Way too early republican primary thread

[Mr. Deez]

Agree with Theii. Don't think "supporting" a constitutional amendments is a big deal since all the adults in the room know it's never going to happen.

This may be true, but there aren't many adults in the room, and by the "room," I mean the electorate in general, not just the GOP primary voters. Few know the real consequences of potential changes in the law. (For example, how many people think that overturning Roe v. Wade would outlaw abortion nationwide? Probably most, even though it actually wouldn't outlaw it anywhere but simply allow states to decide the issue as they had for almost 200 years.) We aren't a very deep people, and I don't see most of them examining his position with any nuance. They'd just see him as the guy who wants to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

I favor gay marriage because I think it is a social good but I'd no more expect a Republican presidential candidate to be in favor as I would a global warming position consistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence. A candidate y gotta win in the primary and being reasonable on gay marriage, global warming or evolution would leave them dead before a race begins.

Like I said, the media isn't going to let the GOP off the hook on gay marriage, especially after the Party spent the 2000s exploiting the issue. They love making Republicans have to answer for positions the most hardcore elements of the base take that are at odds with most Americans. (They could do it to Democrats, but they're not going to, because they're Democrats themselves, and they know it would harm their candidates.) However, the candidate doesn't have to help them.

Walker could have said he personally believes in traditional marriage but that the issue is going to be decided by the Court and left it at that. If the Court rules in favor of gay marriage, it could tremendously help the GOP by letting them get out of the issue gracefully, but it is possible for them to screw that up, and Walker is doing it. He didn't have to bring up the constitutional amendment issue, which forces the GOP candidates to dig in on the issue and let it get polarized. And keep in mind that the President doesn't even play a role in the constitutional amendment process. Amendments get proposed by Congress (and aren't subject to a presidential veto) or by constitutional conventions called by the state legislatures. Neither process involves the President, so there is no reason why either should have to take much of a position on the issue.

 

[theiioftx]

Again, I think you are misconstruing his words.

"the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

He is exactly accurate. If the courts rule that way, the only option is constitutional amendment, which we all know is not going to happen. But that would be the only other approach...

And it is a dumb question, because the reporter already knew the answer. Maybe our elections would be more productive if real questions regarding the economy, security and foreign policy were asked (and answered HRC) rather than idiotic questions to gin up the base.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Again, I think you are misconstruing his words.

"the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

Yes, but before that statement, he identified with those supporters. If you're a reporter or commentator who wants Walker to lose you're going to construe the statement to tie the amendment as close to Walker as possible.

And it is a dumb question, because the reporter already knew the answer. Maybe our elections would be more productive if real questions regarding the economy, security and foreign policy were asked (and answered HRC) rather than idiotic questions to gin up the base.

It's a dumb question, but the purpose isn't to gin up the base. It's to force the candidate into a dilemma. If he answers that he favors the amendment, he alienates the general electorate. If he answers that he opposes it, then he demoralizes and demotivates the base and suppresses its turnout. Either way, the candidate gets hurt.

 

[Crockett]

I was once a journalist. If people are interested in the answer, it wasn't a dumb question. I also remember a great line from my media law professor: "No matter how stupid the question, usually only the answer shows up in print."

 

[Larry T Spider]

Jeb just gave his speech focusing mostly on economic growth and bringing in Hispanics. Just like his brother, he knows that Hispanics will vote republican if you work your *** off to show them that you take their issues seriously. Even his campaign signs have the upside down "!" in front of his name and he spoke in Spanish for a while. Not sure how many Hispanics vote in the republican primary though.

Like most speeches, he was light on details but he had no problem going after Obama and hrc,even calling them out by name. It will be interesting to see if he will get dirty with his republican adversaries or if he will save it for the dems.

 

[Crockett]

Is Rove working for Jeb? If Rove is involved, Jeb's campaign will go after all opponents, though it may be a fair question about whether it will be done overtly or covertly.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Jeb just gave his speech focusing mostly on economic growth and bringing in Hispanics. Just like his brother, he knows that Hispanics will vote republican if you work your *** off to show them that you take their issues seriously. Even his campaign signs have the upside down "!" in front of his name and he spoke in Spanish for a while. Not sure how many Hispanics vote in the republican primary though.

I think he'd make an excellent candidate if his name wasn't Bush.

 

[Crockett]

I think he'd make an excellent candidate if his name wasn't Bush.

All the campaign material says Jeb!. Neither President Bush was around for the announcement, though Barbara Bush was there.

Reminds me of a great story about a meeting among Republicans seeking office for the first time. They were discussing ways to raise money to fund a campaign. One candidate had raised an astounding amount simply by mailing a solicitation to everyone on his mother's Christmas card list. Seemed like an amazingly easy route to success ... then the other candidates realized the candidate's mother just happened to be Barbara Bush.

 

[chango]

I think he'd make an excellent candidate if his name wasn't Bush

I voted against his dad and brother a combined 4 times, but I'd take Jeb over anyone else on the Republican primary list.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I voted against his dad and brother a combined 4 times, but I'd take Jeb over anyone else on the Republican primary list.

I'd consider voting for Jeb over Hillary. Hopefully I don't get forced to make that choice. I voted for papa Bush the first time but Perot the second. That was part of my transition away from the Republicans. I'm pretty dissatisfied with both parties right now but the Republican list makes me want to run to the left. It's the social issues that drive me away from the right. I like their fiscal conservatism (at least the idea of it because they don't practice it) but not at the expense of adopting all the other conservative/religious values.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've avoided calling the GOP field a "clown car," because that was primarily a product of media bias. (They would never use a similar label for the Democratic race no matter who entered the race.) However, with the recent entrance of Donald Trump into the race, I'm afraid the label now fits. The freak show is on.

I actually like some of Trump's rap - the strong support for a balanced budget, pro-military, and a healthy dose of economic nationalism. However, he's such a freak that I can't take the guy seriously. It sorta feels like Howard Stern is running for President.

 

[nashhorn]

Sometimes it takes a freak. I like Trumps rhetoric, and wish others more in a position to win the nomination would take notice. But like he says, "I have enough money to not be bought", (paraphrased here a bit), and the others? Well not so much. We really have degraded to the best Democracy money can buy.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Sometimes it takes a freak. I like Trumps rhetoric, and wish others more in a position to win the nomination would take notice. But like he says, "I have enough money to not be bought", (paraphrased here a bit), and the others? Well not so much. We really have degraded to the best Democracy money can buy.

He's in it for his ego, not to help people. Trump is starved for celebrity awareness. He doesn't seem to be well informed at all on issues but to be transparent, I have trouble looking past Trump's image to listen to his ideas.

 

[Crockett]

Best line I've hard regarding the Trump candidacy: "We shall overcomb!"

 

[Mr. Deez]

(at least the idea of [fiscal conservatism] because [Republicans] don't practice it)

This is why I think George W. Bush was more damaging to the conservative movement than just about anybody. He spent 8 years in the White House (6 with a Republican Congress), and they went absolutely wild on spending (on far more than just national security and wars), effectively nullifying the GOP's political advantage and moral authority on fiscal responsibility. They've recovered it a little after some pretty reckless fiscal policies from the Obama Administration, but they're still nowhere near where they were in the '90s.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

The only increases in spending that W did in the first 6 years were, the two wars.....question that all you want........and the increase or creation of the Homeland Security Department......9/11 doesn't happen....the spending is not out of control.....look at what happened with a weak POTUS and the Democrats in charge in Congress, now that was a bender, then look at what happened combing that Democratic Congress with a Democratic POTUS.....mind blowing spending........What W and the Republican Congress did from 01-07 was pittance compared directly too what happened between 07-11.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The only increases in spending that W did in the first 6 years were, the two wars.....question that all you want........and the increase or creation of the Homeland Security Department......9/11 doesn't happen....the spending is not out of control

I don't have to question it. I can just look at the numbers. In FY01, we spent on $1.194T on so-called "Human Resources" (
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services; Health; Medicare; Income Security; and Social Security). In FY07, we spent $1.758T - more than a $500B per year increase. In terms of percentage, that's enormous. Keep in mind that we created a new entitlement during that time.

.....look at what happened with a weak POTUS and the Democrats in charge in Congress, now that was a bender, then look at what happened combing that Democratic Congress with a Democratic POTUS.....mind blowing spending........What W and the Republican Congress did from 01-07 was pittance compared directly too what happened between 07-11.

In FY09, we spent $2.155T on those same programs. In FY14, we spent $2.525T. Obama spent a lot, but Bush was far more aggressive in increasing spending on social programs.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The only increases in spending that W did in the first 6 years were, the two wars.....question that all you want........and the increase or creation of the Homeland Security Department......9/11 doesn't happen....the spending is not out of control.....look at what happened with a weak POTUS and the Democrats in charge in Congress, now that was a bender, then look at what happened combing that Democratic Congress with a Democratic POTUS.....mind blowing spending........What W and the Republican Congress did from 01-07 was pittance compared directly too what happened between 07-11.

Only increases? 1 was a discretionary war while we were fighting in Afghanistan. Pointing to 9/11 for Iraq is a ******** excuse. Afghanistan was a relatively cheap war compared to Iraq. Remember that while we were increasing spending we were cutting taxes. Bush's "fiscal responsibility" is simply indefensible.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Only increases? 1 was a discretionary war while we were fighting in Afghanistan. Pointing to 9/11 for Iraq is a ******** excuse. Afghanistan was a relatively cheap war compared to Iraq. Remember that while we were increasing spending we were cutting taxes. Bush's "fiscal responsibility" is simply indefensible.

SH, you don't even have to go there. Assume the Iraq War and all of the defense spending hikes were totally justifiable. Bush was a colossal spender on social programs all while cutting taxes.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Sorry...that one is a hot button for me but if you look at things like the Prescription Drug benefit and others clearly Bush spent like a drunken sailor.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

So in an election year, 06' the Republicans knowing they were going to get roasted raised the spending what $190B from 05-06?

That is 40% of your increase in one year alone, the last year of your $500B was when the Democrats were in control and that was what another 10% of your $500B?

Plus he was trying to inject some money into the economy in 2002 and 2003.........

 

[Mr. Deez]

So in an election year, 06' the Republicans knowing they were going to get roasted raised the spending what $190B from 05-06?

That is 40% of your increase in one year alone, the last year of your $500B was when the Democrats were in control and that was what another 10% of your $500B?

Major, I'm not really sure where you're getting that. The spending was as follows:

2001 - $1.194T
2002 - $1.317T ($123B increase)
2003 - $1.417T ($100B increase)
2004 - $1.485T ($68B increase)
2005 - $1.586T ($101B increase)
2006 - $1.671T ($85B increase)
2007 - $1.758T ($87B increase)

Also, Congress passes its budget the prior year, and the FY begins on October 1 of that prior year. For example, Congress is working on the FY16 budget right now. The FY07 budget was passed back in 2006, when the GOP still controlled Congress.

Plus he was trying to inject some money into the economy in 2002 and 2003.........

You and Paul Krugman should get together and go bowling. A conservative doesn't advocate a spending binge just because the economy is weak. That's what Keynesians (liberals) do. If you're OK with that, that's fine, but then you shouldn't bust Obama's balls for wanting to do the same thing when the economy was in much worse shape.

 

[NJlonghorn]

That's what Keynesians (liberals) do.

I agree that what Major seems to be saying sounds like a Keynesian. As a Keynesian myself, though, I object to the conflation of that philosophy with Liberalism.

Keynsians want to run deficits (spend more and tax less) when times are bad, but run surpluses (spend less and tax more) when times are good. Liberals (at least modern ones) want to spend more no matter what.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I agree that what Major seems to be saying sounds like a Keynesian. As a Keynesian myself, though, I object to the conflation of that philosophy with Liberalism.

Keynsians want to run deficits (spend more and tax less) when times are bad, but run surpluses (spend less and tax more) when times are good. Liberals (at least modern ones) want to spend more no matter what.

NJ,

The distinction is true and duly noted. Not all Keynesians are liberals.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

I will cede your point as I can't find the HR numbers that I used yesterday. I probably got the years mixed up, however 20% of the Bush increases that you reference are in SS and Medicaid, of which Bush had no control over and as the perverbial, Kick the Can down the road occurred during W's watch. It is only what about 30% of the Federal Budget that the POTUS can directly have a say....

I don't have time today to look into it as it is the end of the month and we are trying to close Q2. I am not Keynesian at all, makes me puke even thinking like that.....

 

[NJlonghorn]

I am not Keynesian at all, makes me puke even thinking like that.....

Then how do you explain this?

Plus he was trying to inject some money into the economy in 2002 and 2003.........

Aren't you defending Bush by justifying his deficit spending as an attempt to "inject some money into the economy"? That sounds Keynesian to me.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I will cede your point as I can't find the HR numbers that I used yesterday. I probably got the years mixed up, however 20% of the Bush increases that you reference are in SS and Medicaid, of which Bush had no control over and as the perverbial, Kick the Can down the road occurred during W's watch. It is only what about 30% of the Federal Budget that the POTUS can directly have a say....

Mandatory spending is the biggest piece of the budget, so that's almost always going to be true for any president in recent years. Nevertheless, it's false to say that the President has no say over mandatory spending. When a program is mandatory, all that means is that the spending occurs by existing law. (BTW, I think mandatory spending is unconstitutional.) It doesn't take an act of Congress to spend the money. However, an act of Congress CAN halt or reduce the spending, and when your party has the White House and both houses of Congress, hiding behind the mandatory spending excuse is weak. They can make changes. Also, nobody forced Bush to push and sign into law Medicare Part D. That was new mandatory spending that Bush championed and pressured Congress to pass. There was no excuse for that. Nevertheless, there were big increases in "income security" programs (welfare, food stamps, etc.) and in education spending.

The bottom line is that there are no substantial areas in which the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress exhibited even moderate fiscal restraint or responsibility. It was a spending orgy across the board with no serious attempt to reduce it or even mitigate it. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, human resource spending grew slightly MORE than defense spending did.

I am not Keynesian at all, makes me puke even thinking like that.....

It sounds like you're a selective Keynesian. You puke during Democratic administrations that advance a Keynesian agenda, but if a Republican is in the White House, you find a way not to puke or just don't mind the puke. Again, I don't like either side doing it, but it's at least arguably defensible when the economy is in the crapper as it was during the Obama administration (if you're a Keynesian). It's not defensible when the economy is strong.

 

[Larry T Spider]

The dems are pretty hypocritical when it comes bush's spending. They love to complain about how much he spent now, but were bashing him at the time for not spending enough.

The republicans are hypocritical when they freak out about obama's spending because they were so silent when bush did the same damn thing.

Both sides are playing team politics, and are guilty of screwing over future generations while pointing their finger at the other side.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The dems are pretty hypocritical when it comes bush's spending. They love to complain about how much he spent now, but were bashing him at the time for not spending enough.

The republicans are hypocritical when they freak out about obama's spending because they were so silent when bush did the same damn thing.

Both sides are playing team politics, and are guilty of screwing over future generations while pointing their finger at the other side.

I agree that both sides are inconsistent and hypocritical, on this and many other issues. However, I think a legitimate difference can be drawn between Bush's and Obama's spending approaches (as Deez did above):

• Bush overspent and undertaxed while the economy was strong. That can't be justified under any economic theory, and anyone looking at it objectively will agree that it contributed to our problems that arose in later years.
• Obama overspent and undertaxed while things were bad, which is consistent with Keynesian thought. That doesn't make it right, but it is at least rationally defensible.

 

[nashhorn]

Agree with this thread and its emphasis on both being hypocritical contemptible parties. However, I balk at the overspend 'under tax' contention. My position is we over spend and thus claim we are undertaxed. With a modicum of fiscal restraint we would have adequate taxation. Although not a member of the Tea party in any direct context I absolutely believe we (simple citizens) are taxed enough already. Not saying here there does not need be significant reformation of the tax code but revenue is not the problem.
I am ready to support anyone whose stance is staunch fiscal responsibility. Now trusting anyone who were to profess that however? Well that is another story.