Political warfare

[Mr. Blackwell]

There is a discussion I am involved with in two separate threads.[1] I want to consolidate that discussion into one thread. I am just about done with my research to begin to thoroughly delve into the ideas and questions I have for two specific members...Screwtape and nogodsforme.

It is not my intention to prove them wrong but to understand their position in contrast to my own understanding of the past and current political landscape.

This discussion will attempt to clarify:

1. The difference between the view that racism is the cause of all the hate towards Obama vs. the view that racism is a political tool to keep all of us chattel distracted.   

2. The general view that the Republican Party are just a bunch of obstructionists.

3. Why the ability to compromise is viewed as a weakness rather than a strength.

I am starting this thread because the discussion may exceed the bounds of the OP in the two threads I am having them in.

I would prefer that only Screwtape and nogodsforme respond but if other members feel compelled to interject then by all means, please add to the conversation.

This comment and introduction is merely a place holder. I will open the conversation later today with a response to Screwtape from a previous thread.

1.	If you want to get technical my discussion spans several threads

[Nam]

It should be noted that many of the current "conservative Republicans" in the Republican party, were former Democrats, or come from that line of Democrats. Many political figures today and yesterday as Republicans were originally Democrats. Most changed to the Republican party because they didn't like the advancing liberalism of the party, were recruited in masse during the mid 20th century when Republicans started to cater to southerners to get their vote (which today shows the effects of that), or those who switched parties solely on the basis of being elected in the area they were running in, or their area became dominant in said political sphere.

Today, many Republicans of the past would be too liberal for the current party. Such as Nixon, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt etc., and some Democrats would be just the kind of person the Republican party would want, such as Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland[1], Joe McCarthy, James Buchanan etc.,

-Nam

1.	mainly for placing people in key areas beneficial to the party

[screwtape]

bm,
so I can find the thread later when I have time to reply

[Mr. Blackwell]

Thank you Nam. That information is important to keep in mind, I don't know if it will play into this particular conversation...it may. If nothing else is serves as an example of how the parties shift over time.

I made a off hand snarky comment here but it was an accurate observation of the political landscape and narrative driven by the Democrats. The Republicans are not called the "Party of no" for no reason and I didn't make it up.

TIME just published “The Party of No...It reveals...the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office...

My first question is primarily for nogodsforme. You made the statement that current opposition to ObamaCare^tm must be racist because the plan has roots in the Republican party but now that Democrats have passed it they (Republicans) object to it.

You said

I think a lot of the hatred towards President Obama is, unfortunately,  based on race.

<snip>

It was the exact same plan that Gov. Romney implemented in MA and was the plan the Repubs. proposed as the "sensible" capitalist alternative to "socialist Hillarycare". Obamacare was Bob Dole's Republican health care plan.

<snip>

So why did people go batsh!t crazy when offered Bob Dole's Romneycare program? Why did they act like it was the end of the world, and would destroy America? Why hadn't they acted like that when Bob Dole proposed it? Because it was being promoted by the black guy. I can't see any other reason.

I provided a very lengthy response demonstrating that there was great opposition to Clinton when he tried the same thing. It wasn't racism then, why would it be now?

1. If this legislation is a Republican plan born in the early 90's...why weren't the Republicans able to get it passed?

2. Did they block their own plan?

3. Why did the Democrats hijack the plan if it's so terrible?

4. Why didn't the Democrats pass their own plan?

 

[screwtape]

I'm not nogodsforme, but I play her on tv.

there was great opposition to Clinton when he tried the same thing.

He didn't try the same thing.  The plans were different.  Ostensibly, there should have been zero opposition to Obama's plan because it was the republican plan. 

It wasn't racism then, why would it be now?

I do not think it is entirely racism now, but I think that racism permeates the gop, particularly the teabaggers.  The repubs just want power and to get power they are appealing to the racists and latent racist feelings. 

1. If this legislation is a Republican plan born in the early 90's...why weren't the Republicans able to get it passed?

They didn't want to.  Doing so would be a victory for the president.  And they want him to have no victories.  Imagine that.  The repubs are willing to let the country sit in an economic recession and do nothing about it for 4 years just so they can try to recoup some of their power.  Grotesque, no?

2. Did they block their own plan?

yes

3. Why did the Democrats hijack the plan if it's so terrible?

Nobody said it was terrible.  It is like DADT, imperfect, but a step in the right direction and the only plan that had a chance of passing.  It was a compromise they thought would work.

4. Why didn't the Democrats pass their own plan?

obstructionism.

[Mr. Blackwell]

1. If this legislation is a Republican plan born in the early 90's...why weren't the Republicans able to get it passed?

They didn't want to.  Doing so would be a victory for the president.  And they want him to have no victories.  Imagine that.  The repubs are willing to let the country sit in an economic recession and do nothing about it for 4 years just so they can try to recoup some of their power.  Grotesque, no?

Grotesque? In many ways...yes.

I am curious why they didn't take the opportunity to pass their own health care reform act during the 8 years Bush was in office.

Why did it take a Democratic controlled house and senate along with a Democrat president to pass a Republican health bill?

[jaimehlers]

While racism may have played a part on the resistance to Obama, I seriously doubt that it was the primary motivating factor.

There's a saying, don't attribute to malevolence what can be caused by incompetence.

The Republicans were and are running scared of what happens if Obama succeeds despite their full-court press opposition.  That's why they came up with this stupidity-squared plan in the first place, because they felt that if they were the slightest bit reasonable, they'd end up losing for good.  They never seriously considered that people might recognize just how bankrupt their strategy was and turn against them for their sheer incompetence in trying it in the first place.

I was a Republican once.  But I'll not vote for someone running under the banner of the Pathetic Pachyderms again, until they reform themselves to a party that means something other than "NO!!"

[screwtape]

Why did it take a Democratic controlled house and senate along with a Democrat president to pass a Republican health bill?

I dunno.  I would guess a shift in priorities?  The neocons didn't give a rat's ass about social programs.  They were all about tax breaks for the rich, shifting public money to private corporations, starting wars and restoring the office of president to pre-Nixon power.  They would dismantle social security, medicare, welfare, the whole thing, if given the opportunity. Recall, bush's first priority after his re-election "mandate" was to try to privatize Social Security.

On top of that, the 1996 health care analysis you linked mentioned that by time things got rolling, the opposition was inconsolable.  The repubs and insurance industry opposed everything, even compromises they originally agreed too.

Plus, despite people saying there is no difference between the parties, there actually is a difference between the parties.  Democrats actually care about helping people.  repubs say they are cynical attempts to ingratiate voting demographics, but that is because repubs are such selfish pricks they cannot imagine doing something so altruistic just for the good of it.  Doing things solely to capture power is their MO and they cannot imagine the dems being different.

[jaimehlers]

I think both parties are trying to seek power at this point, though I won't argue that the Republicans aren't more focused on it than the Democrats.  Still, I don't think it's just about seeking power, even for them.

[Mr. Blackwell]

If you ask me...both sides are self projecting the other. Dems may kid themselves into thinking that they only want to stay in power to help the little people, I say "whatever helps you sleep at night...bitch. How are those fringe benefits working out for ya?"

Repubs may kid themselves into thinking that they only want to preserve the constitution and limit big government in an effort to grant individual liberty for the small businessmen to which I say "whatever helps you sleep at night...bitch. How are those fringe benefits working out for ya?"

[screwtape]

I think both parties are trying to seek power

Of course.  That is what politics is.  But let's be honest about who is willing to do what.  Someone here linked chris matthews going off on the rnc chairman for so dishonestly trying to portray Obama as a foreigner, and he was absolutely right.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/27/747131/chris-matthews-confronts-rnc-chairman-obama-being-a-foreigner-is-the-thing-your-party-has-been-pushing/

I do not see the same level of dishonesty from the left, nor have I ever. 

Still, I don't think it's just about seeking power, even for them.

What have they done with their power when they had it?  Tried to ensure they continued to have power.  Help me out here.  What have they done that was constructive?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Why did it take a Democratic controlled house and senate along with a Democrat president to pass a Republican health bill?

I dunno.  I would guess a shift in priorities?  The neocons didn't give a rat's ass about social programs.  They were all about tax breaks for the rich, shifting public money to private corporations, starting wars and restoring the office of president to pre-Nixon power. They would dismantle social security, medicare, welfare, the whole thing, if given the opportunity . Recall, bush's first priority after his re-election "mandate" was to try to privatize Social Security.

To me, that sounds like echo chamber hyperbole. It does nothing to help me understand your position or why you have it. Or why it's true.

If the neocons didn't give a rat's ass about social programs why did they even bother to come up with a healthcare plan in the first place?

 

[Mr. Blackwell]

I do not see the same level of dishonesty from the left, nor have I ever.

And you never will if your only source of info comes from a sympathizing source.

You really should take the time to actually listen to the opposition, not just what your sources tell you about what the opposition has said.

[jaimehlers]

Screwtape, do you really think the Democrats passed things like the health care bill out of the goodness of their hearts?  They did so in large part because they felt it would win them enough goodwill to get re-elected.  Same thing with middle-class tax cuts and various other things that they've pushed for.  Don't get me wrong, I consider those worthwhile things to do.  But I know enough about politics to understand that it's very rare for a politician - and practically unheard of for a party - to go for things unless they feel that doing so will have a reasonable chance of keeping them in power.

That's the key point here.  The Republicans do things in order to stay in power, as do the Democrats.  The difference is what, specifically, they choose to do.  I might be cynical about the reasons the Democrats chose to do the things they did, but I consider them to be far more worthwhile than what the Republicans have accomplished since Dubya got elected.

[Mr. Blackwell]

From 2009

Democrat Alan Grayson




Please bare in mind that the Obama plan IS a Republican plan.

How's that for dishonesty?

[Hatter23]

Screwtape, do you really think the Democrats passed things like the health care bill out of the goodness of their hearts? 

To put it bluntly;

If the Republicans have as a major part of the stategy of staying in power of helping out the extremely rich, and the Democrats have as a major part of the stategy of staying in power of pleasing the general populace, and, I'm not part of the extremely rich, which of the two will more likely have a better result for me? Democrats.

Another major part of the of the stategy of staying in power for Republican is to please the Religious Right, and I'm not part of the religious right, and part of their interest would be to KILL me, having them not in power is in my own interest.

Furthermore, I see the relative health of national economies that are capitalist with some socialist elements such as Germany or Denmark, and the horrible economies of purely capitalist societies like Somalia. The Democrats seem to be closer aligned with the former, and the Republican with the latter, it is in my best interest to vote Democrat.

[Mr. Blackwell]

...I'm not part of the religious right, and part of their interest would be to KILL me...

Complete bullshit.

Edit
Can't even take into consideration the rest of what you said because I am stuck knee deep in this crap.

[Traveler]

Well, I don't know what he's getting at with the "kill" issue, but if the poster is gay, as an example, there are definately right wing nutjobs in the current (disfunctional, obstructionist, right-wing) republican party who would advocate that. Seriously. The republican party has been taken over by complete and total radical rightwingers. It scares the crap out of me.

Oh, another example that might fit with the "kill" comment. Their position on health care, abortion, contraception, and other women's issues, will mean more women dying. Examples? Planned Parenthood provides breast cancer screening, often to lower income persons who would otherwise not have access. Those women might DIE if they miss an early diagnosis because of such policies. I, for instance, was diagnosed as stage II with a mammogram.

There are a lot of (current) republican policies that are anti-life, in my opinion.

By the way, the old republican party, although I disagreed with them, at least cared about working with the president, regardless of party affiliation, to get things done. The current republican part is obstructionist, and cares for little other than undermining President Obama and getting elected. Although I tend to dislike all politics, the republican party has outstripped all their predecessors for dishonesty and, quite frankly, obstructionist evils.

[Hatter23]

...I'm not part of the religious right, and part of their interest would be to KILL me...

Complete bullshit.

Edit
Can't even take into consideration the rest of what you said because I am stuck knee deep in this crap.

Not Bullshit, when it was legal to kill heretics(which included atheists) all theocracies do kill them.  Religious Right wishes to install a theocracy, therefore yes, by extension, kill me.

I do understand that this isn't on the mind of the rank and file Republican, not even remotely. However, do I consider it a distinct posiblity if the Dominionist/RR gets their way?, yes.

[earthfreak]

Not Bullshit, when it was legal to kill heretics(which included atheists) all theocracies do kill them.  Religious Right wishes to install a theocracy, therefore yes, be extension, kill me.

I have to say it's a bit of a stretch, but it is freaky when some extremist in the audience/group says something like this and there's no automatic outrage from the general populace of conservatives (as a queer heathen kinda socialist, I'm acutely aware of this stuff)

[Traveler]

I don't know if I can dig up the quote ... saw it on facebook somewhere ... but one of the current crop of republicans did say, in effect, that atheists should be killed. Will post if I can find it.

[jaimehlers]

I don't think they want to make a theocracy.  Or at least most of them don't.  Some might, but I suspect that the majority of remaining Republicans are committed to the idea of democracy and wouldn't take kindly to a theocracy.

[Hatter23]

I don't think they want to make a theocracy.  Or at least most of them don't.  Some might, but I suspect that the majority of remaining Republicans are committed to the idea of democracy and wouldn't take kindly to a theocracy.

Democracy does not preclude theocracy. Remember GB Sr stated that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens. Non-citizens can't vote. If that pecedent was established, how quickly do you think it would change to only Christians could vote? I would figure less than 20 years.

If there's a religious test in order for a person to have any voice in Government, isn't that still a theocracy?

[Nick]

Not Bullshit, when it was legal to kill heretics(which included atheists) all theocracies do kill them.  Religious Right wishes to install a theocracy, therefore yes, be extension, kill me.

I have to say it's a bit of a stretch, but it is freaky when some extremist in the audience/group says something like this and there's no automatic outrage from the general populace of conservatives (as a queer heathen kinda socialist, I'm acutely aware of this stuff)

Where was the outrage when they killed Dr. Tiller?

[jaimehlers]

That's why it won't happen, unless someone manages to pull a really sneaky plot off.  I don't think even the ones who do want a theocracy are stupid enough to go along with such a plan unless they can be sure they'd be in charge of it, because it's just as easy to go to only specific Christian sects can vote.

And, in any case, it wouldn't be a democracy, any more than the USSR was a union of republics.

[Mr. Blackwell]

I would be eager to see a quote from any elected republican who called for the death of any American who disagreed with their particular ideology.

To speculate what might be is a far cry from what is. By doing so you validate any speculation from the right-wingers about what they seem to think liberals must really have in mind for America.

To wish for a denial of citizenship and thus equal protection under the constitution to vote is not = to calling for their death. I don't recall Bush Sr pushing for any legislation to deny citizenship for atheists or for their death.

Was there ever such a bill proposed?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Where was the outrage when they killed Dr. Tiller?

First, THEY didn't kill Dr. Tiller...Scott Roeder did.

Second, Within hours after the murder, every antiabortion group in the country denounced the attack. Robert P. George, a leading Catholic intellectual opponent of abortion, wrote that "George Tiller's life was precious" and characterized his murder as "a gravely wicked thing." He called on his fellow abortion opponents to "teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion."

Even Operation Rescue, the extreme antiabortion group that organized a six-week blockade of Tiller's office in 1991, issued a statement condemning the murder. "We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning," Troy Newman, the organization's president, said.

So the question becomes, why didn't the media report the outrage over Dr. Tillers death?

[Azdgari]

...I'm not part of the religious right, and part of their interest would be to KILL me...

Complete bullshit.

Edit
Can't even take into consideration the rest of what you said because I am stuck knee deep in this crap.

It does seem curious, to me, that religious-right-wingers also tend to be so ardently supportive of their right to own weapons capable of killing masses of people.

Surely a total coincidence.

[Hatter23]

To speculate what might be is a far cry from what is. By doing so you validate any speculation from the right-wingers about what they seem to think liberals must really have in mind for America.

To wish for a denial of citizenship and thus equal protection under the constitution to vote is not = to calling for their death. I don't recall Bush Sr pushing for any legislation to deny citizenship for atheists or for their death.

Was there ever such a bill proposed?

The speculation does not validate the contrary because we do have the examples of voting theocracies and the use of execution to enforce restricted belief. When we look at actual socialist(not Communist) contries, we see no equivalent.

When someone who recently left office stated that they wished for something to happen, but they didn't do it, that's just an indication thet they knew they couldn't get away with it.

Again I understand this is not even on the mind of your rank and file Republican, but the Coalition of the Religious Right has 30 million members. 10% of the US, one very sizable lobby, (I think second only to the AARP.) And one doesn't rise to a position of potency in the organization by being anything less than utterly unreasonable. The whole usurping of state power through DOMA, something unthinkable 40 years ago, was an exersize of their influence. So is "faith based intiatives," "teach the contraversy,"and the attempt for school vouchers.

We have people who are considered voices within the conservative media that have called for excutions, Roger Hedgecock for one.