The Return of the Inflation Tax

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

I know your game, dude.

When you cant refute the facts and simple logic (opinion) of my post, you just strike back with a "failed".

And it is not a "failure" when you and UG play the "Obama is a socialist" card? Go figure.



When 82% of the Democrats voted for the House health reform bill, it is hardly a failure.

When an even higher percentage voted for the stimulus bill, the SCHIP expansion, the credit card bill of rights, the pay equity for women bill, the tobacco control bill, the public lands management bill, etc......it is hardly a fractured caucus.

To be the majority party in the US today, one needs a big tent. You mistake minor disagreement by a small percentage of Democrats in Congress on one (or even a few) issues as fracturing the party.

Some among the Republican leadership understand that (Romney, Pawlenty)...others (Huckabee, Palin) are far too rigid and have the most vocal and obstinate supporters...and that is why the Republican party is the one fracturing from within.

Originally Posted by richlevy

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.

The Republican candidate in the recent House election in NY did not defect...she was, in effect, driven out by the extremists...and not just extremists, but extremists from outside the state.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I know your game, dude.

When you cant refute the facts and simple logic (opinion) of my post, you just strike back with a "failed".

That is because you do and you just did, again.