how Mittens threw the 2012 election and, most of all, pay attention to the Beltway RINOs proclaiming, as they did with Mittens, that Jeb is going to be the anointed one in 2016.

    all these swine care about is keeping their personal access to power, and the attendant rewards, and they do NOT give an airborne rodent’s hindquarters about the country or its citizens.

    fornicate them all, with a tanker’s bar wrapped up with 3 coils of concertina, sideways.

    redc1c4 (dab236)

  31. Kevin M – They be missing the pissed off circle, which is where I resign.

    mg (31009b)

  32. Col H, name anything that Clinton did that was worse than the best thing that Obama has done.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  33. Kevin M,

    That’s an interesting diagram. However, I’m curious how he defines Tea Party and Christian Conservatism as they tend to overlap?

    Dana (86e864)

  34. They be missing the pissed off circle, which is where I resign.

    So, you cannot find a place in any of those circles? “Pissed off” isn’t a position.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  35. However, I’m curious how he defines Tea Party and Christian Conservatism as they tend to overlap?

    I consider myself dead middle of the Tea Party (small government, low tax, federalist, strong defense) and yet I am not a Christian other than by baptism.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. If we used an “instant runoff voting system” then we could have viable attempts by third parties. Then you could actually cast your first priority vote for the candidate you really wanted, then vote your second priority vote for your backup candidate. That way a high quality third party candidate would have a chance since people wouldn’t be afraid of “wasting their vote” by voting for the third party.

    Ken in Camarillo (c5b86d)

  37. Dana,

    More to the point: many Christians are Tea Party. Many Tea Party are Christians, but there are a LOT of people who are only one or the other. Polls taken in the early days (2010) of Teas asked what they thought the most important issues were. Social conservative concerns (abortion, SSM) were dead last.

    Since then all the other groups in the GOP have tried to co-opt the Teas, to the point where they damaged the brand squabbling over it. But Nate seems to be using the original idea (small government, low taxes, federalist, strong defense). You might also add “rule of law” to that.

    Basically, the bourgeoisie.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. This convo makes me think about Pete King threatening to jump off a bridge if Cruz is the nominee:

    “We need intelligent debate in the country. Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn’t carry out an intelligent debate,” King said. “He oversimplifies, he exaggerates and he basically led the Republican Party over the cliff in the fall of 2013. He has shown no qualifications, no legislation being passed, doesn’t provide leadership and he has no real experience. So, to me, he is just a guy with a big mouth and no results.”

    When the party continues to spout disjointed, divisive crap like this on a daily basis, it doesn’t give one much hope for reform even though King and others loathe Cruz and others like him because they represent the change of which they are so desperately afraid…

    Dana (86e864)

  39. When bad behavior is rewarded, correction will never come. The GOP has been
    doing this for years. It’s not just a new phenom that’s appeared because of
    Obama or 9/ll or Democrats.

    With all due respect to Jay Cost; he’s whistling in the wind.

    Each day I see them doing the same things, avoiding the same acts and generally
    paying more attention to keeping their phoney baloney jobs than getting the
    country back on track and fighting the American hating Democrats every step of
    the way.

    Because that way is also their way. That’s what they think America should be. So,
    I don’t vote for Democrats because of their policies and ideology. So why should
    I vote for Republicans when they have a similar outlook and act the same way?

    They sold me a lie for over 40 years and last year I said; “No more”. And they’re
    doing it again and it will be even more obvious in 2016.

    DC is corruptive and the GOP and the majority of it’s adherents have been corrupted
    (if they ever weren’t in the first place).

    And anyone who has kids knows what happens when you don’t apply corrective measures
    to disobedience. You get more disobedience.

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  40. I’m adding Nate Silver’s “graphic conception of the GOP field” as I think it’s helpful to have a visual of the various divisions and overlaps of the current GOP field within the GOP.

    Dana (86e864)

  41. Tipping my hat to you jakee308.

    mg (31009b)

  42. All the stock market gainers love this type of uncontrolled govt. And will vote for team r go along to get my shares.
    Just another bat guano country.

    mg (31009b)

  43. Dana,

    And let me rephrase what I said in 35 & 37, taking the example of Ted Cruz. Nate has him smack dab in the center of Tea Party, even though he is a Southern Baptist and quite clearly holds to his church’s values. But he is not RUNNING to bring America to Christian values as, say, a Rick Santorum is. From what I hear, Ted intends to focus on getting government cut down to size and believes that once that is done, local values will reassert.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  44. Conservatives like to blame the Republican “establishment,” but, in the end, Mr Romney won because he got the votes.

    One could point out that the conservative vote was split among several different nominees. I think there are better candidates this time, but I have no idea how it will play out.

    There should be a few primaries scattered about, then Ohio, a few more, then Missouri, a few more, then Florida, then a whole bunch more.

    I don’t think a Repub has won the presidency for many a year without winning Ohio. Winning Ohio should have a bigger impact on the overall process than Iowa and NH.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  45. Obama didn’t move the GOP right. The response to Obama did that, to the extent it’s happened. It may sound like quibbling but I think it’s an important point, because it’s clear to me that the GOP leaders weren’t going to move on right on their own, and we should remember that.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  46. Venn diagrams notwithstanding, the Party has certainly moved substantially to the right over the last 50+ years I’ve considered myself a part of it. Much of this was the intellectual success of the conservative movement going back to Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley, some the electoral success of conservatives with and after Reagan, and also the overall ideological resorting of the parties.

    Back in 1964, there were liberal Republicans like Brooke, Percy, and Hatfield and conservative Democrats, and moderates dominated both parties. Party identification was more about background and family history than ideology. The Democrats began the shift by opening their doors to the radical Left in the ’60s just as the conservative movement in the GOP was gathering strength.

    – –

    There are many commenters on the internet who believe most elected Republicans are “RINOs,” which is stupid on its face. They regard our elected leaders as the problem, equal to Obama and Democrats. This is not a situation likely to resolve itself in their favor. Party ideology doesn’t turn on a dime, it is more like an encroaching tide on a vanishing beach of the old.

    If you hate Republicans, leave. Glenn Beck is an idiot. Follow him to perdition.

    Estragon (ada867)

  47. I would describe Cruz as a committed Christian conservative who believes the Constitution holds that people should be able to freely practice their religion or no religion, without government interference. I think he believes that if you uphold that principle, Christian conservatives and others will be more able to live their values.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  48. Well said, Esteagon. That’s why I’m no longer a Republican. Enjoy your little Party.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  49. Col H, name anything that Clinton did that was worse than the best thing that Obama has done.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/27/2015 @ 1:07 pm

    Kevin M… but that’s comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, terrible to catastrophic… excremental… horrendous… obscene… dirty road.

    Or if you’re a lefty, “transformative”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. Estragon- never been a member of your elite team, and your comments are right in line with team r.
    I love how republicans try to cram shit down your throat and make you take it. team r and its followers remind me of Atilla the hun, Ghengis Kahn, or any other p.o.s.

    mg (31009b)

  51. All the R candidates better have a well thought out prepared response when they’re asked if they agree with Indiana’s new religious freedom law. Because they will be asked.

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party. But many opponents of the bill, which included business leaders, argued that it could open the door to widespread discrimination. Business owners who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, for example, could now have legal protections to discriminate.

    “Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” Pence said in a statement Thursday. “The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”

    The bill received national attention, but Pence signed it with little fanfare in a ceremony closed to the public and the press. The Indianapolis Star reported that members of the media “were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor’s office.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pledges-boycott-indiana-grow-religion-bill-passes-article-1.2164482

    elissa (f1942f)

  52. Obama didn’t move the GOP right. The response to Obama did that, to the extent it’s happened. It may sound like quibbling but I think it’s an important point, because it’s clear to me that the GOP leaders weren’t going to move on right on their own, and we should remember that.

    That’s a good point. Obama circa 2009 has a left-wing agenda that moderates generally agreed to go along with, even if they have serious questions about whether or not it would work. True blue progressives thought that the stimulus, to cite one example, would be deftly applied and expertly managed; conservatives figured it would be a big government boondoggle; and moderates it seemed decided to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. This forced the GOP into a more conservative position by default. By the disastrous implementation of ObamaCare I think it became pretty clear that the administration’s big government agenda was a nightmare, so moderates abandoned him. But you are correct, DRJ, in that the GOP didn’t choose to move to a more conservative posture, they were pretty much isolated out there by Obama’s political skill. The irony is that it turned out to be the safest place to be.

    JVW (a1146f)

  53. Here’s one example, Kevin: Clinton selecting General Wesley Clark in ’97 for U.S. Command in Europe, which in essence resulted in him being named Spreme Commander In Europe as opposed to Obama vaporizing jihadis with Predator drone strikes (arguably, his only “good” action).

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. Boehner and Mitchell don’t even show up in the Venn diagram,
    yet they are the leaders of the GOP Congressional Critters.

    nope, ain’t buying this no more.
    (yes , triple negative. For you grammer police: I am no longer buying into the myth that the GOP hierarchy believes in fundamental conservative principles of gov’t.)

    seeRpea (c1462d)

  55. Estragon-voted conservative my whole life without belonging to your elite herd. I love how republicans try and cram worm castings down your throat and make you take it. team r and it’s followers remind me of kool-aid drinking, members of the Loyal Order of Raccoon Lodge.

    mg (31009b)

  56. DRJ (e80d46) — 3/27/2015 @ 2:03 pm

    OMG, DRJ, are you trying to say that the Constitution (as written) actually means something and should not be interpreted as a will-of-the-wisp thing that Lives & Breathes?
    (((Gene Wilder, call your office)))

    askeptic (efcf22)

  57. “were asked to leave even the waiting area of the governor’s office.”

    It was done as a safety measure, and no lightning strikes were recorded.
    Mission Successful!

    askeptic (efcf22)

  58. “The Republican party is not going to let conservatives go anywhere else. There has never been a viable third party in the country, at least not one that has persisted over the long run. This has to do with the nature of our elections. Political theorist Maurice Duverger demonstrated fifty years ago that winner-take-all contests centered around discrete geographical areas typically produce a two-party system. There are exceptions, but they’re rare.

    Moreover, third parties that do thrive temporarily are co-opted by one of the two major parties — usually to the detriment of the ideological movement that spawned the third party in the first place.”

    – Jay Cost

    For the life of me, I can’t see how people simultaneously acknowledge the inadequacy of our current party options, and the structural causes of those inadequacies, without suggesting that something be done to change the structures that cause those inadequacies.

    Someone point out the problem with the following logic:

    Damn, I don’t want to vote for a Democrat or a Republican!

    Damn, the nature of our elections coerces me to vote for a Democrat or a Republican!

    ….

    ….

    ….

    Damn, guess there’s nothing to be done.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  59. How about: “Damn, changing the system may just make things worse.”

    In support of that answer, I offer Exhibit A: President Barack Obama and his policies.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  60. I offer as Exhibit B: CA today with its Top Two system, and no write-ins on the General Election Ballot for non-Federal offices.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  61. 59…more…and people wonder why voter participation in CA is setting new LOW records each and every cycle.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  62. Cruz’s support for Rubio’s defense amendment that adds to the deficit was problematic. I wish we’d seen more emphasis and support on Rand’s amendment which tried to pay for all the spending the hawks want. I like Cruz well enough but I’m not convinced he’s as limited government as I’d like. Part of it may be some of the social conservative stuff like gay marriage, but part of it is votes like this: You can’t be for limited government when you’re always increasing spending and putting the price tag on a credit card. At least he voted against the final Senate budget bill, but who in Congress is serious about the debt other than Rand? No other federal issue is anywhere as important to me. My vote is entirely dependent on whether I think a candidate would veto deficit spending (especially on things he wants).

    Rob Westbrook (4870a6)

  63. Here’s one example, Kevin

    OK, but it took you awhile. I would add Obama’s inadvertent support for private space. He probably thought it was a bad thing for the space program to lessen government involvement, but SpaceX and others seem to be working out.

    Clinton was a jerk, but a competent jerk who actually governed from the middle. I have no doubt that Bill Clinton love this country. Then there’s Obama, who is indescribably terrible.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  64. I offer as Exhibit B: CA today with its Top Two system, and no write-ins on the General Election Ballot for non-Federal offices.

    It actually includes all federal offices, but one.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. Rob Westbrook (4870a6) — 3/27/2015 @ 3:21 pm

    So, Rob, how would you handle the deficit spending that was experienced at the height of WW-2?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  66. It is quite likely that there will be two Democrats running for the Senate in CA in Nov 2016.

    A better reform for state legislative offices would be to elect two legislators from each district, with each voter getting 1 vote. Top two win. In lopsided districts you get two of the same party, but in most districts you get an even split. Makes a gerrymander nearly useless.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  67. Kevin, my error, but that doesn’t make it any better, only worse.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  68. nate silver is a journolist, if memory escapes.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  69. Just a few days ago, E.J. Dionne posted a column with the title, “The GOP’s word-deed problem.” As might be expected, Dionne’s work, once again, missed the point, but his headline sure didn’t.

    How are not just conservatives, but Republicans, in general, supposed to fix the “word-deed problem,” especially when we can’t even get most self-styled “conservatives” to fall in line? It’s a tough one that is made tougher by the superficiality with which most Republicans approach the question of who to vote for, which seems to be some sort of cross between being a “good boy” and chasing a bright shiny object. It’s no wonder the brand has suffered.

    If there is anything that can be learned from the experience of the Democratic Party in the 1960’s, it is that the ideological wing of a major political party can wrest control of the party from a dominant go-along-to-get-along wing. All it takes is a motivated base and strong ideological leadership. Republicans have that now in a way they have never had in my adult lifetime, including the Reagan years.

    I enjoyed the graphic, but like such things, there are some glaring misrepresentations. Huckabee, for example, is both a Christian Conservative and a Moderate, but there is no way to locate Huck on the diagram that makes the point. Similarly, Cruz is more Libertarian and more Christian Conservative than Walker, not that you could tell by looking at the chart. Finally, there is just too much overlap between Moderates and Establishment to justify two separate categories.

    ThOR (a52560)

  70. askeptic–

    I offer my “spending limitation amendment”

    “The federal government may not spend more in any year than 20% of the average GDP of the prior 4 years, except as authorized for that year by a 2/3rds vote of each House”

    Presumably in wartime you’d get that vote. Note that there’s a time-lag, so you can spend more at the beginning of a downturn, and cannot spend more immediately on an uptick.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  71. I see Peggy Noonan has penned a muddled take on the Cruz presidential bid for the WSJ that is up to her usual low standards. Her concluding paragraph includes a racist anti-Hispanic slur and the observation that nobody likes a “slick” politician like Cruz – did she sleep through Slick Willy Clinton’s presidency?

    ThOR (a52560)

  72. Kevin, my error, but that doesn’t make it any better, only worse.

    Well, yes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  73. I have long advocated that CA switch to a Unicameral Legislature of 120 seats (or more – 120 would be an easy transition as that is the total number of Assembly and Senate members) – and be “part time” to force the members to actually have to deal with the bills they pass as members of their communities.
    NH, with a population of 1.32MM, has 400 seats in its lower house – CA with 38MM, has 80.
    No wonder that the legislature is only responsive to “special interests”.
    Or, we could go with the Texas solution: 140 days/2 year cycle (though the wag version is better: 2 days/140 year cycle).

    askeptic (efcf22)

  74. ThOR (a52560) — 3/27/2015 @ 3:44 pm

    And then there’s Orin Hatch.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  75. And then there’s Orin Hatch.

    He’ll be 84 next time he’s up for election. We’ll both live to see the last of him.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  76. Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/27/2015 @ 3:45 pm

    I advocate a BBA that cites the revenue of the preceding like (odd/even) year as the number limiting what can be spent. The Gov’t received $2.775T in FY-2013, which would put a cap on FY-2015 spending of the same amount. In a period of increasing revenues, this would impose a small brake on increases, and in a period of decreasing revenues, provide a small amount of stimulus.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  77. Cruz is the farthest thing from slick, he’s earnest to a fault,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  78. Please, Josh has given that accomplishment a bad name.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  79. And that’s my problem with the BBA. They could take 98% of everyone’s earnings and it would be OK so long as they didn’t spend more than that. I want to limit spending as a portion of the economy. If they want to spend more they have to lift all boats.

    To me, limiting spending is more important than a balanced budget (although the balance will quickly happen once they stop moving the goal posts).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  80. “How about: “Damn, changing the system may just make things worse.””

    – DRJ

    If enough people are too worried about making things worse to risk making them better, fine.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  81. Kevin – the problem is the move to professional legislatures, which was all the rage for “good government”-types in the early and mid-20th century. A similar change took place at around the same time in journalism, with a similar effect.

    Hollywood even made a movie about the professionalization of journalism: Teacher’s Pet, with Doris Day and Clark Gable. It’s worth a watch.

    ThOR (a52560)

  82. K, but it took you awhile…”

    A little while, had to get back to work.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  83. As long as:
    1) the majority of the public is content with bread and circuses (either by being on the receiving end or by being on the willfully manipulating end that rejoices in their false righteousness)
    and
    2) too many people cannot think past what they are told to believe
    and
    3) the majority of the media in which we live and breath is happy to live a lie,

    I do not think the existence of which or how many political parties makes much of a difference.

    One party stands for short term self-interest, give me stuff, don’t worry about the rest of the world no matter how evil some are, and each of us can do what we want, including kill our children for convenience, even when they could live on their own outside of the womb
    and all the while act as if disposable plastic shopping bags and cars that don’t get good gas mileage are major ethical dilemma’s

    the other party should be able to bother to stand for something more than, “Well, we can do it better”.

    And that is the way it is. If the libs were truly concerned about the welfare of those they say they care about, they would have had eyes to see by now that their strategies don’t work out as planned and maybe it is time to rethink. But they don’t do that, do they?

    Where there is selfish ambition there is every vile practice, and the love of money (and power) breeds all manner of evil.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  84. And then there’s Orin Hatch.

    He’ll be 84 next time he’s up for election. We’ll both live to see the last of him.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/27/2015 @ 3:53 pm

    Don’t be too sure… clean livin’ has some benefits.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  85. I preferred “The Front Page” – both versions, in fact.
    Working-stiffs pounding out stories about the news that informed, and educated, their readers.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  86. I think our educational system is an interesting illustration. There is so much constant hub-hub about what to teach and how to teach that nothing gets taught.

    How hard can it be to teach to read and learn to think about what you are reading, and to learn to do math? There is no magic bullet, you just do it and keep doing it and are patient at doing it and try different things for different kids while you are doing it.

    That in no way is meant to belittle teachers, if it belittles people whose heads are in the clouds about educational theory and could not manage a classroom if their lives depended on it, well, I’m not sure if I should apologize for that.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  87. O/T….There is even sanity in Italy today:

    AMANDA KNOX MURDER CONVICTION OVERTURNED BY ITALY HIGH COURT

    askeptic (efcf22)

  88. The question is not if you can work to reform the party. The real question is can you reform the party before it too late.

    I think its clear the answer is no. It does not mean bury your head in the sand.

    It just means prepare to start the whole thing over again. Dont act like this mess can be saved. It is impossible to actually do ANTHING in this country anymore.

    There is always some deceit that can and will be used to avoid carrying any actual reform out. Be it blocking resolutions in Congress based some obscure rule. To the courts ruling that no one actually has any standing to challenge a law. Or now the Executive branch simply choosing to not enforce or make up their own laws.

    We simplly have gone to far down this road to fix things. The T-bird has left the cliff Thelma and there it isnt gonna stop

    Mythx (a0bce7)

  89. Good riddens. Beck’s popularity serves as a sad commentary on the general public.

    Gil (27c98f)

  90. Cruz is the farthest thing from slick, he’s earnest to a fault,

    narciso

    ThOR (a52560)

  91. Cruz is the farthest thing from slick, he’s earnest to a fault” –narciso

    It is hard to believe Noonan actually watched Cruz’ Liberty U. announcement and then made that criticism. What are you going to believe, Peggy, the narrative or your lying eyes?

    ThOR (a52560)

  92. here in, we have one faction, that seems to get inordinate attention,

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/26/glenn-beck-accuses-grover-norquist-of-ties-to-isla/?page=2

    narciso (ee1f88)

  93. “good government”

    An oxymoron.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  94. it’s what King Rupert, says is the party line,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  95. “Good riddens. Beck’s popularity serves as a sad commentary on the general public.”

    Gil (27c98f) — 3/27/2015 @ 4:29 pm

    and your pathetic spelling is a ringing indictment of public education in our nation

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. Hey, Gil: Atheism is a non-prophet organization. Can an atheist actually buy insurance coverage for acts of God?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. Col H-

    As much as we may despise Hillary!, understand; her husband, despite his dishonesty and personal failings, was not a crazy lefty. COuld be argued fiscally he was more responsible about eh budget than either Bush. And that’s the real problem; even when they hold power the GOP in the Congress and in the White House has done almost nothing to control the size and scope of government and spending.Hillary! may not have an ounce of her husband’s charisma, but a good chunk of the electorate would not mind a return to the 1990s.We all might crawl over broken glass to vote against her, but many Americans will not.

    Bush Jr. and Sr. ruined the GOP brand. The made often pointless and always endless war. We had every right to hunt and kill Bin Laden. But even there, we never went Roman. Instead half measures and happytalk nonsense about people “yearning to breath free” idiocy. The spent with abandon. So the GOP can no longer claim to be the adults, they’re as bad as the other kids.

    And look at this Congress, folding at the very sight of The One each and every day. Now they pretend to care about Iran, as if that will save them. On this Obama has them boxed in; Americans’ support of Israel does not extend to ANOTHER Middle East war. The FNC idea that more war will do the trick is scary stupid. Crazy idea-close the borders, lock down the airports and entry points,stop issuing visa in Crazyland, drill everywhere,and let Israel off the leash to deal with these animals. Not our circus, not our monkeys.

    Simply every time the GOP has had any power in DC since the day Reagan went home they have squandered their credibility at every turn.They are unserious; they e don’t believe in limited constitutional governance,and heck, they can barely explain it. Really, let Hillary! have it. While Cruz may not be everyone’s ideal, he apparently does believe it,and unlike the rest can finish actual sentences.Team R will not reduce government, they’re the Socialism Lite alternative. And Jebbie especially operationally by his own statements would be no different than Hillary!

    Was a time I listened to conservative talk radio religiously. But what’s the point? Put on the classic rock and let it slide into oblivion. The Rs won’ do anything to correct it. Let it burn. It may take that to change things.

    Bugg (bd9445)

  98. re #86: wow , the court didn’t just overturn the appellate court conviction they said to just drop it – no more. The court declared as a statement of fact that she and her BF didn’t do it.

    this was one weird case from the get go. this and the conviction of scientist for not predicting earthquakes makes one think maybe our judiciary is not so bad after all.

    seeRpea (c1462d)

  99. where did the Center for American Progress, come from, who signed the CRA revisions, who slashed the defense budget, and practically blinded our security services while AQ was on the march, committing themselves to the Balkans and Haiti,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  100. yes, it was pretty much a frame up, by some crazy magistrates, not an uncommon occurrence in Italy, see Florence, and also Milan re Berlusconi

    narciso (ee1f88)

  101. it’s just like the olympic rings

    except for it just has the one womens in it

    happyfeet (831175)

  102. re #100: does not make a difference. H.C. has her core support and her polling is not dipping below 40% , which is she needs to make a run for the candidacy.
    Once that starts, the MSM will fall back, people won’t know about her shenanigans and the whole kerfuffle will be called a GOP smear campaign.

    seeRpea (c1462d)

  103. Leviticus,

    I think the practical definition of a conservative is someone who does not believe in change for the sake of change.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  104. It’s probably why liberals and the young think we’re so cynical or pessimistic, when we’re actually just leery of unintended consequences.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  105. nate silver is a journolist, if memory escapes.
    narciso (ee1f88) — 3/27/2015 @ 3:41 pm

    Your memory is correct.

    You have inspired me to resurrect a project I began to name and label all the jounolistas

    I put it off because I would have had to learn html and at the time wasn’t interested.

    Lately I have been teaching myself more and this will be a good exercise. Maybe Pat would

    be willing to host it sometime. We’ll see. I plan for it to be in a table form with names,

    previous and current employment and pictures so that whenever these sneaky b’tards appear

    on TV you can check to see who and what they really stand for.

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  106. When I saw the venn diagram this afternoon I liked the concept itself, but thought some of the placements as well as the number and the names of the rings didn’t really make sense. But I decided to wait and cogitate on it. Now after a nice dinner and a couple glasses of old vine zin Nate’s venn still doesn’t work. I think it’s probably because he does not understand the right and just as most liberals do, he draws conclusions about the right based on faulty input and understanding.

    I’d like to see him do a venn on the possible Dem presidential and VP possibilities. I think what he’d name the rings and how he’d place people in them would be very entertaining. But I won’t hold my breath that he’ll do one.

    elissa (a7f518)

  107. It’s probably why liberals and the young think we’re so cynical or pessimistic,when we’re actually just leery of unintended consequences…

    …and grown wiser with age.

    Dana (86e864)

  108. elissa,

    I think that the venn is helpful in a broad and general way. There is an automatic dose of subjectivity involved as well because how could one actually gauge a completely accurate measurement of those who overlap? But I do think that it is generally a pretty good representation.

    Dana (86e864)

  109. Days later, Jay Cost offered two reasons why Beck should reconsider his decision: the lack of a viable third party and the belief that party reform can happen.

    I totally sympathize with Glenn Beck, but a lot of his ire should be directed not just to the Republican elitists (squishes or crony capitalists, or both) but to the not-minor percentage of the populace that, based on opinion polls, has given far too much latitude to the irresponsibility and idiocy of liberalism and corrupt figureheads like Obama. For instance, the large number of Americans who blamed the Republicans instead of the Democrats/leftists/Obama for the sequester a few years ago. Or, more recently, the large number of people who in surveys have said they think Obama’s foolish immigration policies are perfectly fine.

    Patterico had a post recently in which he said everyone has a different opinion and we all need to accept those difference of opinions because — and this was the kicker — one opinion is not necessarily any better or any worse than any other opinion. I was a bit astonished by that ethos, but it made me realize that even folks who are otherwise sensible and rational can fall victim to the nonsense of moral equivalency, moral relativism and “you’re okay, I’m okay.” Or a mindset thatt has become increasingly popular throughout the USA and the industrialized world in the 21st century (ie, “Nidal Hassan-ism”)

    As the saying goes: This may not end well.

    Mark (c160ec)

  110. the reason I mention this, is many of Cruz’s points of view, are libertarian on economics, yet Silver’s diagram, has him right out of that circle,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  111. elissa,

    I was thinking about the diagram, too, because it’s hard for me to picture where the candidates land on it. Then it occurred to me that I’m not sure where I should be, nor where many of the people I know in real life and online should be. I think it’s hard to categorize conservatives when there are so many variables, and most people have their own combination of those variables.

    This is generalizing but it also seems to me that liberals are more likely to agree on many domestic, social and foreign policy issues, i.e., they are typically pro-choice, for SSM, anti-war, etc. If that’s true, it’s not only easier to place them on the diagram but it’s also easier to agree where they go.

    FWIW.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  112. The diagram also fits what I read a few weeks ago: Liberals base their decisions/morality on 2 factors (harm and fairness), while conservatives base their decisions/morality on 5 factors (harm, fairness, “in-group loyalty, respect for authority and purity or sanctity, which ties into religious views”). It’s easier to agree on and categorize people when you use 2 factors instead of 5.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  113. Well, to each his own, Dana. I am not so sanguine about this diagram. There did not need to be five rings for example. Four would have been just fine and still covered all the necessary bases. But he needed to create five so he could call it the “Republicans’ five ring circus”! Ha Ha Ha. This venn, I predict will be taken as gospel and used and linked ad infinitum on the left and in the media. Because Nate Silver’s so smaaaart.

    elissa (a7f518)

  114. Which of the five rings would you eliminate as unnecessary, Elissa?

    Dana (11b451)

  115. Alinsky tactic to label, compartmentalize and isolate. Beware of liberals bearing gifts and wearing tennis shoes.

    nk (dbc370)

  116. I had not seen your two posts when I just submitted mine, DRJ. Obviously, I think you are correct that categorizing people (candidates and voters) politically is awfully hard if not impossible due to all the variables at play societally and geographically. I don’t think Nate’s five circus rings are the same as the five factors you laid out in 112 either (and I don’t think you meant that they are.)

    elissa (a7f518)

  117. There is a lot more to libertarianism than economics.
    Cruz’s views on non economic matters are not necessarily libertarian. Casting him as TeaParty and not libertarian is reasonable.
    As a test case I looked up his views on medical marijuana. He takes a libertarian view now (as do Bush and Perry) but a year ago,not so much.
    I sometimes say conservatives are against big government except when they are for it. That may be true of Cruz.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  118. Dana, Moderate or Establishment. One or the other would certainly have sufficed with enough more than enough space and edges to hold those people. And yes, narciso, @110, I noticed that, too.

    elissa (a7f518)

  119. Actually, all three men who are in the Moderate circle are also in the Establishment circle. Which makes sense to me. Whatever might be left of the old Rockefeller Republican style is firmly in the Establishment.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  120. because pot is the litmus test of libertarian politics,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  121. Legalized prostitution too, narciso.

    “Do you like a good pot party with hookers?”

    nk (dbc370)

  122. You’re right, elissa, I didn’t mean the 5 factors = the 5 rings, but it is a strange coincidence. I think what it suggests is that conservatives have a more complex political calculus. To me, that makes accurate labels even more difficult. On the other hand, there are general conclusions that we can reach, as I think Dana’s post/diagram show.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  123. 120.
    No, because it is, unlike many other issues, not complicated by other factors. Abortion and gay marriage are religious and libertarians fall on both sides, especially abortion. NSA overreach and similar matters involve national security and foreign policy, and there are libertarian hawks, and plenty of nonlibertarians who take a libertarian approach there.
    Immigration is another possible test, but Cruz is no libertarian there. It is Bush and Rubio (on days they are not pandering) who converge with libertarian ideas there.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  124. Apparently Cruz did change his mind on marijuana and I’m glad, because I think his current position is more in line with his Constitutional principles. Marijuana isn’t a big issue in Texas, so maybe it wasn’t high on his agenda before. I wish Cruz were perfect and never had to change his mind, but I guess I’m glad he’s willing to change his mind when it’s appropriate.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  125. Somehow I do not think medical marijuana will be the defining issue of 2016 😀

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  126. But I do think that it is generally a pretty good representation.

    To the degree that there are placement problems (I would move Cruz a bit towards the SoCons, for example) the problems are systemic. I also see him pushing candidates he likes towards positions he likes (Christie does not belong smack-dab moderate).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  127. But those are the wings and that is probably the best arrangement.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  128. kishnevi–

    I really don’t see connections between “libertarian” and “Christian Conservative” if you accept Silver’s probably definition that the latter wants to use government power to further their value system.

    A libertarian Christian would want to convince people to change their ways, but would not favor using force to alter their behavior. A libertarian attitude can be diluted by intersect the other three regions though.

    Similarly “Moderate” doesn’t interact with Tea or Christian, but Silver’s likely definition of “Moderate.” Bringing us to understand “Establishment” as being centrist types who might slum.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  129. by, not but in the last line.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  130. Somehow I do not think medical marijuana will be the defining issue of 2016

    I didn’t think free condoms would be the defining issue of 2012.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  131. kishnevi (91d5c6) — 3/27/2015 @ 8:18 pm

    There are certain things only big government can accomplish, which is probably why the Constitution cites “provide for the common defence” in the Preamble as a directed duty of that government.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  132. nk (dbc370) — 3/27/2015 @ 8:49 pm

    Why are we talking about the DEA and Secret Service?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  133. really? the mid east is starting WWIII, our government is corrupt, evil and an enemy to its citizens and other friendly countries, economic collapse world wide is on the horizon giving the corrupt even more power over us ….. and some of you are concerned about marijuana? some one needs to tell Huckabee and santorum, if we don’t win , no need to even talk about abortion or gays. We need to talk CONSTITUTION and RULE OF LAW and nothing else.

    sdharms (c7dded)

  134. Much too little, way, way too late.

    DNF (8028c5)

  135. The Fwench are men by comparison:

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5391/france-iran-talks

    DNF (8028c5)

  136. 133. The Venn diagrams remind me of urban domestic counter-insurgency drills with normally benign targets brandishing weapons that are to be quickly identified as mortal threats.

    Huckabee and Santorum, e.g., are dead meat.

    DNF (8028c5)

  137. Kevin M:

    But Nate seems to be using the original idea (small government, low taxes, federalist, strong defense). You might also add “rule of law” to that.

    I’ve been thinking about this. (Sometimes I’m a slow thinker.) I don’t think Tea Party advocates are federalists. They are typically supporters of the founding principles set forth in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Thus, they don’t support national solutions to local problems such as Common Core (although a federalist might), but they do support federal government functions such as securing the border and national defense (as the founding documents provide and you said above).

    DRJ (e80d46)

  138. DRJ,

    Um, I don’t think a “Federalist” would support Common Core.

    By “Federalists”, I mean those who believe in the federal system where the national government takes care of certain things (defense, coinage, mail, foreign affairs, trade, major roads, etc) and the states deal with other things (education, justice, most roads, business regulation, etc).

    I think a Tea would be for overturning Wickard and probably Raich, but I’m not sure.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  139. I sometimes say conservatives are against big government except when they are for it. That may be true of Cruz.

    By the same token, I think of all the liberals who yelp “you can’t legislate morality,” (eg, nanny-staters like Michael Bloomberg would have a stroke if the government tried to discourage males from homosexual activity based on its close association with rampant STDs and HIV) yet love passing every restriction imaginable to keep people from smoking (ie, tobacco and cigarettes).

    Oh, but that’s about human health!, they’ll retort. Yet look at all of them both within and without various local governments who are unhappy about and also trying to restrict the use of electronic cigarettes.

    Mark (c160ec)

  140. I’m sorry for misunderstanding, Kevin M. I saw the small-f federalist and thought it meant someone who wants federal government control. I agree the capital-f Federalist understands the Tenth Amendment and its limitations on the federal government.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  141. no, those consuming the lotus, seem entirely too focused on marijuana,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  142. Another way to put it:

    If your ideological movement doesn’t have the primary votes to replace incumbents of its own party, it won’t have the votes to win general elections as a separate party. So you cannot help your ideological movement by moving it into a separate party.

    David Pittelli (b77425)

  143. 142. The box defined.

    The perimeter’s enforcers: To win you must trust us. We have the money, the know how, the bench of placeholders, and, not least, an entrenched system of autocracy in place. It is futile and senseless to oppose us in pursuit of the perfect.

    The unwashed 50 per cent: Nuts to that.

    DNF (8028c5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1415 secs.