The Return of the Inflation Tax

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And in an amusing note, the NY-23 election is not certified by the Board of Elections because Hoffman is biting into the lead and there are still about 10,000 absentee ballots to process. Absentee ballots take a while to check signatures against voter registration lists. Everyone reckons that an upset at this point would be a surprise, but cannot yet be ruled out. Quite a long list of articles to look at.

And Cato

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

UG....I'm curious who you see as a leader of this so-called grass roots movement....one who shares your mentality and virtue?

It's a grass-roots movement -- one you are keeping yourself carefully ignorant about, which is not the action of a man who believes in himself or his values -- there is no one leader. It's an umbrella group too, so again there is no one center to it, personality or otherwise. About the most dominant overall shared trend is the good-government one: that a good government lives inside its means and that there is practically nothing outside of fighting a war that a government does that is important enough to run a deficit to accomplish. Debt should be viewed with suspicion, many of us think, and chronic indebtedness with more yet. Trillion-dollar deficit spending by that same entity that prints the currency -- stop it at once.

Originally Posted by Redux

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

"Must?" I don't see any such "must." These commentators will be more satisfied or less satisfied entirely for reasons of their own, and the reasons run to the sensible. They are not kingmakers for their side of the aisle, as much as some liberals want to believe so, rather than actually observing anything and ordering belief according to experience.

However, it is a fact, not malicious negative stereotyping, that the demographics of political talk radio listeners are overwhelmingly conservative, white, male and middle age.

As you will become, with age and experience. It puts one more nearly in touch with virtue and values. You find the former much more fun than you'd thought and real life, worth the living, much more possible with the latter.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's a grass-roots movement -- one you are keeping yourself carefully ignorant about, which is not the action of a man who believes in himself or his values -- there is no one leader. It's an umbrella group too, so again there is no one center to it, personality or otherwise. About the most dominant overall shared trend is the good-government one: that a good government lives inside its means and that there is practically nothing outside of fighting a war that a government does that is important enough to run a deficit to accomplish. Debt should be viewed with suspicion, many of us think, and chronic indebtedness with more yet. Trillion-dollar deficit spending by that same entity that prints the currency -- stop it at once.

In fact, it is more than one movement, with more than one agenda and more disparate interests than commonality.
Including the fact that they are funded by competing interests....the Tea Party Express, funded by "fighting a war" neo-cons...and the Tea Party Patriots funded by former congressman Dick Army's K Street corporate lobbyists.

And now they are fighting each other:

.....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.
http://washingtonindependent.com/675...-party-express

Peel away the facade expressed at the grass roots level (and I agree it is sincere at that level) and you will find Washington insiders...but with ties to different extremes (neo-cons v social conservatives) of the Republican party.

Independent fiscal conservatives have and will continue to reject both extremes. But you are carefully ignorant about that because it detracts from what you may sincerely believe are grass roots movements.

It is simply a new face on the old battle on the right between conservative Republicans and true Libertarians.

As you will become, with age and experience. It puts one more nearly in touch with virtue and values. You find the former much more fun than you'd thought and real life, worth the living, much more possible with the latter.

I am old and white.

And experienced enough in politics, certainly far more than you, to know that movements w/o leaders and with such disparate underlying interests will ultimately turn on each other as these groups have.

[Shawnee123]

.....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.

Oh Redux, you made my day!

So, these people really take this SERIOUSLY? Bwahhhahaaaa...I thought it was a parody of something. Oh, I guess it is!



Tea Party (insert affiliation here.) Gawd even the name makes me guffaw. Tea Party Pansies. Tea Party Puds. Tea Party. Snort!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, it is more than one movement, with more than one agenda and more disparate interests than commonality.
Including the fact that they are funded by competing interests....the Tea Party Express, funded by "fighting a war" neo-cons...and the Tea Party Patriots funded by former congressman Dick Army's K Street corporate lobbyists.

And now they are fighting each other:

.....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.
http://washingtonindependent.com/675...-party-express

Peel away the facade expressed at the grass roots level (and I agree it is sincere at that level) and you will find Washington insiders...but with ties to different extremes (neo-cons v social conservatives) of the Republican party.

Independent fiscal conservatives have and will continue to reject both extremes. But you are carefully ignorant about that because it detracts from what you may sincerely believe are grass roots movements.

It is simply a new face on the old battle on the right between conservative Republicans and true Libertarians.



I am old and white.

And experienced enough in politics, certainly far more than you, to know that movements w/o leaders and with such disparate underlying interests will ultimately turn on each other as these groups have.

None of your points are truely valid. It is no different than when the Dems were out of power, they appeared leaderless and disjointed. Unlike other countries with multipul factions where they elect minority power heads, we do not have to form those coalitions in a two party system. The party in power with a leader is the one who has the White House or the majority in Congress. I recall that during all the protests when the Repubs were in power under Bush the Dems looked like a bunch of interfighting kids in a family that did not get along. Who did you have then Screaming Dean? Yea, a real unitier there. Not. How about Al "I invented the internet" Gore, what bore. The whole notion of Leaderless is a strawman argument. The Dems have repeatedly loss until Bush et. al. screwed it up enough to get the Repubs kicked out and until they found their Savior Obama. Get over yourself.

[Shawnee123]

[TheMercenary]

Got any with butter on it? Yum, pass it over will ya!

[Shawnee123]

No way, dude! You drink your damn tea and go away.

Merc....the difference is that in the end, the Democrats come together under a big tent.

The "Blue Dogs" are welcomed into the Democratic party (fyi, the latest Blue Dog in NY voted FOR the health reform bill last week) with the understanding that, while they wont always agree, they have more in common than what may separate them on relatively few issues.

The Republicans eat their own and spit out the bones of those not conservative enough and if that doesnt work, will rally behind a third party candidate....cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Merc....the difference is that in the end, the Democrats come together under a big tent.

Not different from when Reagan or Bush2 came to power.

The Republicans eat their own and spit out the bones of those not conservative enough and if that doesnt work, will rally behind a third party candidate....cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Dems are hardly united. They barely passed the House Healthcare bill. The Senate is going to be even harder. There is no magic Kumbya among Dems, that is just a silly notion. Anyone who has followed politics for the last 40 years knows that.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not different from when Reagan or Bush2 came to power.

Dems are hardly united. They barely passed the House Healthcare bill. The Senate is going to be even harder. There is no magic Kumbya among Dems, that is just a silly notion. Anyone who has followed politics for the last 40 years knows that.

In pragmatic politics, “united” does not imply total agreement on every policy issue, but rather a shared broad political ideology and agreement on MOST issues with a willingness to accept dissent from within and yet still accomplish your goals w/o alimenting those dissenters on other issues.

As you noted, Reagan was good at it and was accepting and reached out to Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats but who might not share his or Republican views on abortion, gun control, or massive defense/war spending....Today's Republican party is not so accepting (in fact, not accepting at all).

Lately (since 06 at least), the Democrats have demonstrated that same pragmatism and are accepting of greater diversity of opinions in order to be in the position to govern (218 is all it takes in the House) and the Republicans have become increasingly more ideologically rigid.

And as to the “grass roots” movement, the Tea Parties are demonstrating the same rigidity and unwillingness to accept any dissent from within...which ultimately will exclude most Independents who might be fiscally conservative, but moderate on social issues or not fully accepting of free market principles or spreading democracy around the world.

To believe that “united” means total agreement on every issue is an example of the rigidity that is working against the Republicans and the Tea Parties.

Obviously, you don't share that view, and UG even less so since he is even more rigid than you.

[classicman]

Not to get into your little spat, but are you trying to say that Obama was somehow leading the D's at some point?

I must have missed that. Seems like he came out of virtually nowhere to beat Hillary and the rest of the established candidates.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Oh Redux, you made my day!

So, these people really take this SERIOUSLY? Bwahhhahaaaa...I thought it was a parody of something. Oh, I guess it is!



Tea Party (insert affiliation here.) Gawd even the name makes me guffaw. Tea Party Pansies. Tea Party Puds. Tea Party. Snort!

Reminds me of Life of Brian

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In pragmatic politics, “united” does not imply total agreement on every policy issue, but rather a shared broad political ideology and agreement on MOST issues with a willingness to accept dissent from within and yet still accomplish your goals w/o alimenting those dissenters on other issues.

As you noted, Reagan was good at it and was accepting and reached out to Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats but who might not share his or Republican views on abortion, gun control, or massive defense/war spending....Today's Republican party is not so accepting (in fact, not accepting at all).

Lately (since 06 at least), the Democrats have demonstrated that same pragmatism and are accepting of greater diversity of opinions in order to be in the position to govern (218 is all it takes in the House) and the Republicans have become increasingly more ideologically rigid.

And as to the “grass roots” movement, the Tea Parties are demonstrating the same rigidity and unwillingness to accept any dissent from within...which ultimately will exclude most Independents who might be fiscally conservative, but moderate on social issues or not fully accepting of free market principles or spreading democracy around the world.

To believe that “united” means total agreement on every issue is an example of the rigidity that is working against the Republicans and the Tea Parties.

Obviously, you don't share that view, and UG even less so since he is even more rigid than you.

What a dodge, duck and cover. That is your excuse? Fail.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Unlike other countries with multipul factions where they elect minority power heads, we do not have to form those coalitions in a two party system.

I'm not sure if you meant multiple or multi-pull, but both work in the following example.

While it is true that we do not have to form coalitions of multiple parties, we do tend to form coalitions within the two dominant parties.

Depending on the strength of the party's whip and the tenor of the individual members, parties can be cohesive or fractured on individual issues, types of issues, etc.

While in the minority, one criticism made of the Democrats was their lack of cohesion. The current Republican minority, while cohesive in opposition to issues like health care, in other areas is almost schizophrenic.

The divisions among Democratic moderates and the extreme left wing are almost insignificant compared to the division between Republican moderates and the extreme right wing. This has been aggravated by the defection of a very large group of moderates, giving the impression that the only reliable voting bloc left in the Republican party is it's right wing.