Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[kishnevi]

This is a confusing thing about a lot of the US right - the government should have minimal impact on the private affairs of the individual, but it should be allowed to execute them

That's because the US right is rather confused


Best way to explain it is that there are really four components to the Right here in the US

--social conservatives, who don't like abortion and gay marriage  and do like the death penalty, and are often what's called the Religious Right
--laissez faire economicists, who are principally interested in low taxes and low regulation, on the principle that government interference is generally bad for the economy overall
--foreign policy/military hawks, who think the US should be very strong militarily and dominate other countries for the sake of US interests

Very often, but not always, these three groups are the same, or at least large numbers of one group are also members of the other two.  All of them are comfortable with government interfering in areas that are not economic related.

Component four is the libertarian wing, which believes that government interference is, generally, bad no matter what the subject.  Thus, we (I'm one of them) generally are against not only the death penalty but much of the social conservative agenda, and against the agenda of the hawks as well.  The only group with which they fit comfortably is the laissez faire group, but their concerns are wider and their application of the principle is more consistent.  We are the weakest group in the organized Right, and a lot of us, like myself, are not part of the Republican Party.  As is sometimes said, we are so far to the right of the Right that we sometimes seem part of the Left, especially in foreign policy, military and social issues.

Because social conservatism and laissez faire economics tend to favor those who are already economically privileged--as Daverz observes, wealthy white men being a large, if not overwhelming, percentage of that group--its programs seem to favor those who are now the "Haves", and often the "Haves" are attracted to it because of that fact--but most of those who are part of the Right don't think in those terms.  They are just defending what they see are traditional values and the status quo.

[Lethevich]

I liked Ms Bachmann's recent assertion that the HPV vaccine caused someone, somewhere to become mentally impaired.  She's a bigger nut than I thought, which is saying quite a bit.

A friend just pointed out that she missed a trick: HPV is merely HIV with a letter changed. Science can't beat common sense observations such as this.

[Daverz]

A friend just pointed out that she missed a trick: HPV is merely HIV with a letter changed. Science can't beat common sense observations such as this.

I thought the real objection might be that without the threat of a horrible protracted death from cervical cancer (not to mention the bankrupting medical bills), girls will of course immediately start having consequence-free hot monkey sex.  But on second thought, I think they really object to anything that would keep bad girls from getting the comeuppance they deserve.  In other words, good old-fashioned spite, the raison d'etre of the modern Republican Party.

[DavidRoss]

Sorry not to join in with the happy hate-fest here, for I see the Republicans in general as less malicious, hypocritical, corrupt, and damaging than their rivals, the Democrats.  But I do think the Republicans have been pretty stupid to let the media goad them into such premature jockeying for their party's nomination.  By the time the election rolls around more than a year from now, the voters will probably be every bit as sick to death of the GOP candidate as they are of Obama.

[Lethevich]

I see the Republicans in general as less malicious, hypocritical, corrupt, and damaging than their rivals, the Democrats.

They may be just as bad, but from an outsider perspective the Democrat party appears less comedic in their badness - they don't seem able to match the Republicans for the top few of that parties really weird figures.

[eyeresist]

In response to karl: I remember that in the debate.  I don't think that Ron Paul is callous.  He is saying that it is the responsibility of the community and not the government to pay for these people.

... Of the people, for the people?

[Daverz]

Sorry not to join in with the happy hate-fest here, for I see the Republicans in general as less malicious, hypocritical, corrupt, and damaging than their rivals, the Democrats.

It seems like what you are saying is that Republicans are more virtuous individuals than Democrats based on some personal definition of virtue, and that it's these personally defined virtues that matter most. 

But malicious?  Really?  I doubt you can come up with anything more than someone getting their fee-fees hurt.

Charges of hypocrisy tend to be of the rather lame variety of "X proposes collective action but does not act unilaterally", or "X advocates for the poor but does not live like a monk."  Republicans are much more in to legislating how people should live their private lives, so are naturally much more prone to charges of hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is not terribly important to policy outcomes, so I don't care if you want to pretend that Democrats are more hypocritical than Republicans.

Our current political system is corrupt at its core, but Republicans often tend to lead here for ideological reasons, particularly at creating the environment for corruption to thrive by weakening the institutions that combat it.  Individual corruption is bad, but policy outcomes are far more important in determining the overall level of corruption in our political system.

The Republicans certainly lead on damage to the country.  More damage to our economy, to public health, to our environment,  to our standing in the world, to our military... Did you just wake up from a long nap that started in 2001?

[eyeresist]

Scary summary of former GOP staffer Mike Lofgren's recent piece:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/05/congressional-staffer-mike-lofgren-turns-on-his-fellow-republicans.html?obref=obinsite

* Recent debt ceiling and FAA reauthorization crises were political terrorism.

* Sabotaging of govt processes a calculated ploy to increase standing as anti-government party.

* GOP (still) only care about rich.

[Todd]

Our current political system is corrupt at its core

[DavidW]

This is the kind of toxic rhetoric that is the problem and not the solution.  I don't think that either party are malicious or damaging.  They have deep philosophical differences in how government should be run.  If there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.

[Todd]

* Recent debt ceiling and FAA reauthorization crises were political terrorism.

Nothing at all hyperbolic about claims of terrorism. 

If there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.

They still do when politically suitable solutions can be reached. 

[Daverz]

Oh, nicely dismissive, Todd.

Well, I wasn't quite thinking of Sluggo...

I was mainly thinking of the capture of the system by moneyed interests.  It's possible to fix, I think, but it would take a large popular movement to push back against moneyed interests, and I don't see it happening yet.

[Daverz]

This is the kind of toxic rhetoric that is the problem and not the solution.  I don't think that either party are malicious or damaging.  They have deep philosophical differences in how government should be run.  If there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.

I haven't seem any inability by Democrats to compromise.

[DavidRoss]

I was mainly thinking of the capture of the system by moneyed interests.  It's possible to fix, I think, but it would take a large popular movement to push back against moneyed interests, and I don't see it happening yet.

Really?  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

[Daverz]

Really?  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

I don't think this is a Tea Party issue, is it?  I don't remember any Tea Party outrage over, say, the Citizens United decision.

[eyeresist]

Nothing at all hyperbolic about claims of terrorism. 

See the linked article for context.

[Herman]

This is the kind of toxic rhetoric that is the problem and not the solution.  I don't think that either party are malicious or damaging.  They have deep philosophical differences in how government should be run.  If there is anything damaging is the inability of both Republicans and Democrats to compromise, set aside differences and work together to get things done.

The Republic platform, from the day Obama was elected was to make him a one-term president, and to make sure he failed at everything he did, thus putting partisanship before the interest of the people.

The debt ceiling fracas was the most sensational instance of this. It's mind boggling to think of the money that's been spent worldwide in preparation of the serious possibility that the Republicans would lead the USA int default, just out of spite.

Less conspicuous is the fact that since Obama inauguration very few appointments have been approved (judges etc) just because the Republicans have found themselves unable to pronounce the word 'aye' or 'yes' since a black man moved into the White House. (They can, however, shout "You lie!", speaking of malice.) Large sections of the government's interface with citizens move a snail's pace because of this refusal to approve appointments  -  for which they will blame 'big government'.

That's politcal malice.

[Todd]

See the linked article for context.

I did.  The use of the word "terrorism" in this type of context is good, old fashioned hyperbole, whoever uses the term.  I would have thought that was self-evident.

It's mind boggling to think of the money that's been spent worldwide in preparation of the serious possibility that the Republicans would lead the USA int default, just out of spite.

And how much was spent in preparation Herman?  Surely you have a bit of concrete information on this.  Some mind boggling numbers would be interesting to read.  As I remember it, Treasury rates were fluctuating inside normal trading ranges, not increasing significantly (say, 30-50 basis points), which is something one would expect to happen if the bond market took the risk seriously.  All the expenditures you refer to must have taken place in what, the palladium market?

As to the supposed "serious possibility" of default, looks like you rely on the wrong sources for news.  Eric Cantor is a pretty partisan guy by pretty much every account, and he's a pretty influential Republican, being House Majority Leader and all, yet he made it clear in publicized discussions with Republicans that occured well before the official "deadline" that default would not be allowed to happen. 

Less conspicuous is the fact that since Obama inauguration very few appointments have been approved

Alas, this has been a regular political feature since the Clinton Administration.  But now I guess now it's malicious whereas before it was constructive, or something like that.

[Daverz]

I did.  The use of the word "terrorism" in this type of context is good, old fashioned hyperbole, whoever uses the term.  I would have thought that was self-evident.

Yes, it's hyperbole, but it fits.

As to the supposed "serious possibility" of default, looks like you rely on the wrong sources for news.  Eric Cantor is a pretty partisan guy by pretty much every account, and he's a pretty influential Republican, being House Majority Leader and all, yet he made it clear in publicized discussions with Republicans that occured well before the official "deadline" that default would not be allowed to happen. 

That's not what the google machine is telling me (I searched "cantor on debt ceiling").

Alas, this has been a regular political feature since the Clinton Administration.  But now I guess now it's malicious whereas before it was constructive, or something like that.

Who said it was constructive then?

[Todd]

Yes, it's hyperbole, but it fits.

Of course it doesn't.  Please describe how the debt ceiling situation is equivalent to terrorism.

That's not what the google machine is telling me (I searched "cantor on debt ceiling").

It was in the print edition of BusinessWeek.  Maybe they made it up. 

Who said it was constructive then?

No one, but there's more than a hint in the original post covering this topic that it is something new and specifically Republican in nature, when in fact it has been going on for quite a while.  Now everyone wants to Bork someone for some reason, and senators are loathe to give up their privileges to block appointments.