So when is the Democratic Party going to dump its Tax and Spend/Redistribute the Wealth baggage? Oh wait, that IS the Democratic Party.
If Udall hadn't waged such an ineffective campaign and if Obama had moved on immigration before, rather than after, the election, Udall would still be our Senator.
1
"What's the best way for Republicans in diverse states to campaign?" you ask?
Here's the playbook:
1. Pander to extreme elements of base by co-sponsoring "personhood" amendment (Sen. Gardner) or speaking to white supremacist group (Rep. Scalise).
2. If discovered during election, wink-wink-nudge-nudge renounce (Gardner) or dissociate (Scalise) from previous pandering.
3. Once elected, revert to pandering.
Here's the playbook:
1. Pander to extreme elements of base by co-sponsoring "personhood" amendment (Sen. Gardner) or speaking to white supremacist group (Rep. Scalise).
2. If discovered during election, wink-wink-nudge-nudge renounce (Gardner) or dissociate (Scalise) from previous pandering.
3. Once elected, revert to pandering.
As an early `member' of the Tea Party (April 15, 2009 to be exact, downtown Houston), I will gladly take Gardner over a Dem Senator in the swing state of Colorado! So, dream on!
I guess the secret to Republican success is to be a RINO hiding inside a Tea Bag. Instead of the Elephant they should adopt the Chameleon as their party symbol.
I suppose it's this way across the political spectrum but these clowns have no values they won't sell out if that's what it takes to get/keep the job.
"Because restoring this institution is the only way we’ll ever solve the challenges we face."
McConnell seems to be ignoring his role in the diminishing of that institution.
McConnell seems to be ignoring his role in the diminishing of that institution.
1
All this Kumbaya by McConnell is window dressing to make Obama and the Senate minority look like he obstacles - when he and other republican economic neo-liberals propose outrageous legislation to advance the corporate security oligarchy.
He that pays the piper call the tune.
He that pays the piper call the tune.
1
If anyone was actually in Colorado then they would realize that Gardner did not WIN as much as Udall LOST. Udall ran insufferable ads that treated women like they were alley cats in heat and all that women cared about was free contraceptives and free abortions on demand. Those ads which remotely touched on other issues were demeaning to the voters and sent the message that Coloradans were too stupid to understand the complexities of government. In addition Udall had a couple of "off mike" incidents which revealed him for what he is. A flaming liberal with communist tendencies. Coloradans are more Libertarian than Republican or Democrat, with the exception of the Denver-Boulder corridor, which is Socialist. Udall made it clear that he did not listen to Colorado but was in the hip pocket of Tom Steyer (wealthy Californian Enviro-Kook).
Cory Gardner was my Congressman before he became my Senator. During that time he was not a Right Wing Ideologue. He conveyed an image of Live and Let Live. Don't ask the Government to bail you out and I'll see to it that the Government does not bankrupt you. That message worked in a state with a strong frontier attitude and history of self reliance. Additionally Gardner was NOT a "CarpetBagger" like Udall.
Cory Gardner was my Congressman before he became my Senator. During that time he was not a Right Wing Ideologue. He conveyed an image of Live and Let Live. Don't ask the Government to bail you out and I'll see to it that the Government does not bankrupt you. That message worked in a state with a strong frontier attitude and history of self reliance. Additionally Gardner was NOT a "CarpetBagger" like Udall.
I'm not sure how Edsall can draw such sweeping conclusions when we had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years in last November's elections. Even Colorado, which had one of the higher voter turnouts, only saw 53% of its eligible population vote. Senator Gardner didn't lose his Tea Party baggage as much as he set it down temporarily. I bet I know how he will vote on the House's reintroduced bill banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation and I will win that bet.
2
The big question is whether Mr.Gardner will remain the more moderate and thoughtful man he claimed to be to get elected, or whether he will revert to type in the coming year to be at peace with his fellow right wingers?
What people will do and say to get elected is one thing. Whether he will follow through and show that his conversion to being more rational is real will tells us whether he is honest or just waving in the wind.
What people will do and say to get elected is one thing. Whether he will follow through and show that his conversion to being more rational is real will tells us whether he is honest or just waving in the wind.
2
"Gardner won a tough election against the Democratic incumbent Mark Udall by shifting left on both immigration and social issues like abortion and contraception."
So the author is ignorant of the Tea Party, no surprise there. It is a grass roots movement to bring FISCAL conservatism to the FEDERAL government. No social movement. We know if everyone has to get out of bed every morning and work to feed themselves, the social issues will take care of themselves.
So the author is ignorant of the Tea Party, no surprise there. It is a grass roots movement to bring FISCAL conservatism to the FEDERAL government. No social movement. We know if everyone has to get out of bed every morning and work to feed themselves, the social issues will take care of themselves.
2
Republicans must become more like Democrats to survive. There's nothing wrong with that, if it's true.
4
Gardner may have tried to obscure his record or even genuinely move his positions, but his election was less about his policies and more about a poor campaign by Udall. Gardner's election proves little about a path forward for Republicans, except that perhaps you should pick the elective office you seek by ensuring that your opponent runs a terrible campaign.
2
Isn't that nice. So the GOP, from Colorado to Pennsylvania Ave., has decided to make nice again with Democrats and the democratic process. I wonder how long that will last? I'd love to be proved wrong, but my guess is that it will continue until approximately the first day of next week -- and maybe not that long.
1
The President said before the election that he believes marriage is just between a man and a woman, but after the election, his views "evolved", and now he believes in gay marriage. I don't think the Republicans have a monopoly on hypocrisy.
4
Republicans must become more like Democrats to survive. There's nothing wrong with that, if it's true.
1
The only chance American voters had to express themselves directly on illegal immigration was in liberal Oregon, where they voted 2-1 against giving driver's licenses to illegals. They were overturning a bill already passed, and signed by the governor, and they were outspent by more than 10-1.
9
Gardner's and McConnell's politics, even if differently nuanced, appear quite compatible with "the great Leviathan" emerging in the country. Scientistic campaigning prepares for that emergence by masking the totalitarian power sought by those whose fantasies assure us of protection and domestic peace in a world chock full of imagined threats and dream-laden infantilism. Their goals are not questions of what is of value, but what means will enable the obtaining of power. Gardner is no less Hobbesian than McConnell, Cruz, Lee, Gohmert, and Boehner. Gardner's "shift" to the "left," any more than McConnell's admonition of "restraint," is not a reminder of constitutional restraint. Shame on them all.
How about let's seeing what Gardner does before adulation?
2
Sounds like triangulation deja vu.
As more Republicans drop the championing of social issues it will be a lot more difficult for Democrats to succeed unless they too adapt on economic issues.
I'm glad to see some GOPers becoming more open and centralist. But in the end, I don't think they have the cohesion to succeed, particularly when 24 of their own vote against their speaker.
3
Thomas, with all due respect, you should have added the words, "to get elected" to the title. The implications are enormous and you gloss them over, buying his transformation as if it is somehow real. I'm not buying it.
1
Wow, so he was allowed to vote for things, against his parties wishes, that magically didn't pass anyway. Wow. A person more skeptical than Tom Edsall might think that the Republicans knew it wouldn't pass and allowed him to vote against it so he could appear more 'moderate' to his home base. But, I'm sure I'm out of line here and they had no idea how the votes would turn out.
Gardner won for two reasons: Udall ran a horrible campaign that only pounded on one message -- Gardner will vote against women's issues -- and in the midterms it was mostly Republicans and elder voters who took the time to vote. Of course, the general discontent with Congress pulled in a few percentages of voters who just wanted to change things up. Gardner will not win a second term especially with a presidential election taking place in 2020.
I think Gardner won because he and his family looked much more telegenic in TV campaign commercials than did his wooden opponent, the aged, boring incumbent Mr. Udall who looked like an animatronic Lincoln in mom jeans.
Gardner ran away from his Tea Party roots in order to win the election because that's what the new Republican strategy has decided is necessary.
And the religious conservative base was assuaged that Gardner's apparent. and probably temporary, renunciation of their positions was nothing more than lying to evil people which the Bible says is ok when necessary.
Gardner ran away from his Tea Party roots in order to win the election because that's what the new Republican strategy has decided is necessary.
And the religious conservative base was assuaged that Gardner's apparent. and probably temporary, renunciation of their positions was nothing more than lying to evil people which the Bible says is ok when necessary.
2
A leopard doesn't change its spots. One of the reasons politicians have such a low approval rating is that they have no convictions and principles. They can be bought and sold by special interests and trends in voter's preferences. This is a sad state of affairs, because no one knows and no one trusts politicians. For this country to move forward we need politicians who think long term and do what is in the best interest of the country regardless of short-term trends.
"... [T]he Tea Party and the Christian right will tolerate tactical apostasy and remain loyal on Election Day."
What's wrong with this statement? Why am I convinced that a Trojan Horse has been installed at the centre of the American decision making process?
For one day - Election Day - a rabble of unthinking, socially cruel and backward cretins swapped foolishness for opportunity. One day does not undo the thousands of days of indignity toward America's first black president. One day does not suddenly absolve six years of fascist tactics. One day will not make it right for those families buried in incalculable losses as a result of right wing demagoguery.
Gardner will return to his base instincts before long. The expert practitioners McConnell and Boehner will see to it that the newcomer from Colorado is indoctrinated in the ways of the spineless compromised Republican.
What's wrong with this statement? Why am I convinced that a Trojan Horse has been installed at the centre of the American decision making process?
For one day - Election Day - a rabble of unthinking, socially cruel and backward cretins swapped foolishness for opportunity. One day does not undo the thousands of days of indignity toward America's first black president. One day does not suddenly absolve six years of fascist tactics. One day will not make it right for those families buried in incalculable losses as a result of right wing demagoguery.
Gardner will return to his base instincts before long. The expert practitioners McConnell and Boehner will see to it that the newcomer from Colorado is indoctrinated in the ways of the spineless compromised Republican.
1
The dilemma the Republicans have is that, to become a new majority in the 80s and 90s, they courted and pandered to Southern Democrats and others angry about hippies and drugs and other social issues, like abortion and homosexuality. They reinforced well-established prejudices and divided the country and got their majority. Even middle-of-the-road Republicans went along with the courting over the years because it meant votes. But having reinforced prejudices that don't allow compromise instead of lessening them could be their downfall. The country has pretty well been divided down the middle. Republicans without the Tea Party won't have a majority. If the R's continue to let the uncompromising T's wield power, they and the country will continue to be weakened and dysfunctional. What to do?
Very flawed article. Cherry pick 2 elected candidates while ignoring all the other candidates that won. The republicans swept democrats away across the board, not because they had a great message but because most people have realized what a disaster the current administration and its policies have been. Republicans did not run to the left. That assumption is completely absurd.
Gardner won because his opponent could only speak of woman's reproductive rights. He was a one trick pony on an issue that people know is drummed up.
The author also use the tea party like they are the boggy man. The only unifying issue they have has is runaway government spending. Otherwise they are made up of every type of person. To imply they are some kind of scary, anti-abortion, gun totting, racist hillbillies is plain demagoguery. it is sad that these people are demonized while both parties continue to spend without any regard to consequences.
The last laugher of this article is that republicans are not mainstream. I don't want to defend republicans because they not much better than democrats but their positions are closer to the mainstream then the democrats. The majority of people want tax reform, the keystone pipeline, are unhappy with obamacare to mention the ones that the author mentioned.
Gardner won because his opponent could only speak of woman's reproductive rights. He was a one trick pony on an issue that people know is drummed up.
The author also use the tea party like they are the boggy man. The only unifying issue they have has is runaway government spending. Otherwise they are made up of every type of person. To imply they are some kind of scary, anti-abortion, gun totting, racist hillbillies is plain demagoguery. it is sad that these people are demonized while both parties continue to spend without any regard to consequences.
The last laugher of this article is that republicans are not mainstream. I don't want to defend republicans because they not much better than democrats but their positions are closer to the mainstream then the democrats. The majority of people want tax reform, the keystone pipeline, are unhappy with obamacare to mention the ones that the author mentioned.
2
The hypocrisy of people like McConnell and Gardner literally knows no end. Gardner went to the center in the campaign to win election. Now that he is in for six years it will only be a matter of months before he has tacked back to the hard right. McConnell talks about restoring the institution and its processes. Well look in the mirror Senator. Your sole purpose was to obstruct the president and make sure his landslide victories meant nothing. Let's see how much center there is in his center-right model. None is my guess.
30
Hypocrisy like Mary Landrieu's, or Mark Pryor's or anyone of the 30 Senators who voted against their constituents wishes to get Obamacare passed. That kind of hypocrisy? Gee, weouldn't it be nice if they were not that hypocritcal, then we would not have Obamacare.
1
"Dave" you are entirely correct. The is no center/right Republican party, with or without the tea party crowd yelling from the sidelines. For more than 30 years, the Republicans have been chasing away or purging anyone who was not prepared to hew the hard right line. Now that they have achieved the kind of "purity" they sought, they sudden will swerve back to moderation?
By dragging the social conservatives (and this distinction should not be considered one of left/right, even though it is widely seen that way), the Republicans have made a bargain they can't keep: rolling back the tide of history and social development/change by 100 yrs. or so. It can't be done. "That old time religion" and older ways of doing things are gone, poof. Pretending that the hands of time could be turned back has given some comfort, I suppose, to those upset with the modern world, but ultimately many are likely to see the truth: it was a ruse. Those fearful of social change were bundled by political convenience into the right wing effort with those who fear taxes and helping the minority population and the poor, but it was never a perfect fit.
McConnell is no dummy, but he is a protege of Newt Gingrich when he was in the House, steeped in the "search and destroy" methods used there. He is not trained in moderation, nor has he shown any ability to use it. He sits at the head of a party where compromise is seen as evil and cooperation seen as selling out.
Doug Terry
By dragging the social conservatives (and this distinction should not be considered one of left/right, even though it is widely seen that way), the Republicans have made a bargain they can't keep: rolling back the tide of history and social development/change by 100 yrs. or so. It can't be done. "That old time religion" and older ways of doing things are gone, poof. Pretending that the hands of time could be turned back has given some comfort, I suppose, to those upset with the modern world, but ultimately many are likely to see the truth: it was a ruse. Those fearful of social change were bundled by political convenience into the right wing effort with those who fear taxes and helping the minority population and the poor, but it was never a perfect fit.
McConnell is no dummy, but he is a protege of Newt Gingrich when he was in the House, steeped in the "search and destroy" methods used there. He is not trained in moderation, nor has he shown any ability to use it. He sits at the head of a party where compromise is seen as evil and cooperation seen as selling out.
Doug Terry
1
“I’ve asked my members to restrain themselves,” McConnell said in his interview with The Post.
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
15
Here is the great trap. Now, the Republicans want legislation to pass with compromise. Now the Republicans want the obstructions to stop. Now the republicans want "show" bills with no chance of passage to stop being voted on. The Democrats have always gone along with "play nice" and think they are "above" the tactics of the Republicans. As well as I know it's not popular, the Democrats have got to take a page out of the Republican playbook and stop, even with the filibuster, any attempt of the Republicans to pass right of center legislation. Let the other side rant and rave. Harry Reid should state his primary goal is to insure the Senate is regained by the Democrats!
16
That is exactly what I am promoting wherever I can. Being the "nice guy" hasn't worked out for them.
Winning elections is not about obstructionism, per se. It is about serving the voters. If the voters elected people who stop Obama, that is because that is what they want. Maybe the Democrats could also get elected by stopping Obama, but they have not tried that, yet. Give them time as the hot breath of electoral defeat breathes on them as they approach 2016.
1
Other way's of winning elections are to gerrymander, eliminate voters with laws to eliminate early voting etc., change your positions to match the audience, and so on and so forth. But basically you are right. The Republicans won those elections. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to join them in dismantling the social programs we need, or attack the poor with more drug tests and other conservative policies.
The right hasn't moved away from its abhorrent, unconscionable social positions. It's just realized that more and more people find them repulsive, and now it needs to pretend like it doesn't think gays are subhuman and women property.
25
Really? I wonder how they beat the pants off the opposition on November 4th. perhaps you can explain.
1
See Yeats, W.B..."The Second Coming", or Lincoln, A. on fooling people.
To add to my original comment (Sen Gillibrand changing views):
To get elected, one must take into consideration what the views of their electorate want, and adjust somewhat want they want. If the main objective is fiscal conservation, one can be forgiven if previously espoused social issues are ignored. One cannot change much if not elected.
Disclaimer: I've been a "clothespin " voter since my first election (Johnson; would not get us into a land war in Asia). "Clothespin voter: put clothespin over my nose and pick the least offensive candidate)
To get elected, one must take into consideration what the views of their electorate want, and adjust somewhat want they want. If the main objective is fiscal conservation, one can be forgiven if previously espoused social issues are ignored. One cannot change much if not elected.
Disclaimer: I've been a "clothespin " voter since my first election (Johnson; would not get us into a land war in Asia). "Clothespin voter: put clothespin over my nose and pick the least offensive candidate)
4
Just yesterday, before Boehner got reelected, Rush was crowing about how he was going down (I suspect due to the influence of him, other talk show hosts and the tea party). I am sure this turned rapidly into a whine. And so it goes. My quick perusal of this, limited reading, is that Gardner is like most politicians; he goes where the wind blows and election is more important than past principles.
10
Forcing the Republican party back into the mainstream is an admirable goal. I will be happy to see the Tea Party reduced to a historical footnote.
12
George III felt the same way about the Tea Party.
4
The real Tea Party's issue with George III was that they were being taxed without representation. The malcontents that have hijacked the name have disproportionate representation. They just don't like the idea of paying for the programs instituted in accordance with the Constitution.
1
You're confusing the right-wing, conservative, Tea Party of today with the patriots of the 1700's. Big difference, today's Tea Party is not defending freedom (freedom of choice, freedom of worship, freedom to make a life for yourself) but seeking to enforce their ideology on others.
1
Unfortunately times have changed and the GOP can't return to being a right-center governing party. The party owes too much to its deep pocket contributors. They have been bought and sold. One look at the House "Science" committee tells us exactly where the GOP is - squarely in the pockets of big money.
15
Washington and New York are so hopeful and easily fooled. "Compromise" with a side which defines it as "you give in to us". No wonder they win. They know and stick to their principles assuming the other side will fold as always.
5
So Gardner adopted a populist and potentially harmful stance on immigration, supporting the concept of a 25 year amnesty cycle. And he decided to get the Feds the heck out of an area where they don't belong anyway, on abortion. Bully for him.
2
Lipstick on a pig.
17
Tom, bravo!
Gardner is cool, I'd like to have done more such politicians and then Congress could hold dialogue with the White House and to work productively. So far, new Republican Congress raises serious concerns and questions to the voters - is this that you wanted?
1
Now let's see how he really votes. He is a McConnell soldier just like all the republican senators. The man simply lied and the fact that so few people voted helped him more than his lies.
12
So few people voted? How did the Republicans encourage their voters but discourage the others? You're like the guy who said he retired after his business was flooded and his friend asked how do you start a flood? Indiana had really low turn out. It is a Republican state. Want to expalin why all those Republicans stayed home?
I think we'd like a review of this column in say six months or so, after the Senator has built up a voting record, it is only then that we'll know if the spots changed, or it was just a quick dye job.
16
There is nothing in this discussion about this article about what stands Gardner will take with regard to the total corporate agenda pushed by the Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups. Will he buck the GOP establishment on trade deals, labor union rights, tax policies, climate change and other environmental challenges and a host of other issues where there probably isn't much difference between the tea party folks and the party establishment. It's all about money and protecting the wealthy and the people at the top. The establishment was all for the Tea Party when they seemed to be a help in advancing their corporate agenda. When they suddently became a liability, they were jettisoned over the side. It's always about the money with these so-called GOP moderates.
11
Amen to that, Bob. A liability to be jettisoned (great word, btw) as soon as the corporate paymasters give the go-ahead. Use and abuse, then discard. Corporate consumerism come to politics.
Given the rate of imtermariage, the Amarica is rapidly DAR.ifeing.That is almost everyone in the USA will be descended from a Daughter of The American Revolution.
Nobody here in Colorado believes Gardner has changed his priorities, which include a Paul Ryan agenda of defunding Social Security. Based on letters to the editor in my local paper, a lot of conservatives here promoted Gardner precisely because of his anti-abortion views.
Frankly I think a lot of moderates were turned off by Udall's excessive emphasis on the war against women. As one local journalist (Mike Littwin) pointed out, there were actually more votes to reelect Governor Hickenlooper (a Democrat who refused to engage in negative campaigning) than there were to elect Gardner, suggesting that many Coloradans either voted for third party candidates or didn't vote on the senate race at all.
Frankly I think a lot of moderates were turned off by Udall's excessive emphasis on the war against women. As one local journalist (Mike Littwin) pointed out, there were actually more votes to reelect Governor Hickenlooper (a Democrat who refused to engage in negative campaigning) than there were to elect Gardner, suggesting that many Coloradans either voted for third party candidates or didn't vote on the senate race at all.
8
As one local journalist (Mike Littwin) pointed out, there were actually more votes to reelect Governor Hickenlooper (a Democrat who refused to engage in negative campaigning) than there were to elect Gardner, suggesting that many Coloradans either voted for third party candidates or didn't vote on the senate race at all.
=====================
A Libertarian candidate, Kent, siphoned off 51,000 (2.6%) votes in the Senate race that presumably would have gone to Gardner.
Gardner - 965,974
Hickenlooper - 1,006,433
Add those back in and they would be pretty even
=====================
A Libertarian candidate, Kent, siphoned off 51,000 (2.6%) votes in the Senate race that presumably would have gone to Gardner.
Gardner - 965,974
Hickenlooper - 1,006,433
Add those back in and they would be pretty even
2
One can only hope that Republicans have come back to their senses. A two party system needs both sides to be responsible in order to govern. The last few years have been painfully lacking in responsible legislation. I may disagree with conservative positions but I should at least be able to see their points.
Teddy Roosevelt gave us National Parks.
Dwight Eisenhower gave us the national highway system.
Richard Nixon gave us the EPA.
I challenge McConnell and Boehner to match that.
Teddy Roosevelt gave us National Parks.
Dwight Eisenhower gave us the national highway system.
Richard Nixon gave us the EPA.
I challenge McConnell and Boehner to match that.
12
The agenda of the GOP has changed coompletely. Only the name remains the same.
8
JFK gave us a big income tax cut. Call on Obama to do the same. I didn't think so.
1
So, the leopard CAN change its spots. Big Deal. It's still a leopard.
7
Deciding how to deceive the electorate is always a crap shoot. Afterwards we make it look like a calculation resulting from genius. Mr. Gardner can say anything he wants. Every Sunday School discusses the Righteous Lie. And, in the end, Speech is Free because it isn't worth very much. This ever faithful member of the electorate is losing interest today.
3
The art of lying (to oneself and/or to others) seems to be the road to success in scoring political touchdowns. What that translates to is a bunch of representatives who have sold their souls to the devil in order to get elected. Doesn't do much for the stature of the U.S. in the rest of the world, or in this voter's eyes.
8
Ah, but which lie to tell...?
1
I view the Tea Party influence as those opposed to crony capitalism and hand outs to big business in the form of tax expenditures. There is also a belief that government should be no bigger than it needs to be and that some hands out can be counterproductive. Most importantly, free market solutions (not rigged with nanny regulations) tend to be the best method of control.
In other words, the "baggage" is not so bad if you are a Republican. If you caucus with the Democrats, all fair economics may be baggage.
In other words, the "baggage" is not so bad if you are a Republican. If you caucus with the Democrats, all fair economics may be baggage.
6
I concur, Eugene - but it's interesting to see how the Corporatist Right has been co-opted by the Corporatist Center - aka The Hillary Brand - as the Brand is no more a democrat than those in the party who now agree and rally to the side of any corporatist agenda that Obama follows - despite it not being at all in their interest. TPP, Drone Therapy, Keystone pipeline, or prosecuting whistleblowers and naughty Snowden-like traitors to the cause, comes to mind for starters.
They are Dems in name only - but shills no matter else how you look at them.
The baggage of the Tea Party - as originally espoused - was reflected more in mainstream America then, than what is espoused and followed by the Brand and any of her soon-to-be announced Republican opponents (Jeb) now. The Brand ridiculed the 99%, hobbed and nobbed with her elite millieu, earned millions and a few billion for any quid pro quo to be distributed (once/if elected) - just like Jeb is doing, and the strength of populism as embodied in Elizabeth Warren (until she would be elected, of course, whereupon her stripes would morph back into a neo-con tiger) is tossed out to the populace like small bread crumbs - or cake. Enjoy it now, because once elected, the crumbs are gone and it's back to austerity for all. Except, of course, for the bankers, Wall Street funders and Corporate money-men.
One man's humble baggage is another man's Louis Vuitton.
They are Dems in name only - but shills no matter else how you look at them.
The baggage of the Tea Party - as originally espoused - was reflected more in mainstream America then, than what is espoused and followed by the Brand and any of her soon-to-be announced Republican opponents (Jeb) now. The Brand ridiculed the 99%, hobbed and nobbed with her elite millieu, earned millions and a few billion for any quid pro quo to be distributed (once/if elected) - just like Jeb is doing, and the strength of populism as embodied in Elizabeth Warren (until she would be elected, of course, whereupon her stripes would morph back into a neo-con tiger) is tossed out to the populace like small bread crumbs - or cake. Enjoy it now, because once elected, the crumbs are gone and it's back to austerity for all. Except, of course, for the bankers, Wall Street funders and Corporate money-men.
One man's humble baggage is another man's Louis Vuitton.
That is what the Tea Party originally was. Until the evangelical baptists subverted it. It is now nothing more than a front for evangelicals. Are their leading causes less regulation in our lives? Nope. It is banning abortion and keeping gay marriage illegal.
There will be more tax expenditures for crony capitalists after this congress is done. If the Tea Party supports what you say, why do they exist?
1
The NAACP office in Colorado Springs was the target of a filed firebombing yesterday. Tell me again how hard-right social conservatism is gone from Colorado.
11
The tea party originated as a reaction first to TARP and then to the GM bailout. It was a collective 'no' to trillion dollar bailouts and scams at the expense of taxpayers.
After 100s of thousands of protesters gathered at the national mall it became job one to demonize the tea party for both Democrats and Republicans. Bogus linkage to racism was a good implement. And the natural deterioration as generic malcontents 'joined up' fell into the hands of its enemies.
Make no mistake that anger is still out there. The continued shearing of the american people is not a birthright of the rich and comfortable political class.
After 100s of thousands of protesters gathered at the national mall it became job one to demonize the tea party for both Democrats and Republicans. Bogus linkage to racism was a good implement. And the natural deterioration as generic malcontents 'joined up' fell into the hands of its enemies.
Make no mistake that anger is still out there. The continued shearing of the american people is not a birthright of the rich and comfortable political class.
3
Democrats and Republicans didn't have to demonize the tea party. They did a pretty good hatchet job on themselves. Anytime, Cruz, Bachman, Gohmert and Lee start talking they do damage to their cause. Just let them keep right on talking!
1
I suspect Gardner did the shift based on Udall's weaknesses rather than any personal epiphany. That's what politicians do.
McConnell won't tame Cruz, the most disliked man by his Senate colleagues, but most in the caucus want to win, not go down in righteous stubbornness.
McConnell won't tame Cruz, the most disliked man by his Senate colleagues, but most in the caucus want to win, not go down in righteous stubbornness.
2
"Shift to the left" in Colorado? You must be joking. Jettisoning Udall was a symptom of the opposite trend (a nationwide one, except for blue bastions), i.e., sweeping away knee jerk liberals and moving them into the wastebasket of history.
2
I am increasingly concerned about those who vote who fail to take time to learn about candidates and issues.
4
Based on the pathetic voter turnout in 2014 and the rhetorical slights of hand of victorious Republicans like Gardner (not to mention the spineless hiding by Democrats from President Obama's record), a canny politician like Mitch McConnell has rightly surmised that the GOP was elected for an audition and nor for a mandate, and he means to play the role of moderate and statesman for just long enough to have Republicans do the hat trick in 2016. Exhibit A: Jeb Bush. Hard core right wing in moderate clothing personified.
3
Watch Gardner move to the far right again now that he's elected. Coloradans were stupid to believe him.
6
Sorry, but there's no doubt that movement Conservatives feel entitled and even obliged to lie during campaigns and then to switch positions in office. I don't trust Gardner.
5
Cory Gardner's primary political principle is to say or do the minimum to win more votes than his opponent in the next election.
Getting rid of the rhetorical tea party baggage like dropping the white sheets and racist slurs cuts right through the substance to the form.
A parade of pride and hubris that paves the way to where and when? We know why and how.
Getting rid of the rhetorical tea party baggage like dropping the white sheets and racist slurs cuts right through the substance to the form.
A parade of pride and hubris that paves the way to where and when? We know why and how.
3
This is posted by jroll.
This is a lousy analysis by someone who must think that Pittsburgh is the wild west. First, Gardner NEVER renounced his support of the Federal so called Personhood Bill. Absolutely not. He refused to withdraw his sponsorship of that federal legislation. Gardner said over and over again, that the federal legislation was merely an expression of a commitment to life. He was right. The Congress always has so-called pro-life legislation introduced in every session. Such bills are referred to committee and die there. Congress has not voted on a bill to abolish abortion since 1983. Everyone knows that. What Gardner did was to withdraw his support from a personhoold amendment to the STATE of COLORADO constitution that he supported in 2012 and which was DEFEATED by the voters of Colorado.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Gardner's stance was perfectly acceptable to the state's conservatives. Udall did not run his own campaign. He relied on outside consultants and staff who said that accusing Gardner of waging a War on Women was a winning strategy. All we heard from Udall was abortion, abortion, abortion. People, even pro-choice voters, got thoroughly sick of it. It was insulting to Colorado voters. That is why Gardner won.
This is a lousy analysis by someone who must think that Pittsburgh is the wild west. First, Gardner NEVER renounced his support of the Federal so called Personhood Bill. Absolutely not. He refused to withdraw his sponsorship of that federal legislation. Gardner said over and over again, that the federal legislation was merely an expression of a commitment to life. He was right. The Congress always has so-called pro-life legislation introduced in every session. Such bills are referred to committee and die there. Congress has not voted on a bill to abolish abortion since 1983. Everyone knows that. What Gardner did was to withdraw his support from a personhoold amendment to the STATE of COLORADO constitution that he supported in 2012 and which was DEFEATED by the voters of Colorado.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Gardner's stance was perfectly acceptable to the state's conservatives. Udall did not run his own campaign. He relied on outside consultants and staff who said that accusing Gardner of waging a War on Women was a winning strategy. All we heard from Udall was abortion, abortion, abortion. People, even pro-choice voters, got thoroughly sick of it. It was insulting to Colorado voters. That is why Gardner won.
7
If a moderating of hard right views is real then bravo. But we both know that Cory Gardner has changed no views at all. He won a Senate seat. He can do whatever he likes for about five years before the people who sent him to Washington will pay any attention.
The evangelicals voted for him because they knew he was just lying to get elected and they consider that a good thing. You have done nothing wrong when you lie to a liberal. In fact it is a patriotic act.
The sad thing is this will continue to work as long as the vast middle of our political spectrum considers it all too disgusting to even get involved.
The evangelicals voted for him because they knew he was just lying to get elected and they consider that a good thing. You have done nothing wrong when you lie to a liberal. In fact it is a patriotic act.
The sad thing is this will continue to work as long as the vast middle of our political spectrum considers it all too disgusting to even get involved.
12
The Gardner strategy (say the right thing to the right constituents at the right time, a.k.a. as conveniently switching positions, to get elected) might work in a midterm election, when the turnout is low. But it sure did not work in 2012 for Romney, whose chameleon-like persona just did not fool the electorate.
So whether Gardner’s victory is a result of the “implosion of the Tea Party,” his George Clooney-type good looks, or a disinterested electorate is hard to tell. Maybe Senator Michael Bennet’s reelection bid in 2016 will prove just how middle-of-the-road Coloradoans have really become?
So whether Gardner’s victory is a result of the “implosion of the Tea Party,” his George Clooney-type good looks, or a disinterested electorate is hard to tell. Maybe Senator Michael Bennet’s reelection bid in 2016 will prove just how middle-of-the-road Coloradoans have really become?
2
Cory Gardner "changed" or "switched" his view of wind power, abortion, etc. to get elected. Let's not fool ourselves into believing his disingenuous actions during his campaign actually mean his priorities have changed. After all, like most of congress, he is bought and paid for by those who deny climate change, want women to stay home and have babies, and hate the President because he is a Black man. Mr. Edsall I'm surprised that you fell for this, jettisoning Tea Party baggage indeed!
10
What a waste of bandwidth, Udall was beat by lack of voter turnout and nothing else. No need to try to find meaning in the tea leaves, gerrymandering and voter suppression and out right cheating, plus low voter turnout is why we have the lack of representation all over the country.
All three of our very liberal families have already bought property and are moving to Colorado and many of our friends in academia are planning the move as well, it won't be long before Colorado is the beautiful deep blue state that it deserves to be.
All three of our very liberal families have already bought property and are moving to Colorado and many of our friends in academia are planning the move as well, it won't be long before Colorado is the beautiful deep blue state that it deserves to be.
7
What a waste of bandwidth, Udall was beat by lack of voter turnout and nothing else. No need to try to find meaning in the tea leaves, gerrymandering and voter suppression and out right cheating, plus low voter turnout is why we have the lack of representation all over the country.
=================
Actually, turnout in Colorado was higher than it was in 2010 and 80% of 2012 turnout.
You can't "gerrymander" a senate race.
=================
Actually, turnout in Colorado was higher than it was in 2010 and 80% of 2012 turnout.
You can't "gerrymander" a senate race.
1
Read the comment again. It didn't say the Senate race was lost due to gerrymandering.
Do they really have to learn than social issues are their downfall? When Republicans drop them people actually start to pay attention to their other positions.
3
" I want the American people to be comfortable with the fact that the Republican House and Senate is a responsible, right-of-center, governing majority. "
Who said that McConnell has no sense of humor?
Who said that McConnell has no sense of humor?
16
Republicans, McConnell in particular, are behaving like the alcoholic father who sobers up, somewhat realizes how crazy he has been acting, and assures the family he will never be scary again. We've seen this pattern with Republicans repeat itself far too many times. I am more fearful than ever.
On their next binge, what might Republicans do? Strip away health insurance for millions, insist that kids eating junk food is harmless, allow more companies to default on pensions, not realize the dangers of climate change, join with polluters, give more of Fort Knox to the 1%? What?
On their next binge, what might Republicans do? Strip away health insurance for millions, insist that kids eating junk food is harmless, allow more companies to default on pensions, not realize the dangers of climate change, join with polluters, give more of Fort Knox to the 1%? What?
20
My own guess is that since the Republicans at least recognize the problem of retirees living longer than planned and taking more out of Social Security than the present tax withholding can afford, the GOP will vote to shorten the average lifespan of middle-class American by requiring a Minimum Daily Requirement of at least one double-bacon cheeseburger per person and a tax break for heavy smokers. Oh, and deep cuts to health care, of course. Undertakers should see an uptick in their business in a couple of decades. Problem solved! Accolades and pats on the back for all republican politicians and an adoring retinue of Fox News reporters hanging on their every word.
Gardner appears to be wickedly skilled at shifting positions to win election. Good for him. What kind of Senator will he be now? Back to Tea party extremes? Fighting Democrats tooth and nail on anything and everything to the further detriment of the country? Or perhaps worse; willing to change his views/votes for the highest bidder or the most cynical political calculation.
8
Tea party has always been against Obamacare, large external debt, they have always been distant from Boehner and McConnell. I do not even want to think about Boehner and McConnell. They are crooks and traitors in cube. Despite the fact Gardner is an apostate, we need more such people, cause we need dialogue of White House and Congress.
It's a little early to pronounce that the leopard (Gardner) has changed it's spots. Why don't we wait and see if he changes his mind now that he is in office (i.e. that he misled the electorate (lied) to get into office).
7
Oh, please. Tell us how many votes he got regardless of his positions on anything. The electorate is so divided, and the right hates Obama so much, that it doesn't matter what the Republican candidate says for the moment: he's going to get their votes.
I know how this works. I remember from a very long time ago my grandfather telling me how to vote when I became of age: "First, you vote for the Italians on the ballot. Then you vote for the Democrats."
I know how this works. I remember from a very long time ago my grandfather telling me how to vote when I became of age: "First, you vote for the Italians on the ballot. Then you vote for the Democrats."
5
Mr. Edsall clearly doesn't understand the utility of lying to voters. He uses enough qualifiers to suggest that he "gets it," but he doesn't. Cory Gardner lied to voters and did so with calculated sincerity.
That works, apparently. A "template"? Perhaps. But call it what it is.
That works, apparently. A "template"? Perhaps. But call it what it is.
2
First and foremost Mark Udall ran an awful campaign which ran away from his party’s record of accomplishment. Cory Gardner saw that he was too far right so for the election he campaigned to the left pf what his record would support.
But Republicans are noted for promising one thing and delivering another. Vote for lower taxes get the Keystone XL pipeline. Vote for fiscal conservancy get government shut downs and a threat the default on the national debt. Vote for jobs, get bills to cut taxes for the “job providers.” And of course the wonderful thing about Republicans is that they vote in lock step.
There is not a liberal or a middle of the roader to be found. This analysis is premature. We do not know whether Gardner intends to reject his party’s radical right agenda or it is a game of Etch a Sketch that Romney thought the voters would buy, coming down to promise them anything and deliver what the oligarchs want.
Let’s just see how this analysis stands up after a year in power. Let’s see what he votes to shove down the people’s throats. Elections are a game of Truth or Consequences. If the candidates don’t tell the truth the people pay the consequences.
But Republicans are noted for promising one thing and delivering another. Vote for lower taxes get the Keystone XL pipeline. Vote for fiscal conservancy get government shut downs and a threat the default on the national debt. Vote for jobs, get bills to cut taxes for the “job providers.” And of course the wonderful thing about Republicans is that they vote in lock step.
There is not a liberal or a middle of the roader to be found. This analysis is premature. We do not know whether Gardner intends to reject his party’s radical right agenda or it is a game of Etch a Sketch that Romney thought the voters would buy, coming down to promise them anything and deliver what the oligarchs want.
Let’s just see how this analysis stands up after a year in power. Let’s see what he votes to shove down the people’s throats. Elections are a game of Truth or Consequences. If the candidates don’t tell the truth the people pay the consequences.
5
Mr. Edsall, have you ever been to Colorado? Do you know anyone in Colorado? Can you find Colorado on the map? Based on you Op-Ed, the answer is a resounding NO.
To Ross, Thomason:
So this is how we pick what buttresses our argument ; Ignore what doesn't help us. Take for example, US Senator from NY, Dem. Kirsten Gillibrand: she was a Blue Dog Dem Rep. for the NY 20th Congressional District, a conservative district. Upon gaining a Senate seat, where she now represented a liberal whole state, she became a "progressive Democrat". Have you called her a "liar"
So this is how we pick what buttresses our argument ; Ignore what doesn't help us. Take for example, US Senator from NY, Dem. Kirsten Gillibrand: she was a Blue Dog Dem Rep. for the NY 20th Congressional District, a conservative district. Upon gaining a Senate seat, where she now represented a liberal whole state, she became a "progressive Democrat". Have you called her a "liar"
2
And on climate change he can stand in front of a wind mill while working to gut any attempt to curb carbon emissions--why does global warming not matter?
5
Keep in mind that much of what keeps rural eastern Colorado farmers from going bankrupt farming is the oil and gas beneath the surface. Acknowledging that something should be done to address global warming is telling your constituency that they should lose their real incomes.
Oh great advice, the way that Republicans can get elected in the future is to abandon what they stand for and become more like the Democrats that no one likes. Brilliant!
1
So in a state that's not fire engine red, the less you campaign like a crazy person, the more likely you are to win.
Thanks for the insight.
Let's see how he actually does his job.
Thanks for the insight.
Let's see how he actually does his job.
3
This leads one to wonder exactly what Gardner believes and how he'll act in the Senate. Given his career long support of far right fiscal and social agendas, the country and the voters of Colorado will soon find out if a leopard can indeed change its spots. The smart money says that it can't.
4
Among Corey Gardner's first votes: to impeach President Obama. This is Edsall's shining example?
5
And who in Colorado can forget when Gardner sat on his hands as another congressman Mike Coffman spouted his birther nonsense out in eastern Colorado and neither thought anyone would catch them on it? And then (wink, wink) he pretended that he would never have had such a nasty thought himself.
The ignorant left being blindsided -which appears to be an easy thing to do. The Tea Party types will tell their people at home that they have to move left a bit to get in power, but when they get in power, you can be sure that the Tea Party guy will return to his natural moorings and make a hard turn to the right, fooling all leftist Democrats in the process.
If the Democratic party does not get out the Tea Party stamp and label every one of them 100,000 times as radical Tea Party, then it is the Democrats that are stupid [is that an redundancy? Sorry.]
If the Democratic party does not get out the Tea Party stamp and label every one of them 100,000 times as radical Tea Party, then it is the Democrats that are stupid [is that an redundancy? Sorry.]
5
If the Democratic party does not get out the Tea Party stamp and label every one of them 100,000 times as radical Tea Party, then it is the Democrats that are stupid [is that an redundancy? Sorry.]
==================
Believe me, that was pretty much all Udall and his allies said in their ads here for 8-9 months prior to the election.
==================
Believe me, that was pretty much all Udall and his allies said in their ads here for 8-9 months prior to the election.
Mr. Edsall asks "With the demographic composition of the electorate rapidly changing, what is the best way for Republicans in diverse states to campaign?".
Mr. Edsall answers: LIE, LIE, AND LIE AGAIN.
Mr. Edsall answers: LIE, LIE, AND LIE AGAIN.
3
"The major factors driving population growth are Democratic-leaning immigrants from California and the steadily increasing number of Hispanics."
People who have transplanted from California to Colorado are referred to as "immigrants". The irony!
People who have transplanted from California to Colorado are referred to as "immigrants". The irony!
1
Republicans will lie like a rug and Gardner is no exception.
Some day they will poll this 69 year old white male of Swedish decent.
Some day they will poll this 69 year old white male of Swedish decent.
2
So what are the Tea Party radicals going to do about it if they don't like the direction the Republicans are taking, support the Democrats? That obviously won't happen. In most instances they can and should be ignored. Politicians who dislike and distrust the very idea of government are not capable of governing.
3
If the Tea Party gets upset with Republican moderation, I see three viable options:
1) Sit out the election.
2) Vote for a third-party candidate.
3) Hold their noses and vote for the more-moderate Republican.
The first two are the most likely (in my opinion) and help the Democrats.
1) Sit out the election.
2) Vote for a third-party candidate.
3) Hold their noses and vote for the more-moderate Republican.
The first two are the most likely (in my opinion) and help the Democrats.
I don't want Republicans to lose their Tea Party baggage. They created and encouraged the monster, they should have to live with it like the rest of us have had to live with it for the past 6 years.
4
I hope you're right. More likely, Gardner will be primaried in six years time.
1
"He abandoned his past opposition to liberal immigration policies. On June 5, Gardner declared his support for giving undocumented immigrants who serve in the armed forces a path to citizenship."
What a SPORT! We'll let you in now that you almost DIED for our country. Is this really something he should be touting as a plus? How could he not support it when he himself wouldn't put his own life on the line for his own country? What a SPORT.
What a SPORT! We'll let you in now that you almost DIED for our country. Is this really something he should be touting as a plus? How could he not support it when he himself wouldn't put his own life on the line for his own country? What a SPORT.
4
Senator McConnell's quoted statements in this article that supposedly reflect his approach to governing are 180 degrees from his public statements of the past 6 years. A typical "pol" if nothing else. Is that what we should expect from those we elect? Is this why this country is struggling so in so many ways?
3
The GOP is not going to change into a moderate party any time soon. It cannot without losing support from the very partisan activists that dominate primaries
and provide a reliable edge in the present configuration of congressional districts. On the other Mitch McConnell really wants to demonstrate that as a majority leader he can move along legislation and he can produce a more effective Senate than when Harry Reid was majority leader. Whether he succeeds will depend on whether he can produce legislation that can avoid an Obama veto. The XL Keystone is a bad start, it is not needed as long as oil is cheap. It is purely symbolic fight that Obama can veto without repercussions.
and provide a reliable edge in the present configuration of congressional districts. On the other Mitch McConnell really wants to demonstrate that as a majority leader he can move along legislation and he can produce a more effective Senate than when Harry Reid was majority leader. Whether he succeeds will depend on whether he can produce legislation that can avoid an Obama veto. The XL Keystone is a bad start, it is not needed as long as oil is cheap. It is purely symbolic fight that Obama can veto without repercussions.
1
The Tea Party down here in North Carolina are always complaining about every elected Republican. I think the Tea Partiers are proof positive that we do come back in another life. You know those dogs that bark all the time? They come back as Tea Party members and continue to bark without really saying anything.
Be kind to your dog so he or she might come back as somebody pleasant and in touch with reality.
Be kind to your dog so he or she might come back as somebody pleasant and in touch with reality.
5
Mr. Gardner has already returned to his roots. He walked out of a town hall meeting when the questions got sticky and he has pledged to kill the food stamp program as one of his first actions in the Senate. He will not be able to keep his inclinations under control and will be swept out quickly at his next election.
The people of Colorado can accept legislators from both parties, but statewide they cannot accept fringe candidates on either side....and Cory Gardner was and is a fringe character, he was just able to hide it better during the campaign than most.
The people of Colorado can accept legislators from both parties, but statewide they cannot accept fringe candidates on either side....and Cory Gardner was and is a fringe character, he was just able to hide it better during the campaign than most.
7
So , Mr. Edsall, you advocate the political candidates say anything necessary to get elected, including disavowing thier own beliefs.
What a fine government we'll get with that approach! Oh I forgot, we already have it.
What a fine government we'll get with that approach! Oh I forgot, we already have it.
9
So , Mr. Edsall, you advocate the political candidates say anything necessary to get elected, including disavowing thier own beliefs.
=====================
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance
The average family will save $2500 a year in insurance premiums.
You've been Grubered
=====================
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance
The average family will save $2500 a year in insurance premiums.
You've been Grubered
1
I don't think Edsall is advocating anything, although you and several other readers seem to have gotten that impression. I thought he was analyzing the Colorado election.
Campesino, most, if not all, politicians seem to lie; however, if you check Politifact, you will notice that there are lot more Republicans lying than Democrats.
This is disgusting, to say the least.
Someone does not just "get rid of their baggage" on the Right, not now. The new GOTP, with the help of a silent segment of the old GOP, collectively ran this country over a cliff all this century, but especially since Obama was elected.
Lots of voting "No!" and obstruction
Lots of hate mongering and distorting
Lots of destroying the safety net for the Poor - and just about anyone else - so the very Rich could pretty much take whatever they wanted in entitlements
Government shutdowns
*Many* ACA repeal votes
Gender repression
Lots of labor law rollbacks
Loss of rights for many
Years of Congressional inaction
Basically, a lot of "Crazy," that did much to erase many of the gains of the 20th century. The rampage isn't done... in fact, according to the GOTP, it's hardly started.
Not only the President and Democrats were demonized. Lots of moderate Republicans, even hard Conservatives that did not line up absolutely, were run out of the party.
There must be an answer, a reckoning for all this. So they shifted their rhetoric: big deal! Their actions and positions still have meaning! Were they lying about things then? Are they lying now? Is it all just to get elected by any means? Will they still support the demonizers and haters?
It's like once being a member of the KKK: you don't get to say, "Oops, never mind!" Not when the past, and current GOTP agenda is what's on the table!
Are we just supposed to forget?
Someone does not just "get rid of their baggage" on the Right, not now. The new GOTP, with the help of a silent segment of the old GOP, collectively ran this country over a cliff all this century, but especially since Obama was elected.
Lots of voting "No!" and obstruction
Lots of hate mongering and distorting
Lots of destroying the safety net for the Poor - and just about anyone else - so the very Rich could pretty much take whatever they wanted in entitlements
Government shutdowns
*Many* ACA repeal votes
Gender repression
Lots of labor law rollbacks
Loss of rights for many
Years of Congressional inaction
Basically, a lot of "Crazy," that did much to erase many of the gains of the 20th century. The rampage isn't done... in fact, according to the GOTP, it's hardly started.
Not only the President and Democrats were demonized. Lots of moderate Republicans, even hard Conservatives that did not line up absolutely, were run out of the party.
There must be an answer, a reckoning for all this. So they shifted their rhetoric: big deal! Their actions and positions still have meaning! Were they lying about things then? Are they lying now? Is it all just to get elected by any means? Will they still support the demonizers and haters?
It's like once being a member of the KKK: you don't get to say, "Oops, never mind!" Not when the past, and current GOTP agenda is what's on the table!
Are we just supposed to forget?
12
It's like once being a member of the KKK: you don't get to say, "Oops, never mind!"
====================
Well it seemed to work just fine for Sen. Robert Byrd, the former KKK member who was the Democrats majority leader for years and years
====================
Well it seemed to work just fine for Sen. Robert Byrd, the former KKK member who was the Democrats majority leader for years and years
1
Campesino, it worked for Senator Byrd, because he backed up his transformation with action.
1
That was then, this is now!
1
I'm not sure Mr Edsall is getting it. That Ken Buck fella he mentioned who lost to Bennet in 2010? He was elected to Congress in 2014.
Udall ran a bad campaign. He was a victim of the niche politics of a diverse party where every slight, every issue, must have equal weight electorally.
The GOP is at its broadest and deepest levels in elective office because of a 40 year march called movement conservatism. Liberals have nothing like it.
We'll see how long Mr Gardner remains in the senate once he has to start casting votes there. will his born again liberalism survive or will he pull a fast one like Ben Nighthorse Cambell who was elected to the Senate from CO as a Democrat and just 2 years later flipped to the GOP.
But the idea the Tea Party faction is dead is a continuing meme in the MSM, despite the fact that Gardner and Buck and Joni Ernst won their races and that the ONLY Jewish member of the entire GOP caucus, Eric Cantor, lost his primary to a TP'er while ascending in the ranks of GOP leadership is a guy who pals around with David Duke.
Udall ran a bad campaign. He was a victim of the niche politics of a diverse party where every slight, every issue, must have equal weight electorally.
The GOP is at its broadest and deepest levels in elective office because of a 40 year march called movement conservatism. Liberals have nothing like it.
We'll see how long Mr Gardner remains in the senate once he has to start casting votes there. will his born again liberalism survive or will he pull a fast one like Ben Nighthorse Cambell who was elected to the Senate from CO as a Democrat and just 2 years later flipped to the GOP.
But the idea the Tea Party faction is dead is a continuing meme in the MSM, despite the fact that Gardner and Buck and Joni Ernst won their races and that the ONLY Jewish member of the entire GOP caucus, Eric Cantor, lost his primary to a TP'er while ascending in the ranks of GOP leadership is a guy who pals around with David Duke.
8
Good analysis. We will have the extreme right with us for a long time to come. Unfortunatly.
3
@paul-
"Movement conservatism" is simply a euphemism for what the GOP has pandered to, the angry white, mostly southern and rural, male vote, that thanks to the very gerrymandering they have pulled off, have control over primaries and so forth. Take a look at the demographics of 'movement conservatism' and what you see is not a broad based movement, but rather is based on a diminishing population that thanks to the structure of elections and the constitution, hold power well beyond their numbers. The movement conservatism is rural america trying to turn back the clock, and is using every game legal under the constitution to maintain their power.
The real question here is what do the big money corporations and the well off think? Leaving out the Koch brothers and trevor norquist, who are whiny, over the top loons who want everything, how does corporate America and the powerful elite see the GOP? The real problem the GOP faces is even though these groups generally see the GOP as their mouthpiece, many of them see the tea party and the religious right as being impediments to what they want, they see the tea party economics as ending up causing them harm, and the religious right as a bunch of people whose views make doing business harder, not easier.
"Movement conservatism" is simply a euphemism for what the GOP has pandered to, the angry white, mostly southern and rural, male vote, that thanks to the very gerrymandering they have pulled off, have control over primaries and so forth. Take a look at the demographics of 'movement conservatism' and what you see is not a broad based movement, but rather is based on a diminishing population that thanks to the structure of elections and the constitution, hold power well beyond their numbers. The movement conservatism is rural america trying to turn back the clock, and is using every game legal under the constitution to maintain their power.
The real question here is what do the big money corporations and the well off think? Leaving out the Koch brothers and trevor norquist, who are whiny, over the top loons who want everything, how does corporate America and the powerful elite see the GOP? The real problem the GOP faces is even though these groups generally see the GOP as their mouthpiece, many of them see the tea party and the religious right as being impediments to what they want, they see the tea party economics as ending up causing them harm, and the religious right as a bunch of people whose views make doing business harder, not easier.
3
'm not sure Mr Edsall is getting it. That Ken Buck fella he mentioned who lost to Bennet in 2010? He was elected to Congress in 2014.
Udall ran a bad campaign. He was a victim of the niche politics of a diverse party where every slight, every issue, must have equal weight electorally.
==================
Correct - Buck won the congressional seat that Gardner had.
Mark Uterus' ads were just painful. Gardner's ads were mostly upbeat. But there were just so many ads people tuned them out.
Udall ran a bad campaign. He was a victim of the niche politics of a diverse party where every slight, every issue, must have equal weight electorally.
==================
Correct - Buck won the congressional seat that Gardner had.
Mark Uterus' ads were just painful. Gardner's ads were mostly upbeat. But there were just so many ads people tuned them out.
Cant wait to watch the Republican "majority" tear itself apart and watch for a third party move by Ted Cruz when he doesn't get the nomination.
4
Edsall, jettisoning the tea party issues will jettison the tea party voters. They represent a significant enough minority of the Republican electorate that their loss will effectively neuter the party at the national level. Is this really what you want? A weak and ineffective opposition party in a two-party system is a depressing prospect indeed, whether you are in the majority party or the minority one.
2
@ben-
The problem is that the tea party voters are crippling the GOP, they can't win national elections because as McConnell pointed out, people are afraid of the GOP, in large part because of the tea party crazies. Most important of all, independent voters, who might be more liable to vote for centrist economic policies, are afraid of the Ted Cruz and the hard right social policies the GOP has continued to support. The proof will be in the pudding with this congress, if the GOP is driven by the extremists, if we see continually pieces of legislation designed to restrict abortion, legislation designed to promote 'religious freedom' ie the right to discriminate, if we see the tea party 'gut the government' kind of thing, the GOP can kiss national elections goodbye, pure and simple. Given that Boehner and McConnell have shown little ability to reign in the loonies, especially since the leaders of their party are often of the loony class, they face an uphill battle.
The problem is that the tea party voters are crippling the GOP, they can't win national elections because as McConnell pointed out, people are afraid of the GOP, in large part because of the tea party crazies. Most important of all, independent voters, who might be more liable to vote for centrist economic policies, are afraid of the Ted Cruz and the hard right social policies the GOP has continued to support. The proof will be in the pudding with this congress, if the GOP is driven by the extremists, if we see continually pieces of legislation designed to restrict abortion, legislation designed to promote 'religious freedom' ie the right to discriminate, if we see the tea party 'gut the government' kind of thing, the GOP can kiss national elections goodbye, pure and simple. Given that Boehner and McConnell have shown little ability to reign in the loonies, especially since the leaders of their party are often of the loony class, they face an uphill battle.
2
Republican candidates win when they disavow their own voting records and the Party's stand on issues. Does this frighten anyone?
19
My thoughts exactly. We'll be watching how fast Gardner climbs back on the tea party bandwagon when challenged by the reactionaries up there. Boehner won through the challenge, which in numbers was paltry, but significant for its occurance.
1
White male candidates with names like Dale, Cory, Guy, Duke, or Bud. Guns. Oil. Religion in moderation. Sports before education. Yes to the military. No to foreign aid. Soft on 'brownskin' tough on crime. Hate Obama. Hate Affordable Health Care for others.
OK. That's what they want in Colorado according to Edsall. Just sidestep the Mexican issue and abortion and you'll garner enough gun toting, conservatives. Give them broadband and they'll keep quiet.
OK. That's what they want in Colorado according to Edsall. Just sidestep the Mexican issue and abortion and you'll garner enough gun toting, conservatives. Give them broadband and they'll keep quiet.
10
So much for the Democratic consultants’ lullaby that all Democrats have to do is wait until a future demographic shift makes Republicans obsolete and Democrats will ascend to majority status again like a phoenix from the dead.
Perhaps, betting the ranch that minorities and other special interest groups will follow Democratic candidates in lock step to the polls – forever - isn’t such a good bet after all? Perhaps, Democrats should have broader messaging that attracts voters without regard to race, gender, sexual preference, or age? Perhaps, writing off the white working class over the last thirty years wasn’t such a good idea?
After all, even conservative Republicans can change when their election is on the line.
Perhaps, betting the ranch that minorities and other special interest groups will follow Democratic candidates in lock step to the polls – forever - isn’t such a good bet after all? Perhaps, Democrats should have broader messaging that attracts voters without regard to race, gender, sexual preference, or age? Perhaps, writing off the white working class over the last thirty years wasn’t such a good idea?
After all, even conservative Republicans can change when their election is on the line.
18
Only in your own mind did Democrats ever write off the working class. They fight like bulldogs for the working class, while Republicans fight for the right of business owners to kick workers into the ditch. Yes, Democrats also value inclusion, and reject racism, but it's the everyday working man and woman that Democrats fight for every single day, including yesterday, when Democrats offered a bill in the House to require Keystone to be built with American steel, and a bill to require CEOs to give their raise if they want to deduct CEO salaries over a million dollars. You won't hear about that over on Fox because, let's face it, Fox News lies, and when they're not lying they're calling laws helping the working class some kind of restraint of "freedom." Seriously, if anyone wants a team that fights like hell for the working class, white, black, brown, or purple, Democrats are the only game in town.
6
Only in your own mind did Democrats ever write off the working class.
==================
Of course they have. Mr Edsall had quite a round-up a month ago about how Democrats have pretty much run the white working class out of the party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/have-democrats-failed-the-whit...
You know, they are those people who believe in traditional religion and gun rights that the Progressives all hate. All you have to do is read the comments to that column to see it
==================
Of course they have. Mr Edsall had quite a round-up a month ago about how Democrats have pretty much run the white working class out of the party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/have-democrats-failed-the-whit...
You know, they are those people who believe in traditional religion and gun rights that the Progressives all hate. All you have to do is read the comments to that column to see it
1
Sherry...I appreciate your devotion to the Democratic Party. However, I've spent 30 years in various roles - local party activist, elected Democratic State Representative, DNC Delegate and candidate for four different Presidential candidates. I've knocked on thousands of doors for myself and for dozens other Democratic candidates. In short, I've been paying attention for a very long time.
There are numerous articles covering my point of view: Time to Bring Back the Truman Democrats - The Daily Beast or Let’s abandon the Democrats: Stop blaming Fox News and stop hoping Elizabeth Warren will save us - Salon.com .
But here’s two points directly related to the Clintons. Bill past NAFTA but couldn’t find the effort to pass Striker Replacement and Clinton’s same staff working for Obama canned labor’s Card Check program. Also, President Clinton provided most favored nation status to communist China, and we know how that turned out for working Americans.
Meanwhile private sector unionization has fallen from 27% in 1980 to less than 7% today.
One more point for your future reference, don’t pay much attention to what a politician tells you they are doing, look at what they actually do and accomplish. Introducing bills is easy. Actually working hard passing them is an entirely different matter.
There are numerous articles covering my point of view: Time to Bring Back the Truman Democrats - The Daily Beast or Let’s abandon the Democrats: Stop blaming Fox News and stop hoping Elizabeth Warren will save us - Salon.com .
But here’s two points directly related to the Clintons. Bill past NAFTA but couldn’t find the effort to pass Striker Replacement and Clinton’s same staff working for Obama canned labor’s Card Check program. Also, President Clinton provided most favored nation status to communist China, and we know how that turned out for working Americans.
Meanwhile private sector unionization has fallen from 27% in 1980 to less than 7% today.
One more point for your future reference, don’t pay much attention to what a politician tells you they are doing, look at what they actually do and accomplish. Introducing bills is easy. Actually working hard passing them is an entirely different matter.
Why is it so many liberal columnists and commentator think they know what's best for the Republican party? Which is to turn to their way of thinking, their way of looking at problems, and their solutions.
2
The phony assumption again is that the "Tea Party" is different or to the right of the GOP "establishment."
Where are the differences in policy? Name one.
No, the Tea party is only a useful foil for GOP fund raising and rhetoric.
Where are the differences in policy? Name one.
No, the Tea party is only a useful foil for GOP fund raising and rhetoric.
6
uber right winger rejects his idealogical stances , including the position of "personhood"- an idiotic concept from the start, from a bill he sponsored, to get elected. Pandering, lying opportunist. Let's see how long it takes before he "re-evolves" his positions now that the elections over. What a naive column and the voters who put this guy in office.
9
So Gardner suckered the voters into thinking he was not a hard core conservative anymore. Just watch, he will vote with the conservatives on every issue because he, like most GOP politicians, knows that most voters don't pay attention anyway and few people even understand the issues, so you can be a wolf in sheep's clothing and easily get away with it.
I have come to the conclusion that most Americans are ignorant because they are either too busy or too lazy to follow politics, so they vote purely on gut instinct and whatever 30 second advertisement appeals to them.
Gardner will be just as conservative as before, he will just find new ways to rationalize his votes and the clueless public will fall for it.
I have come to the conclusion that most Americans are ignorant because they are either too busy or too lazy to follow politics, so they vote purely on gut instinct and whatever 30 second advertisement appeals to them.
Gardner will be just as conservative as before, he will just find new ways to rationalize his votes and the clueless public will fall for it.
14
What's the point of running if you just going to be a Democrat? The goal should be to persuade people that freedom isn't that radical an idea.
2
The Republicans can win elections by becoming Democrats.
1
Dear Mr. Edsall,
Your column reminded me of the old joke, "How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving."
Mr. Gardner may be the "real deal" (and Colorado had an astounding 53% voter turnout in 2014) and his "compromising" abilities may be remarkable but, by and large, I am still hearing the same GOP/TP rhetoric; drill, drill, cut, cut, ACA bad, ACA bad and no "amnesty" or anything smacking of it.
Of the 2 money engorging "parties" that hold sway, the GOP/TP still holds the great edge in, shall we call it, "Oligarch Appeal" as their shameless catering to anyone with a big enough bank account demonstrates time and again. Mr. Gardner, if he is what he appears to be, is an "anomaly". Mr. Boehner wasn't even assured of his job as "Speaker" as the TP part of the GOP doesn't seem to like anyone who isn't part of their "program" (I assume the Tea Party exists to gather even more money than the rest of the GOP; to think that either the Dems. or the GOP/TP really give a fig about "governing" versus "fund raising" is a fairy tale equal to the story of "Snow White" though Ms. White might have actually been a "virgin").
My hope was the GOP/TP amalgamation would explode from it's own internal pressures, Mr. Gardner being just an annoyance to the rest of the GOP/TP. Let's just hope that it does so in the next 2 years so the country may return to some semblance of "adulthood" and the Congress can act on the pressing matters facing it.
Your column reminded me of the old joke, "How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving."
Mr. Gardner may be the "real deal" (and Colorado had an astounding 53% voter turnout in 2014) and his "compromising" abilities may be remarkable but, by and large, I am still hearing the same GOP/TP rhetoric; drill, drill, cut, cut, ACA bad, ACA bad and no "amnesty" or anything smacking of it.
Of the 2 money engorging "parties" that hold sway, the GOP/TP still holds the great edge in, shall we call it, "Oligarch Appeal" as their shameless catering to anyone with a big enough bank account demonstrates time and again. Mr. Gardner, if he is what he appears to be, is an "anomaly". Mr. Boehner wasn't even assured of his job as "Speaker" as the TP part of the GOP doesn't seem to like anyone who isn't part of their "program" (I assume the Tea Party exists to gather even more money than the rest of the GOP; to think that either the Dems. or the GOP/TP really give a fig about "governing" versus "fund raising" is a fairy tale equal to the story of "Snow White" though Ms. White might have actually been a "virgin").
My hope was the GOP/TP amalgamation would explode from it's own internal pressures, Mr. Gardner being just an annoyance to the rest of the GOP/TP. Let's just hope that it does so in the next 2 years so the country may return to some semblance of "adulthood" and the Congress can act on the pressing matters facing it.
12
Udall supported more gun control. Gardner did not. As abhorrent as the idea may be, easy access to guns is a prime mover in elections west of the Pecos.
4
.."tea party" was always all about "divide and conquer" during last 7 years, since 2007 bush-cheney Wall $treet economic disaster....
...similar was perpetrated 30's Depression Era...of which notoriously uninformed Americans largely are uninformed...
..all so bush-cheney and bush-BAMA (no change) could subterfuge their way through "7 year statute of limitations" for much Wall $treet FRAUD perpetrated, while FED (taxpayer) $ub$idizing banks by buying back their own "toxic assets"=MBS, "bundled mortgages"..and while blaming-scapegoating VICTIMS; Fanni-Freddi, immigrants, unions, pensions, teachers, schools, social security....all of which is a LIE parallel bush-cheney scapegoating of Iraq for 911...
What did Americans expect?
...similar was perpetrated 30's Depression Era...of which notoriously uninformed Americans largely are uninformed...
..all so bush-cheney and bush-BAMA (no change) could subterfuge their way through "7 year statute of limitations" for much Wall $treet FRAUD perpetrated, while FED (taxpayer) $ub$idizing banks by buying back their own "toxic assets"=MBS, "bundled mortgages"..and while blaming-scapegoating VICTIMS; Fanni-Freddi, immigrants, unions, pensions, teachers, schools, social security....all of which is a LIE parallel bush-cheney scapegoating of Iraq for 911...
What did Americans expect?
1
To quote a braver man, I also have a dream. That dream is to have someone, with the moral intensity, intellectual courage and desire to get to the truth about the Kennedy murder, the 9/11 false flag operation, the false info to provoke the 2003 war on Iraq, and the Wall Street 'melt-down-major theft' bonanza for the wealthy, etc. etc. I think there are more than a few persons capable of this with the stature....
1
The "reassuring" statements on leadership from Mitch McConnell quoted here tell us all we need to know about what is to come. His barely disguised racism, his so clearly evident distaste, when referring to President Obama throughout the past 6 years has been the central image in my perception of today's politics.
Arrogant stupidity, if ever I have seen it.
Arrogant stupidity, if ever I have seen it.
16
Republican electoral success is all about misdirection and obfuscation-------and restraining the worst impulses of the Tea Party. What this tells you, is that despite all of the conciliatory and "reasonable" sounding rhetoric, Republicans are itching to control all levers of power in order to advance their political and religious goals. If they have to appear as wolves in sheep's clothing to do so, they will. Voters must be very, very diligent.
11
So it's only taken 30 years for social conservatives to begin their decline? This is not giving me much hope.
2
But governance is the key!
Day one, the House changed how funds for social security disability are allocated, setting dead aim on the nation's 8,956,000 disabled and 1,825,000 children of the disabled. The new rule separates social security retirement income from disability income and no longer permits the reallocation of monies from one fund to the other without Congressional approval.
So we see the unveiling of the GOP strategy: create and advance crises by using Congressional authority to squeeze and micro-manage safety net program funds. Use the same authority to eliminate regulations that control the greed of big business and the rich. Finally, create a government that both gives away and takes away benefits that increase income, freedom, security for middle income America.
Senate Republicans introduced a bill to redefine a full-time worker in the ACA to 40 weekly hours. This makes it easier for businesses to exempt employees from coverage by cutting just one hour a week!
On day one, plainly visible, is the GOP template for the next two years. (1) Micro-manage the executive functions of government (2) while claiming the defense of the program attacked for reasons opposite of the real consequences.
Healthcare will involve “choice,” not “coverage.” Education will “empower” parents, not “improve” schools.
And in every bill, the only solution of Republicans is to “cut” government: the programs for the common good and taxes for the rich.
Day one, the House changed how funds for social security disability are allocated, setting dead aim on the nation's 8,956,000 disabled and 1,825,000 children of the disabled. The new rule separates social security retirement income from disability income and no longer permits the reallocation of monies from one fund to the other without Congressional approval.
So we see the unveiling of the GOP strategy: create and advance crises by using Congressional authority to squeeze and micro-manage safety net program funds. Use the same authority to eliminate regulations that control the greed of big business and the rich. Finally, create a government that both gives away and takes away benefits that increase income, freedom, security for middle income America.
Senate Republicans introduced a bill to redefine a full-time worker in the ACA to 40 weekly hours. This makes it easier for businesses to exempt employees from coverage by cutting just one hour a week!
On day one, plainly visible, is the GOP template for the next two years. (1) Micro-manage the executive functions of government (2) while claiming the defense of the program attacked for reasons opposite of the real consequences.
Healthcare will involve “choice,” not “coverage.” Education will “empower” parents, not “improve” schools.
And in every bill, the only solution of Republicans is to “cut” government: the programs for the common good and taxes for the rich.
33
Also "dynamic scoring" aka "tax cuts pay for themselves". The Koch Bros made an investment and this is the return on that investment. Elections have consequences, as do 64% of voters who could not be bothered to vote in the 2014 election.
4
And just to juxtapose this -- we see that President Obama's first legislative signing was the Lilly Ledbetter Act -- something to help people, something to mitigate a long standing injustice.
4
What is the core meaning of the TEA party? Taxed Enough Already?
I don't Hispanic voters, or well-educated social liberals, enjoy paying half their income in taxes either. They probably don't even enjoy paying $800 a month for a health insurance plan with a $6000 deductible and a network of 3 doctors, none of whom have any open appointments. So there's plenty of space for the GOP to operate in.
I don't Hispanic voters, or well-educated social liberals, enjoy paying half their income in taxes either. They probably don't even enjoy paying $800 a month for a health insurance plan with a $6000 deductible and a network of 3 doctors, none of whom have any open appointments. So there's plenty of space for the GOP to operate in.
2
What planet are you from, exactly? Because on this planet, a) taxes for most ar at about their lowest level ever, and b) average yearly premiums for a family went over $16, 000 a few years ago, which would suggest that $9600 a year is a pretty good deal.
Oh, wait...you're just making stuff up. that's why you forgot to mention the subsidies.
Might want to dump some of that TP baggage.
Oh, wait...you're just making stuff up. that's why you forgot to mention the subsidies.
Might want to dump some of that TP baggage.
7
Today's republican party is the most effective user of propaganda and crony capitalism since the national socialists in 1930's Germany. While not as nihilistic as their goose-stepping predecessors, the party of Cruz, Gardner, McConnell, Roberts et al have zero problems with inflicting economic and social pain on our country simply for the purpose of undermining the sitting president. Tacking left socially? Utter nonsense.
The combination of the Roberts court and the republican congress will do more to undermine civil rights in this country since Roger Taney and James Buchanan in the 1850s.
Economically, we can expect today's republicans to inflict more trickle down economic madness with their (misuse) of dynamic scoring to position more tax and corresponding government services cuts.
We can expect republicans to continue to push for a revival of states rights last seen in our country in the 1850s; the state that gives us the Kochs, the Bushes and Rick Perry leading the charge.
Republicans as a political force should be feared if you value the freedoms and prosperity that characterize the United States. Unless you're a republican party hack or major campaign contributor. Then, you'll prosper just as much as Joseph Goebbels.
The combination of the Roberts court and the republican congress will do more to undermine civil rights in this country since Roger Taney and James Buchanan in the 1850s.
Economically, we can expect today's republicans to inflict more trickle down economic madness with their (misuse) of dynamic scoring to position more tax and corresponding government services cuts.
We can expect republicans to continue to push for a revival of states rights last seen in our country in the 1850s; the state that gives us the Kochs, the Bushes and Rick Perry leading the charge.
Republicans as a political force should be feared if you value the freedoms and prosperity that characterize the United States. Unless you're a republican party hack or major campaign contributor. Then, you'll prosper just as much as Joseph Goebbels.
6
Mr. Edsall strikes me being a bit too far removed--in his ivory tower--to be calling the Tea Party politics of the GOP a thing of the past.
For starters--"establishment" candidates prevailed in the GOP primaries--not by repudiating Tea Party principles--but by coming out on top--thanks to party support--of crowded contests--so often, one could be forgiven for thinking perhaps it was a party strategy--encourage candidates to enter a scrum and divivde the far right vote--so candidates like Thom Tillis could emerge victorious in the primary--and then deny the extremism his tenure in the state legislature demonstrated had occurred.
Second--time will tell if Senator Gardner's "shift" to the middle in the general election was mere window-dressing--true voter fraud--or indicative of what he'll do as a Senator.
The idea that the GOP has become more practical and pragmatic--that all the talk about there being some great interest in demonstrating that the party can govern is anything more than talk, peddled by pundits, is going to be tested in the next few months.
For starters--"establishment" candidates prevailed in the GOP primaries--not by repudiating Tea Party principles--but by coming out on top--thanks to party support--of crowded contests--so often, one could be forgiven for thinking perhaps it was a party strategy--encourage candidates to enter a scrum and divivde the far right vote--so candidates like Thom Tillis could emerge victorious in the primary--and then deny the extremism his tenure in the state legislature demonstrated had occurred.
Second--time will tell if Senator Gardner's "shift" to the middle in the general election was mere window-dressing--true voter fraud--or indicative of what he'll do as a Senator.
The idea that the GOP has become more practical and pragmatic--that all the talk about there being some great interest in demonstrating that the party can govern is anything more than talk, peddled by pundits, is going to be tested in the next few months.
6
The religious right wingnuts will disappear over time, even if it takes slightly longer than we'd like. If "mainstream" Republicans want to govern, they'll have got to stop being shills for the wealthiest people and corporations. THAT's the way they'll prevail.
That means caring about the middle and lower classes. Provide jobs - not with their nonsense about "trickle down," but with massive infrastructure job programs, increased support of education, childcare, training, R&D, alternative energy, and transportation. That means increasing taxes on higher incomes; say, 70% above $1 million/year and 50% above $400K/year, the rough equivalents of what we HAD in this country when our affluence was broadly-experienced. Enact modest tax reductions on the lowest wage earners. Tax capital gains as ordinary income. Increase inheritance taxes. Implement strong - but sensible - regulations over industry and finance.
Voters (mostly) aren't stupid. They know what works in a modern democracy. Weaning the GOP off the powerful influence wielded by its rich sponsors is the real problem the party faces.
That means caring about the middle and lower classes. Provide jobs - not with their nonsense about "trickle down," but with massive infrastructure job programs, increased support of education, childcare, training, R&D, alternative energy, and transportation. That means increasing taxes on higher incomes; say, 70% above $1 million/year and 50% above $400K/year, the rough equivalents of what we HAD in this country when our affluence was broadly-experienced. Enact modest tax reductions on the lowest wage earners. Tax capital gains as ordinary income. Increase inheritance taxes. Implement strong - but sensible - regulations over industry and finance.
Voters (mostly) aren't stupid. They know what works in a modern democracy. Weaning the GOP off the powerful influence wielded by its rich sponsors is the real problem the party faces.
2
Here is the real question - is the "change" from right-wing nut-job to moderate conservative for real, or is it just a tactical move?
My guess is that it is nothing more than a false flag operation. The true believers have learned that they cannot win running O'Donnell ("I am not a witch") and Akin ("legitimate rape"). So at this point they will tone down the rhetoric and take reasonable positions. But, when it comes to the final vote, they will show their true colors.
The "stealth candidate" strategy has worked in the past, and it will work again.
My guess is that it is nothing more than a false flag operation. The true believers have learned that they cannot win running O'Donnell ("I am not a witch") and Akin ("legitimate rape"). So at this point they will tone down the rhetoric and take reasonable positions. But, when it comes to the final vote, they will show their true colors.
The "stealth candidate" strategy has worked in the past, and it will work again.
6
As long as Democratic leaning voters tend to ignore midterm elections, the Republicans will be emboldened by their success. The truth, however, is that those successes will be shortlived if they continue to press forward on an agenda that leans heavily to the right.
I truly believe that the reason a huge chunk of the electorate doesn't vote in the midterms is because they are ignorant of the governing process -- that both the House and Senate play crucial roles in setting the nation's agenda. They simply don't understand how government works -- why certain bills don't make it to the floor for a vote, the importance of the presidential veto (especially now) and how that works, etc., etc.
Despite McConnell's assurances that he will not allow the extremist elements within his party to gain sway, it is a scary proposition to have a totally Repubican-leaning government should the Democrats lose the presidency in 2016.
There are too many vital issues at play to allow complete Republican control of the political process -- global climate change and the environment in general, the ever widening gulf between the "haves" and the "have-nots" and the shocking disappearance of our once formidable middle class, the need to preserve and strengthen Social Security and the need to continue to push for a universal, single-payer health care program. All of these issues are best left in the hands of the Democratic party.
The Democratic party must be more aggressive in educating the public.
I truly believe that the reason a huge chunk of the electorate doesn't vote in the midterms is because they are ignorant of the governing process -- that both the House and Senate play crucial roles in setting the nation's agenda. They simply don't understand how government works -- why certain bills don't make it to the floor for a vote, the importance of the presidential veto (especially now) and how that works, etc., etc.
Despite McConnell's assurances that he will not allow the extremist elements within his party to gain sway, it is a scary proposition to have a totally Repubican-leaning government should the Democrats lose the presidency in 2016.
There are too many vital issues at play to allow complete Republican control of the political process -- global climate change and the environment in general, the ever widening gulf between the "haves" and the "have-nots" and the shocking disappearance of our once formidable middle class, the need to preserve and strengthen Social Security and the need to continue to push for a universal, single-payer health care program. All of these issues are best left in the hands of the Democratic party.
The Democratic party must be more aggressive in educating the public.
5
Blah, blah, blah. I'm less concerned about how Gardner won Colorado, an essentially liberal state with strong conservative leanings coupled with libertarian zeal for personal freedoms, than I am about what Mitch McConnell is promising.
I'm concerned he is more intent on producing a Republican president than producing legislation based on compromise. He may say the process is open, and committees represent voters with hard-standing amendments, but I don't trust McConnell any more than I do a fox in a henhouse.
We already saw the spending bill passed in December which ostensibly was fair until you looked at the hidden riders, the generous paybacks to Republican financiers. Every piece of legislation in this upcoming Congress will have those amendments. I fact, I venture to say, any bill that comes up for signing will be more important for the add-ons than the main content.
A leopard can't change its spots. Neither can McConnell, the man I blame, along with Boehner, for the most polarized, laughable Congress in history. And now this anti-Obama man wants to govern?
No, he wants to create the perception of governing, provide a few sops to voters, until he can get a totally Republican government that will enact its harsh prescriptions for the poor and its generous paybacks to corporate funders.
I'm concerned he is more intent on producing a Republican president than producing legislation based on compromise. He may say the process is open, and committees represent voters with hard-standing amendments, but I don't trust McConnell any more than I do a fox in a henhouse.
We already saw the spending bill passed in December which ostensibly was fair until you looked at the hidden riders, the generous paybacks to Republican financiers. Every piece of legislation in this upcoming Congress will have those amendments. I fact, I venture to say, any bill that comes up for signing will be more important for the add-ons than the main content.
A leopard can't change its spots. Neither can McConnell, the man I blame, along with Boehner, for the most polarized, laughable Congress in history. And now this anti-Obama man wants to govern?
No, he wants to create the perception of governing, provide a few sops to voters, until he can get a totally Republican government that will enact its harsh prescriptions for the poor and its generous paybacks to corporate funders.
18
Well said Christine, but don't blame McConnell and Boehner, they (and the entire GOP) are just living up to the terms of the Faustiam bargain they made with the Koch Bros. Instead blame the 64% of voters who, had they bothered to vote, might have rendered the Koch Bros investment money wasted.
2
My surmise is that the death of the Tea Party and fellow travelers of the far right is greatly exaggerated. Leopards do not change spots, even as candidates such as Cory Gardner proclaim, "Spots? What spots? I don't see any spots." With a potential list of 2016 presidential candidates that range from very conservative (Jeb Bush) to religiously conservative (Mike Huckabee) to libertarian conservative (Rand Paul) to wacky conservative (Ted Cruz) the Republican Party continues to look pretty scary - indeed much too scary for traditional Blue state voters (yes, those 220-230 electoral votes) to literally risk their lives by taking any chances.
9
Before Ted Cruz came along, didn't we think it was Rand Paul who was the wacky conservative?? He now looks almost normal in comparison. Perhaps I should pray to the Aqua Buddha for guidance on all this -- it is so confusing.
3
I live in Colorado and was front seat witness to Cory Gardner's election. There's a few things the above article leaves out:
1. Mark Udall blew it. Instead of running on his record and it's successes, he ran from it. Instead of pointing out that the economy under Obama has recovered, therefore he chose the correct path for Colorado, he ran from his association with Obama. Obama carried the state in 2012. It would have worked.
2. We Coloradans endured month after tedious month of negative TV ads every night for 7 or 8 months straight. It was worse than sitting in a dentist's chair and getting a root canal without novocaine. Udall's ads about Gardner were awful. All negative, scare tactic stuff. A little bit of that stuff works but not to the extent that Udall's campaign did it. On the other hand, Cory Gardner's ads were positive and upbeat, showing him as a good father, a good businessman, etc. Even the hardcore liberals were tired of those ads.
3. The seat Cory Gardner was running for was a senate seat, meaning every Coloradan voted for his seat (not a district by district election). On the same ballot was the Governor's race, also a statewide race. Mark Udall received 944,203 votes. John Hickenlooper is a liberal Democrat who ran for Governor. "Hick" received 1,006,433 votes. That means that 62,230 people walked in a voting booth that day and voted for Hickenlooper, but did not vote for Udall on the same ballot. That says a lot about Udall's lack of likeability.
1. Mark Udall blew it. Instead of running on his record and it's successes, he ran from it. Instead of pointing out that the economy under Obama has recovered, therefore he chose the correct path for Colorado, he ran from his association with Obama. Obama carried the state in 2012. It would have worked.
2. We Coloradans endured month after tedious month of negative TV ads every night for 7 or 8 months straight. It was worse than sitting in a dentist's chair and getting a root canal without novocaine. Udall's ads about Gardner were awful. All negative, scare tactic stuff. A little bit of that stuff works but not to the extent that Udall's campaign did it. On the other hand, Cory Gardner's ads were positive and upbeat, showing him as a good father, a good businessman, etc. Even the hardcore liberals were tired of those ads.
3. The seat Cory Gardner was running for was a senate seat, meaning every Coloradan voted for his seat (not a district by district election). On the same ballot was the Governor's race, also a statewide race. Mark Udall received 944,203 votes. John Hickenlooper is a liberal Democrat who ran for Governor. "Hick" received 1,006,433 votes. That means that 62,230 people walked in a voting booth that day and voted for Hickenlooper, but did not vote for Udall on the same ballot. That says a lot about Udall's lack of likeability.
9
Senator Gardner's election is an interesting psychological and ideological profile of voters willing to choose a candidate, apparently without any concern about integrity, who for obvious political reasons merely pledges to renounce his previous beliefs and positions on significant issues. How and why voters are motivated to do that is beyond me.
5
It is telling that the GOP's first priority is passing the Keystone XL Pipeline considering that there is currently an oil glut which is causing the stock market to jitter. Not to mention that the Koch Industries backed pipeline would only deliver oil via pipeline from Canada to Louisiana for the export market. This legislation would benefit Koch Industries by the tune of about 1 billion dollars while leaving the American environment vulnerable to devastation without any insurance for toxic clean-up other than the taxpayers.
While deceptive tactics such as supporting pro-choice rights and anti-discrimination legislation to woo the women and Hispanic voters may seem appealing, the minute that other issues are challenged such as gun control and a solid immigration bill the Republican party will surely splinter. Once progressive states like Colorado realize that a climate change denier, Jim Inhofe, is the new chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, with oversight of the EPA, expect even more splintering of the party. The GOP's mission is to gut the EPA and further more Koch Industries agenda since they are the primary galvanizers of the Tea Party Movement.
Then when news comes out about the GOP's plan to cut IRS funding while at the same time giving tax breaks to the 1% there will be some serious scrutiny at the driving force behind the party and it's ever changing subterfuge to the American people. Expect the thinly veiled pleasing facade to slowly peel away.
While deceptive tactics such as supporting pro-choice rights and anti-discrimination legislation to woo the women and Hispanic voters may seem appealing, the minute that other issues are challenged such as gun control and a solid immigration bill the Republican party will surely splinter. Once progressive states like Colorado realize that a climate change denier, Jim Inhofe, is the new chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, with oversight of the EPA, expect even more splintering of the party. The GOP's mission is to gut the EPA and further more Koch Industries agenda since they are the primary galvanizers of the Tea Party Movement.
Then when news comes out about the GOP's plan to cut IRS funding while at the same time giving tax breaks to the 1% there will be some serious scrutiny at the driving force behind the party and it's ever changing subterfuge to the American people. Expect the thinly veiled pleasing facade to slowly peel away.
9
It is telling that the GOP's first priority is passing the Keystone XL Pipeline considering that there is currently an oil glut which is causing the stock market to jitter. Not to mention that the Koch Industries backed pipeline would only deliver oil via pipeline from Canada to Louisiana for the export market. This legislation would benefit Koch Industries by the tune of about 1 billion dollars while leaving the American environment vulnerable to devastation without any insurance for toxic clean-up other than the taxpayers.
=======================
Koch Industries isn't involved in the Keystone XL project. They have not reserved any space on the pipeline if it is built.
Keystone will deliver petroleum to refineries in Texas. The refined product will then be sold where ever it will bring the most profit.
Transcanada, a Canadian company wants to spend billions in the US to build the pipeline. It's their money and their gamble.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/19/thom-hartman...
=======================
Koch Industries isn't involved in the Keystone XL project. They have not reserved any space on the pipeline if it is built.
Keystone will deliver petroleum to refineries in Texas. The refined product will then be sold where ever it will bring the most profit.
Transcanada, a Canadian company wants to spend billions in the US to build the pipeline. It's their money and their gamble.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/19/thom-hartman...
The single fact remains that we have a one party system. It includes both the Republican Party and Democratic Parties whose actions, in spite of so called philosophical differences, grow ever closer every minute. With Clinton and Obama moving the Democrats to the Right and GOP winners in liberal states moving Left, it's a toxic brew in which only the 1% get representation and the rest of us get to bail out the banks or Wall Street when the risky players club arranges another financial collapse.
1
Republican strength is (has been) based on a combination of single issue voters such as anti-abortionists, anti-tax increase for anything, anti-gun controlers, and closet racists. To sum these, the Tea-Party and the rabid Christian Right.
The plain truth is that many are now aware that effective government needs funding. The Tea Party and the Christian Right are like ISIS: bring promise of order and righting perceived basic wrongs.But after a short time the reality is clear that extreamism cannot govern effectively.
Watch the platform battles and what they produce. Where will Norquist pop up in the near future? Watch the Republican states like mine start to fail to progress and have large deficits. Watch Republicans nationally react to tax reform and fixing Social Security.
Finally watch the squirm when Pope Francis calls out Catholic national political leaders. It's going to be fun.
The plain truth is that many are now aware that effective government needs funding. The Tea Party and the Christian Right are like ISIS: bring promise of order and righting perceived basic wrongs.But after a short time the reality is clear that extreamism cannot govern effectively.
Watch the platform battles and what they produce. Where will Norquist pop up in the near future? Watch the Republican states like mine start to fail to progress and have large deficits. Watch Republicans nationally react to tax reform and fixing Social Security.
Finally watch the squirm when Pope Francis calls out Catholic national political leaders. It's going to be fun.
6
All of the happy talk by the republicans sounds good on a 15 second sound bite, but Mitch McConnell destroyed the very same institution that he, and earlier republicans trashed. The house republicans have the "Hastert", read Tom Delay, rule. The free and open amendment process he speaks of has been known to raise taxes and lower them in the same bill. In my state the republican governor and Dollar Store senator did all the happy face things, and then it is back to the business of crony republicanism.
Mr Edsall is often optimistic about the goons and bullies in the republican party, as well as the immature moral thuggery of the Ayn Rand wing of the party. He is a reasonably bright man, so it is difficult to see how he comes to these types of columns.
Mr Edsall is often optimistic about the goons and bullies in the republican party, as well as the immature moral thuggery of the Ayn Rand wing of the party. He is a reasonably bright man, so it is difficult to see how he comes to these types of columns.
10
The job of the press these days isn't to inform but to show us all how impartial they can be. Giving substance to the right wing is the current way they do this.
Without a vital and free press we will not long retain our democracy.
Without a vital and free press we will not long retain our democracy.
1
Gardner won by outspending his opponent 4-to-1 with tremendous financial support from the FarRight outside Colorado, plus endorsement by the Denver Post which caved to pressure from pro-fracking BigOil interests. Gardner's win should be recognised as a result of the Citizens United effect on turning American democracy into buy-an-election democracy, not misconstrued as an accurate reflection of the policy preferences of Coloradoans.
11
I always mistrust any candidate who suddenly dumps all of his well-known positions and replaces them with an impeccable grin, well-coiffed hair, and an almost fanatical avoidance at answering any questions in favor of flashing that happy face and instead spouting his messages. He was -- and is -- as slick as they come. Consider that he beat one of the more substantive and thoughtful senators that we had. In the next six years, I think Coloradans will finally get to see who they really elected.
12
The barn coat and staged ad set in the mountains were a real howler for me. Cory comes from a business family in a dying town on the eastern plains of Colorado. His only interest in the environment is how to extract more oil and gas from it.
I happened to catch the Udall-Cory debates on C-Span, and after watching it I had a hunch Senator Udall was toast. When asked whether he supported Obama's policies on whatever, Udall answered, "I support what is right for Colorado," completely side-stepping the question.
Now Americans don't pay much attention to the issues, really, but to their credit they can spot awkward body language, absence of integrity and disloyalty a mile away. Udall's responses were awful, implicit agreement with Fox News propaganda, when in fact President Obama is one of the best Presidents we've ever had. If Udall had given full-throated support to the President's policies, and the President in particular, I believe he would have won. In fact I think Democrats should had turned the Republican message around and said, "I think the President has been doing a fantastic job considering the crappy hand he was dealt, and if you agree, vote for me." Most voters are in the middle, and most voters don't know what to think, but President Obama had a hefty 40 percent approval rating compared to Congress's meager 9, and strategists who did not even try to catch the wind in those sails left their candidates dead in the water.
Americans don't pay much attention to the issues, but they do pay attention to candidates who are comfortable in their own skin, unapologetic and passionate about their Democratic values. And Americans don't like it when candidates don't stand up to loud-mouthed, right-wing bullies.
Now Americans don't pay much attention to the issues, really, but to their credit they can spot awkward body language, absence of integrity and disloyalty a mile away. Udall's responses were awful, implicit agreement with Fox News propaganda, when in fact President Obama is one of the best Presidents we've ever had. If Udall had given full-throated support to the President's policies, and the President in particular, I believe he would have won. In fact I think Democrats should had turned the Republican message around and said, "I think the President has been doing a fantastic job considering the crappy hand he was dealt, and if you agree, vote for me." Most voters are in the middle, and most voters don't know what to think, but President Obama had a hefty 40 percent approval rating compared to Congress's meager 9, and strategists who did not even try to catch the wind in those sails left their candidates dead in the water.
Americans don't pay much attention to the issues, but they do pay attention to candidates who are comfortable in their own skin, unapologetic and passionate about their Democratic values. And Americans don't like it when candidates don't stand up to loud-mouthed, right-wing bullies.
11
So how did Cory come off in the debate? Did he sound like he was confident and committed to his views?
I was asked to make phone calls for Udall. I did once but as I watched him try to avoid being a democrat I decided that if he could not show his voters why they should vote for him I wasn't going to be able to it in a phone call.
You are right as rain, Democrats who ran away from their, and their President's, accomplishments got hammered.
You are right as rain, Democrats who ran away from their, and their President's, accomplishments got hammered.
5
Certainly a columnist may identify himself as a supporter of one party or another, and write on its behalf. No one, for example, could possibly miss that Paul Krugman generally supports the Democrats. But that isn't Krugman's main or even a major focus of his writing. He brings his expertise in economics to his popular writing on global economic, social and political problems. What does Edsall bring to his writing? Very little that I can see. It typically serves the interest of conservatives, even though it's often dressed out with quotes from academic work, some questionable demographics, etc. It often is an explicit attack on Democrats. In short, it's propaganda. Why does the Times permit this?
4
What? I read most of Edsall's pieces, and that is certainly not the impression I get. Perhaps you have mistaken him for Douthat or Brooks?
2
Has Edsall changed his prescriptions or something? First he wastes a column touting Jim Webb, of all people; and now he caps this silly piece with a presentation of Mitch McConnell as a thoughtful, reasonable person.
For a moment I thought I'd somehow wandered from the New York Times website to the Washington Times'.
For a moment I thought I'd somehow wandered from the New York Times website to the Washington Times'.
29
An insightful and well researched piece. Thanks again, Dr Edsall.
3
"Gardner prevailed by jettisoning most of his own conservative baggage. ...Gardner won a tough election against the Democratic incumbent Mark Udall by shifting left on both immigration and social issues like abortion and contraception."
If Gardner had doubled down on Tea Party fanaticism, he might not have won. But the critical factor that made him attractive is his personality, whereas Udall appeared pandering to women; then he can easily turn off voters with his unimpressive personality & demeanor. Likability & Charisma matter so much and often critical in politics, especially.
People still thrive in politics without a lot of charisma. Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush became presidents. Richard Nixon with very little charisma had a landslide win in 1972. Whereas, sheer charisma of George W Mush catapulted him both in 2000 and 2004. Reporters were unusually easy on him. They had been hard on Bill Clinton, Nixon, Bush-41 & Carter. They are unsympathetic to president Obama, but here his skin color & passivity hurt him, though he is unusually impressive and quite charismatic, factors that made him a shining star to win white votes in droves.
If Gardner had doubled down on Tea Party fanaticism, he might not have won. But the critical factor that made him attractive is his personality, whereas Udall appeared pandering to women; then he can easily turn off voters with his unimpressive personality & demeanor. Likability & Charisma matter so much and often critical in politics, especially.
People still thrive in politics without a lot of charisma. Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush became presidents. Richard Nixon with very little charisma had a landslide win in 1972. Whereas, sheer charisma of George W Mush catapulted him both in 2000 and 2004. Reporters were unusually easy on him. They had been hard on Bill Clinton, Nixon, Bush-41 & Carter. They are unsympathetic to president Obama, but here his skin color & passivity hurt him, though he is unusually impressive and quite charismatic, factors that made him a shining star to win white votes in droves.
9
"Likability & Charisma matter so much and often critical in politics, especially." In other words, we elect salesmen when we need statesmen?
I have a brother who has excelled in sales. Boy can he turn on the snow job with the best of them. I've met few in my 66 years who can turn it off more frequently and cynically once there's no sale in the balance.
I have a brother who has excelled in sales. Boy can he turn on the snow job with the best of them. I've met few in my 66 years who can turn it off more frequently and cynically once there's no sale in the balance.
1
DMC,
It's not that simple. But salesmanship helps, unfortunately. But you also know, the typical salesman "can turn it off more frequently and cynically once there's no sale in the balance." That lack of sincerity also catches on. And such pure salesman do not make it to leadership, which involves a lot more. Nevertheless, insincere leaders abound and some of them make it tot he top to the detriment of humanity.
It's not that simple. But salesmanship helps, unfortunately. But you also know, the typical salesman "can turn it off more frequently and cynically once there's no sale in the balance." That lack of sincerity also catches on. And such pure salesman do not make it to leadership, which involves a lot more. Nevertheless, insincere leaders abound and some of them make it tot he top to the detriment of humanity.
1
But did Gardner really switch? I don't think so. I think his hard core conservative beliefs are still there. If there is a SCOTUS opening, he wants a judge that will outlaw abortion. As with all politicians, he "bends" his position to get votes. But in the end, in the Senate, he will vote his core beliefs. And he is a hard right conservative at his core. Any moderate who voted for Gardner will be disappointed.
32
Exactly. The columnist seems to be giving him props for "flip-flopping." Bad enough, but he basically tricked a bunch of white people into voting for him, who believed he had "evolved."What a sham.
1
The examples in this piece are all Senators, whose districts cannot be gerrymandered. In most Red States, most House Districts are essentially "rotten boroughs" which makes the Republican primary the only election that counts. Ask Eric Cantor. The Tea Party still holds sway in these primaries.
This is the impetus behind the Tea Party efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment, which would put Senate seats under control of the equally gerrymandered state legislatures.
This is the impetus behind the Tea Party efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment, which would put Senate seats under control of the equally gerrymandered state legislatures.
23
Not even the NY Times can bring itself to believe in the gerrymander canard anymore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupi...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/its-the-geography-stupi...
Right of center? Far right only representing the interests of the 1% is more accurate.
What about the Democrats? A little to the right of center mostly representing the interests of the 1% but at least throwing a bone to everyone else once in awhile.
Great representative democracy. The best money can buy.
What about the Democrats? A little to the right of center mostly representing the interests of the 1% but at least throwing a bone to everyone else once in awhile.
Great representative democracy. The best money can buy.
54
Indeed, measured by international norms Republicans are so far right that there is no space left any more.
And yes, Democrats are a tad right of center.
But despite their at least throwing a bone to everyone else once awhile, those that need that bone the most are made to believe that Democrats- and especially the man O. at the top - are evil socialists, if not even commies, out to destroy "their" country they see in their dreams.
And yes, Democrats are a tad right of center.
But despite their at least throwing a bone to everyone else once awhile, those that need that bone the most are made to believe that Democrats- and especially the man O. at the top - are evil socialists, if not even commies, out to destroy "their" country they see in their dreams.
4
Edsall mentioned the 83-13 win for Gardner among evangelical Christians, but didn't mention that Sen. Udall carried everybody else by 20 points, and the election was partly determined by the "everybody else" not voting in enough numbers to overcome the 83-13 massacre among about 20% of the voting electorate. I hope Sen. Gardner truly represents everyone rather than the 1 out of 5 people that ultimately got him to office.
43
Let me take the opportunity again to clarify something: evangelical [the term is meaningless when used as it commonly is] Christians are NOT, I repeat, NOT automatically Republicans. Try to imagine it in this fashion. Imagine a list of political issues, let's say totally 50. Of the 50, most of us evangelical Christians [who understand what evangelical actually means] will probably agree with 48, though that 47th, capital punishment, might be a bit dicey, too. The two will be abortion and homosexual/sodomite "rights."
Now, imagine if you will this radical eventuality. The Dems take those two planks out of their platform and accept the legitimate differences about capital punishment.
Were that the case, the Democratic party would garner a majority that would be undefeated for the entire next generation! Republicanism would be relegated to a splinter group in the political wasteland and [true] liberalism would prevail for at least 50 years.
Ah, but alas, such an eventuality will NEVER happen, for the Democratic party has been hijacked for the last 40 years by the extremist homosexual class and the ultra liberal baby killer crowd. Let them continue to believe what they will, but remove the two issues from the party platform and you win unanimously for at least one whole generation.
But my advice is to those like me who might wish to see such a thing so that I don't have to surrender my morals and my faith to be in a political party, do not wait up for this.
Now, imagine if you will this radical eventuality. The Dems take those two planks out of their platform and accept the legitimate differences about capital punishment.
Were that the case, the Democratic party would garner a majority that would be undefeated for the entire next generation! Republicanism would be relegated to a splinter group in the political wasteland and [true] liberalism would prevail for at least 50 years.
Ah, but alas, such an eventuality will NEVER happen, for the Democratic party has been hijacked for the last 40 years by the extremist homosexual class and the ultra liberal baby killer crowd. Let them continue to believe what they will, but remove the two issues from the party platform and you win unanimously for at least one whole generation.
But my advice is to those like me who might wish to see such a thing so that I don't have to surrender my morals and my faith to be in a political party, do not wait up for this.
1
Victor,
You make some interesting points. So you are definitely a "social conservative," not a business conservative ("country club conservative").
The article shows that the Republican Party is not a sure defender of your priorities. I believe the Roe vs. Wade decision allowed Reagan to forge the odd coalition between social and business conservatives. It's been said that whenever a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court, Republican strategists hope a conservative will get it, but they pray he won't overturn Roe vs. Wade! Roe vs. Wade makes it possible for business conservatives to vote for social conservatives, since they figure the decision will protect women's choice.
Eventually the American people will have to decide what they want about abortion rights. I doubt the decision will turn out in agreement with your position.
You make some interesting points. So you are definitely a "social conservative," not a business conservative ("country club conservative").
The article shows that the Republican Party is not a sure defender of your priorities. I believe the Roe vs. Wade decision allowed Reagan to forge the odd coalition between social and business conservatives. It's been said that whenever a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court, Republican strategists hope a conservative will get it, but they pray he won't overturn Roe vs. Wade! Roe vs. Wade makes it possible for business conservatives to vote for social conservatives, since they figure the decision will protect women's choice.
Eventually the American people will have to decide what they want about abortion rights. I doubt the decision will turn out in agreement with your position.
I think Dr Jekyll will revert to Mr Hyde once it's time to cast votes. Many voters and institutions in Colorado were taken in by Dr Jekyll's sunny disposition and unflappable demeanor, even when all but being called a liar by a moderator during a debate with Senator Udall.
57
Blah blah blah.
Mr. Edsell, if you really believe McConnell is sincere about "restoring" the institution he purposefully destroyed then there's a bridge in Brooklyn you should definitely check out.
Mr. Edsell, if you really believe McConnell is sincere about "restoring" the institution he purposefully destroyed then there's a bridge in Brooklyn you should definitely check out.
91
Did Edsall say he believed McConnell? Jut because you repeat a statement as part of your analysis does not mean you agree with the statement.
2
This analysis could not be more wrong. The GOP won a massive victory in November due to Conservative voters coming out in force to stop the Obama overreach. The establishment GOP thinks THEY won. They think we voted for them to work with Obama.."to get things done". No. They were elected to reverse the "ratcheting effect".
And the fact that Boehner won the speakership again is very telling of this disconnect between the GOP and their conservative base. They will lose in 2016 if they act like Democrats. If we get another McLame and Romney, say hello to president Hillary.
And the fact that Boehner won the speakership again is very telling of this disconnect between the GOP and their conservative base. They will lose in 2016 if they act like Democrats. If we get another McLame and Romney, say hello to president Hillary.
7
The total, total mind you, number of votes cast for Republicans who won Senate seats in those contested races to gain the majority was 4,800,000 votes (about the size of the Dallas metroplex) or 1.5% of the population of the U.S. An overwhelming Republian wave? Not likely.
3
Since only 36% of registered voters actually went to the polls (and IF these candidates were elected by let's say a 53 - 47% or 6 point margin, then a whopping 19% of the eligible voters elected this current crop) calling this a "massive victory" is a typical TP overstatement not backed up by FACTS.
2
Cjmesq0 - Prepare to "start saying hello to President Hillary" regardless of what this GOP Congress with it's "massive victory" manages to botch over the next 2 years.
1
"Gardner prevailed by jettisoning most of his own conservative baggage"
In other words, he has no core convictions and will say anything he needs to to get elected, and pundit Edsall thinks presents this as a positive model.
In other words, he has no core convictions and will say anything he needs to to get elected, and pundit Edsall thinks presents this as a positive model.
83
Lynn: You've just described the archetypal career politicians we have at the Federal (and State) level. My surprise is that....you seem surprised? Not to paint a broad brush regarding the breed but a career politician is the very definition of a hypocrite. They are all surface no core. But don't think I'm being overly critical concerning them because...really....who elects them to office, eh? Are they not a reflection of those who elect them? Their constituency? Heh!
It is what it is.
John~
American Net'Zen
It is what it is.
John~
American Net'Zen
It wasn't my impression that Mr. Edsall was touting this "as a positive model," but rather observing that Mr. Gardner's changing positions on far right dogma (immigration, abortion, etc.) actually didn't hurt him with far right voters who could have chosen to stay home on election day if put off by his "softened" policy positions.
1
It will be interesting to see if McConnell can carry the day. If he does, good for him. However, the first paragraphs about Gardner are correct. "Gardner radically altered his ideological self-positioning" is just another way of describing the Republican two step. In the primaries, step to the right to satisfy the base and in the general election, step to the left to get elected. The problem lies in what he does with his votes after he is elected and invariably, he votes right and hopes the general electorate does not notice or has a short memory.
35
Edsall usually emphasizes the white middle income base of the Republicans. Of course, they no more live by their social policy than those who voted against Al Smith in 1928 on prohibition and forgot about it when given an economic choice in 1932. But the knock on immigration is that it and outsourcing are the major source of income inegalitarianism. Does Edsall really mean that the Republicans should embrace it?
Pope Framcis, and likely the Catholic Republican nominee Chris Christie have the answer on social issues. Say they have their position, but it is not to be imposed by the state.
Pope Framcis, and likely the Catholic Republican nominee Chris Christie have the answer on social issues. Say they have their position, but it is not to be imposed by the state.
1
The Edmonton Oilers have become the perennial last-place NHL team. If they suddenly announced after 8 years in the cellar that they were better, would anyone believe them? In CO, the GOP announced that one candidate was going to be better on social issues than either his party or he had been for 8 years, why would we swallow that? The Oilers and the GOP talk of improvements we have little reason to expect any time soon. Are they getting better players and coaches -- or just better baloney to sell?
66
A comparison of the exit poll data is revealing indeed, but perhaps not in the sense that Mr. Edsall suggests. Last November Mr. Gardner beat Mr. Udall by a margin of 39,700 votes (in round numbers), or about 2% of the 2 million votes cast--not a landslide by any means. However, Mr. Gardner did spectacularly well with white evangelical and born-again Christian voters, 83% of whom (423,500) voted Republican. A bit of simple arithmetic, using the figures in Mr. Edsall’s article, shows there has been an increase since 2010 of 93,500 such Christians voting Republican. That is 2.4 times the lead by which Mr. Gardner won the election.
This seems more than adequate to explain Mr. Gardner' victory; far more than Mr. Gardner’s seducing swing voters by softening his once unbending conservatism. Contrary to Mr. Edsall's contention, it appears that the Republican Party still depends very greatly on mobilizing the hard-shell right wing of its base.
This seems more than adequate to explain Mr. Gardner' victory; far more than Mr. Gardner’s seducing swing voters by softening his once unbending conservatism. Contrary to Mr. Edsall's contention, it appears that the Republican Party still depends very greatly on mobilizing the hard-shell right wing of its base.
78
Agree with your conclusion - and it corresponds to national trends regarding partisan sorting and ideological consistency being on the increase in the past few decades as well. Conservatives are more likely to consistently support Republicans and vice versa for Democrats - nothing really too counterintuitive here.
5
If Congress adhered to the first amendment prohibition of faith based legislation, religion would be a moot issue in the US.
2
Mr. Louder, you say that "Contrary to Mr. Edsall's contention, it appears that the Republican Party still depends very greatly on mobilizing the hard-shell right wing of its base," but Edsall specifically states "These maneuvers did not cost Gardner support from the Republican Party base." So, contrary to what contention?
Isn't that so very, very nice. An extremist far left liberal is so concerned with the Republicans doing well in election he is offering them, ah, advice, on how to be, liberal Demokrats.
3
I'm assuming your "moderateGuy" nym was adopted ironically.
3
Yes, very "moderate" to label liberals as "far left" and "Demokrats".
But we both have one thing in common, our online ID's show what we aren't, as in I'm not a real royalty type of "King".
But we both have one thing in common, our online ID's show what we aren't, as in I'm not a real royalty type of "King".
2
Cory Gardner is a tool of the tea party, his election strategy notwithstanding. Colorado gave up a seasoned and accomplished statesman for this. Time will tell if those who voted for Gardner will wise up to the magnitude of their error.
118
A more difficult question: The Republicans have fought their battles: while many will never support Republican positions, those positions will not be as heavily influenced by Tea Party demands. The Republicans will tack closer to the center. Yet that 'center' is seen as far-right, extreme fringe by a significant portion of the Democratic party. Can the Democrats reign in their fringe as the Reps have seemed to), or do they even see that fringe far left as a problem? If not, their harder battles, and probable loses, are still ahead.
3
I can cite numerous examples of Republicans on the fringe ... Cruz, Issa, King, Bachmann, Palin, Brownback, De Mint, etc. etc. It's too easy, and I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee
Please cite for me some equivalent examples of "Democrats on the Fringe." I'd be interested in your list ...
Please cite for me some equivalent examples of "Democrats on the Fringe." I'd be interested in your list ...
7
This political opinion, reinforced by party and media propaganda, is untenable. There is no "fringe far left" in the United States.
7
Democrats 'far left fringe'? Who are you talking about exactly?
7
What you call "shifting left" others might call "lying." We'll see how he votes.
293
The so-called moderate republican is a rare bird indeed and they almost always vote the GOP agenda lock, stock and barrel.
1
Implosion of the Tea Party? I think not.
For example. A few weeks ago the liberal pundits were telling us that Kansas so hated tax cuts that the Democrats were going to win the state. They didn't.
Since the formation of the Tea Party the GOP has taken both houses of Congress and a majority of statehouses. If anyone is imploding it is the Obama and the far left Democrats.
For example. A few weeks ago the liberal pundits were telling us that Kansas so hated tax cuts that the Democrats were going to win the state. They didn't.
Since the formation of the Tea Party the GOP has taken both houses of Congress and a majority of statehouses. If anyone is imploding it is the Obama and the far left Democrats.
6
That proposal on over-the-counter oral contraceptives? As soon as he got elected, Senator Gardner forgot all about it. He has admitted that he has no plans to push it in office: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/9/over-the-counter-contrace...
Worth noting if you're going to argue that he moved so far to the center on social issues just by citing this one proposal that he repeated ad nauseam.
Worth noting if you're going to argue that he moved so far to the center on social issues just by citing this one proposal that he repeated ad nauseam.
70
Tom,
So nice of you to advise the GOP. How about telling the Democrats to rid themselves of Al Sharpton and Bill de Blasio and other enemies of law enforcement?
So nice of you to advise the GOP. How about telling the Democrats to rid themselves of Al Sharpton and Bill de Blasio and other enemies of law enforcement?
2
The non office holding, Al Sharpton, really has the right in a tizzy, doesn't he? No matter what the column is about, his name is thrown in by some commentators. As for you assertion that he and Bill de Blasio are the "enemies" of law enforcement, did you have a similar complaint about Nevada's Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, and Republican Senator Dean Heller? Those two praised the law breakers out on the Cliven Bundy ranch who pointed guns at LE. Two of the attendees, you will remember, went on to shoot to death two Las Vegas cops while they were eating lunch and then covered their bodies with a Gadsden Flag. Crickets about this from the right. Such hypocrisy.
9
Gardner has talked the talk in order to get elected. Everyone will be watching him to see if he walks the walk. I have my doubts.
23
The problem is too many people will NOT be watching to see if he walks the walk. So many Americans only pay attention for a few days before the election, and the go back to sleep for another two years.
3
The problem is too many people will NOT be watching to see if he walks the walk. So many Americans only pay attention for a few days before the election, and the go back to sleep for another two years.
Very good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a Republican moderate platform.
I think the experience of Republican governor Pete Wilson in California in the 1990s is instructive. He was "pro choice" on abortion and other social issues while balancing the budget and holding the line on tax increases. When the Republicans adopt a national position of staying out of peoples' personal lives while holding taxes flat and balancing budgets, they will have a winning bedrock platform.
The irony of the current politics is that the obstreperous Tea Party is the ticket to more "too far left" liberal legislation and government intervention.
I think the experience of Republican governor Pete Wilson in California in the 1990s is instructive. He was "pro choice" on abortion and other social issues while balancing the budget and holding the line on tax increases. When the Republicans adopt a national position of staying out of peoples' personal lives while holding taxes flat and balancing budgets, they will have a winning bedrock platform.
The irony of the current politics is that the obstreperous Tea Party is the ticket to more "too far left" liberal legislation and government intervention.
"Holding taxes flat and balancing budgets" implies that you're in favor of huge cuts in benefits and services. Which of the ones that benefit you personally are you willing to see reduced?
105
Let's see what they do with Social Security and Medicare. I don't trust 'em.
89
Let's see if all those senior voters who voted GOP feel when the government is off the backs of their SS & Medicare benefits.
2
Yes, that's what I meant
I take two messages from this report.
1. When citizens who favor Democratic Party visionary ideals and accomplishments fail to bother voting, the results are easily predictable.
2. That said, when the Democratic Party runs away from its own ideals, achievements and leaders or some illusory tactical gain, it is small wonder that those inclined to support it turn away in dismayed disgust, leaving any such gain pure illusion.
I present myself as Exhibit A for message #2.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1. When citizens who favor Democratic Party visionary ideals and accomplishments fail to bother voting, the results are easily predictable.
2. That said, when the Democratic Party runs away from its own ideals, achievements and leaders or some illusory tactical gain, it is small wonder that those inclined to support it turn away in dismayed disgust, leaving any such gain pure illusion.
I present myself as Exhibit A for message #2.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
48
Mr. Edsall writes: "He abandoned his past opposition to liberal immigration policies."
It would be more accurate to say he tacked towards the middle on immigration. DACA and citizenship for illegal immigrants in the armed forces amount to numbers in the very low millions.
Contrast that to the (thank heaven) dead Senate immigration bill, which would have nearly tripled legal immigration, to close to 3 million annually, or 1.5 New York State equivalents per decade, while doing nothing effective to stop illegal immigration. With 18 million Americans currently looking for work and millions more who have given up looking for work, that Senate bill was irresponsible (unfortunately the NYT never analyzed that bill).
I'm a liberal Democrat (voted twice for Clinton and O, and once for Gore and Kerry; helped put Eliz Warren and Edw Markey in the Senate), but I ***might*** have voted for Gardner just because my party has been throwing its traditional base, working Americans, under the bus with its support of such massive numbers of immigrants.
To put it metaphorically, the sheer numbers of immigrants are giving the country indigestion.
It would be more accurate to say he tacked towards the middle on immigration. DACA and citizenship for illegal immigrants in the armed forces amount to numbers in the very low millions.
Contrast that to the (thank heaven) dead Senate immigration bill, which would have nearly tripled legal immigration, to close to 3 million annually, or 1.5 New York State equivalents per decade, while doing nothing effective to stop illegal immigration. With 18 million Americans currently looking for work and millions more who have given up looking for work, that Senate bill was irresponsible (unfortunately the NYT never analyzed that bill).
I'm a liberal Democrat (voted twice for Clinton and O, and once for Gore and Kerry; helped put Eliz Warren and Edw Markey in the Senate), but I ***might*** have voted for Gardner just because my party has been throwing its traditional base, working Americans, under the bus with its support of such massive numbers of immigrants.
To put it metaphorically, the sheer numbers of immigrants are giving the country indigestion.
13
This whole immigration hysteria is way out of proportion. If one believes the statistic that there are possibly 12 million undocumented residents here in a country of 320 million that means less than 4 out every 100 is undocumented. Stealing jobs from Americans? The seasonal farm worker, the industrial factory farm workers, housekeepers, day laborers, gardeners, nannies working in harsh conditions, with little protection and all for minimum wage or less is threatening your employment chances or your child's. Think hard people.
6
Hysteria and hyperbole. The often-cited figure of 11 million undocumented is a bit more than 3 percent of the population.
Or about as many credentialed scientists who dispute climate change.
Yep, massive.
Or about as many credentialed scientists who dispute climate change.
Yep, massive.
1
Edsal's columns in recent weeks have been thoughtful and refreshing, especially for insights about the Democrats. I welcome his hands-on perspectives, rather than the more abstract theorizing delivered by too many of his editorial colleagues.
1
I personally believe that Republicans and America generally owe a great deal to the Tea Party. At a time when the potential for runaway liberal excess was high, the Tea Party rose to limit it, and it was extremely effective at doing that for as long as was needed.
Having written that, I would hope that it IS time we returned to regular order of sorts, and a willingness and capacity to compromise and thereby move forward. That would suggest that it's time to deemphasize the Tea Party as having accomplished its purpose. But I'd caution readers on one thing: it may NOT be the right time, because we haven't yet seen how liberals with the capacity to freeze us still will react to having been serially humiliated in electoral contests -- at federal, state and local levels.
Harry Reid killed hundreds of House bills in the Senate without allowing the debate that could have forged compromises -- including multiple budgets. With a filibuster power still in play, we'll see how he wields it. He may signal a willingness to compromise, but on the historical evidence this is not a man who knows how to do that. If he doesn't, then we won't be losing any Tea Party baggage at all, moderation of any kind will disappear from our governance, and the people will support it -- Gardner's shifts notwithstanding. But make no mistake about who will win: it won't be the far-left, not in America.
But there are positive signs. When Tom Edsall can write so realistic a piece, it's a banner day.
Having written that, I would hope that it IS time we returned to regular order of sorts, and a willingness and capacity to compromise and thereby move forward. That would suggest that it's time to deemphasize the Tea Party as having accomplished its purpose. But I'd caution readers on one thing: it may NOT be the right time, because we haven't yet seen how liberals with the capacity to freeze us still will react to having been serially humiliated in electoral contests -- at federal, state and local levels.
Harry Reid killed hundreds of House bills in the Senate without allowing the debate that could have forged compromises -- including multiple budgets. With a filibuster power still in play, we'll see how he wields it. He may signal a willingness to compromise, but on the historical evidence this is not a man who knows how to do that. If he doesn't, then we won't be losing any Tea Party baggage at all, moderation of any kind will disappear from our governance, and the people will support it -- Gardner's shifts notwithstanding. But make no mistake about who will win: it won't be the far-left, not in America.
But there are positive signs. When Tom Edsall can write so realistic a piece, it's a banner day.
5
So what you're saying, in effect, is that you don't want to see Harry Reid resort to the use of filibusters as often as Mitch McConnell did...?
144
stu:
No, what I'm saying is that it's really time that Harry Reid retired.
No, what I'm saying is that it's really time that Harry Reid retired.
1
Actually Stu, what Richard really is saying is "Do as we say, not as we do." To suggest that the Tea Party did this country a favor by stopping the excesses of liberalism and the country "owes" the Tea Party demonstrates not only a misunderstanding of those radical people but also the immense bubble that Richard lives in. To pre-criticize Harry Reid for future use of the filibuster after Mitch McConnell and his conservative minions used it a record number of times to prevent the fixes of conservative excess is ludicrous. Has it occurred to Richard that the reason why so many House bills never saw the light of day in the Senate is because Reid and the democrats there believed that the bills would cause enormous harm to the country? I mean, after all, the last time the repubs controlled the government -executive, legislative and judicial branches all- they started two wars, tanked the economy and sent the country into a Great Recession, squandered a huge budget surplus, and crashed the stock markets. So maybe its Harry Reid this country owes a debt of gratitude.
29
Thomas Edsall is usually so much smarter than he is here. To believe that the Republican party has jettisoned the Tea Party defies every bit of factual evidence; the simple truth is that the Republican party IS the Tea Party, and Mr. Edsall does a disservice to journalism and the country to claim otherwise.
138
For a truer picture of TP strength look at the state legislatures and governorship particularly in the South. Very scary.
3
michael green-- correct. part of the reason we are in this mess is the MSM attempts to be "fair and balanced." You cannot call today's GOP "conservative." They are right wing reactionaries, very much aligned with the John Birch Society and the MSM does not serve the public by not calling them what they are.
5
But Republicans have proven themselves repeatedly to be immune (and even hostile) to "factual evidence". So why should a pundit who's apparently smitten by the cleverness of a little false-flag election chicanery be any different?
I suspect that what Gardner really did was to disarm the opposition. By shifting left, he did not allow Democratic and Progressive voters to whip up the blind hatred so popular with right-wing voters. The Udall voters just were not mad enough and as a result did not show up to vote. No passion, no motivation to vote. The right-wing on the other hand is full of passion, and they did show up at the polls.
23
Republicans are not out from the doldrums of posturing to make a point, a cosmetic softening stance but no true sensible changes for the country's benefit. For McConnell to have to restrain some of his bellicose Tea Party members does not sound very promising, unless you count the new trial of defeating the ACA a positive move. If the 'tedcruzes' continue to sabotage the smooth functioning of Congress, no one knows yet the damage inflicted, the opportunities lost for progress. Politics is the art of the possible, and it requires compromise, a dirty word in G.O.P.'s lexicon.
21
"Politics is the art of the possible, and it requires compromise, a dirty word in G.O.P.'s lexicon." No, the word "compromise" is a dirty word in the Tea Party lexicon, not the whole GOP, and also a dirty word for the far left Democrats. I am one of those pesky Independent voters and a moderate. Both political parties, Democrat and Republican have drifted too far left and too far right. I believe in a two (at least) party system. I don't want a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican President, nor do I want a Congress and President controlled by Democrats.
I want my government to focus on what is best for my country by sitting down with each other, discussing and debating all potential bills presented, negotiation with each other and compromising with each other. Compromising means you have to give a little in order to get a little.
I want my government to focus on what is best for my country by sitting down with each other, discussing and debating all potential bills presented, negotiation with each other and compromising with each other. Compromising means you have to give a little in order to get a little.
1
Two things were proved in Gardner's campaign. First, Gardner would obviously say anything to get elected. Second, voters have terrible, short memories. Most of the people who voted for Gardner had no knowledge of his actions as a Representative, except perhaps in his own district.
In any case this is an example of how a politician changes his convictions; it is an example of how to get elected by misleading voters in a low turnout year.
Mr. Gardner can prove his change of heart away from reactionary right-wing ideology through his actions in Congress, but I am not holding my breath.
In any case this is an example of how a politician changes his convictions; it is an example of how to get elected by misleading voters in a low turnout year.
Mr. Gardner can prove his change of heart away from reactionary right-wing ideology through his actions in Congress, but I am not holding my breath.
147
Amen bro, thought exactly the same thing. A quick look at this past gives time to pause at his veracity.
2
In any case this is an example of how a politician changes his convictions; it is an example of how to get elected by misleading voters in a low turnout year.
=================
Actually, turnout in Colorado was higher than in 2010 and just behind that of 2012
=================
Actually, turnout in Colorado was higher than in 2010 and just behind that of 2012
This whole article is based on terrible logic. The Republicans did not 'win' the most recent election... the Dems (Obama, actually) lost it.
39
Once again, it's all Obama's fault. How very Republican of you. Blame goes to the whole party. Democratic candidates ran as far from Obama as they could, playing into Republican strategy. Then 2/3 of Democratic voters stayed home on election day.
4
Heh. So, that 114th Congress? Obama built that.
1
Arch's point that the dems lost the election may be valid, but the claim of "terrible logic" comes from shallow thinking. Reread the article with an open mind.
Gardner ran an outstanding campaign, although he was greatly helped by Udall's incredibly week campaign. Mark "Uterus" Udall basically ran on one issue, abortion, and had little if any depth on the other issues. The Gardner-Udall contest really stands in stark contrast where Hickenlooper beat Beauprez by 2.9%. This was virtually the sam victory margin that Hickenlooper had in 2010 if one combines the vote totals from the two Republican candidates. Whereas Gardner shaded his positions to the middle, Beauprez ran as much more of a conservative and paid the price.
3
The title is really humorous we the Tea Party are going nowhere, we continue to grow to the horror of all lieberals
4
....not to mention English teachers.
59
Then why, ron, the election losses? Because, yes, so-called tea partiers are going the way of the dinosaurs; thank goodness. Just look at the old, white faces in any crowd of tea sippers. Slowly, but steadily, dying off to make room for progress. No hard, right conservative (so-called) is the least bit tolerant unless they personally suffer need or pain. Then, suddenly, they experience an epiphany. The sooner this misguided tea party influence dies out, the sooner we, as a nation, can join the rest of the world. We have become exceptional only in our collective, willful ignorance.
7
Ron
What's even more humorous is that we liberals aren't going anywhere either, we'll continue fighting far-right efforts to destroy what's made this country great, a thriving middle class, economic policies which work for the vast majority of people-and not just those already at the top of the economic ladder-strong govt. regulations to rein in out of control corporations and industries, protecting the social safety net for the most vulnerable in our society, protecting the environment-and by extension those who suffer physically from easily-preventable air pollution, and a public education system that made the US such a juggernaut during and after WWII.
No elected legislator pulling a government paycheck can be taken seriously when decrying that same government spending they personally benefit from, none of the austerity fetishists/deficit scolds can be respected when they're not leading by example, inflicting the same exact financial pain & economic anxieties on themselves they insist on for everyone not already at the top of the financial ladder.
Besides, politics is cyclical, and with the Republican DNA encoded for inevitable overreach-Terri Schiavo, Elian Gonzalez, repealing minimum wage laws along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, trying to downplay the House's #3 member from his idiocy in allegedly not knowing he was speaking to a David Duke group-the GOP will be playing damage control for the next two years.
What's even more humorous is that we liberals aren't going anywhere either, we'll continue fighting far-right efforts to destroy what's made this country great, a thriving middle class, economic policies which work for the vast majority of people-and not just those already at the top of the economic ladder-strong govt. regulations to rein in out of control corporations and industries, protecting the social safety net for the most vulnerable in our society, protecting the environment-and by extension those who suffer physically from easily-preventable air pollution, and a public education system that made the US such a juggernaut during and after WWII.
No elected legislator pulling a government paycheck can be taken seriously when decrying that same government spending they personally benefit from, none of the austerity fetishists/deficit scolds can be respected when they're not leading by example, inflicting the same exact financial pain & economic anxieties on themselves they insist on for everyone not already at the top of the financial ladder.
Besides, politics is cyclical, and with the Republican DNA encoded for inevitable overreach-Terri Schiavo, Elian Gonzalez, repealing minimum wage laws along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, trying to downplay the House's #3 member from his idiocy in allegedly not knowing he was speaking to a David Duke group-the GOP will be playing damage control for the next two years.
3
This stunningly naive column takes everything Cory Gardner says at face value, then says he is "setting out to confront and subordinate the right wing of his party." Edsall, suspending disbelief, carries on with the notion that there's some kind of split in the Republican Party. Well, there isn't. The reactionaries have completely won. Perhaps Edsall can recall -- or perhaps he can't -- when many Republicans supported voting rights, abortion rights, environmental regulation and even labor unions. They were extinguished. But the party is not just far to the right of where it was in 1975; it's to the right of where it was in 2005. The mainstream media's refusal to acknowledge this allows people like Cory Gardner to dance around and pretend to be "moderates." Coloradans bought this. So have our dumber pundits.
266
Phillygirl--You have it nailed. This is why the present political scene is in fact scary. The right wing can easily move us towards fascism, as long as so called political experts believe these "shifts in position," instead of acknowledging them as tricekry. If the media can't see a strawman and point it out, how can voters be expected to do so?
2
"Stunningly naive," says everything we need to know about this column in two words. What we need to know, though, is why the NYT continues to print pundits who promote a Republican Party that has brought our federal government to a standstill.
3
Edsal can only find one example to support his thesis. The Tea Party elected six new Senators, Sullivan, Cotton, Lankford, Sass, Tillis, and Ernst. A 50% success rate for a movement that has been eulogized every year since 2011 is not too shabby.
38
And lets hope that every one of them comes to Washington with a big bag full of spanners to throw in the works.
Oh, come on, just as many people were voting for Gardner as a means of voting against Udall and the Democrats.
I live in Kansas, and don't know anyone who actually voted FOR Pat Roberts in the affirmative sense. We voted against having a Democratic senator and against Obama. Even Roberts' ads stressed so much.
I live in Kansas, and don't know anyone who actually voted FOR Pat Roberts in the affirmative sense. We voted against having a Democratic senator and against Obama. Even Roberts' ads stressed so much.
7
And now you have to live with it. Good luck.
107
Better than living with the alternative !
And look how well things are working out for you in Kansas.
31
The conservative tilt of the Congress is almost entirely the result of historical gerrymandering. That is, the effects of history are similar to the effects of gerrymandering.
Specifically, people have concentrated in urban areas. Most of them are blue (liberal, Democratic). In most states, there is a clear blue majority among voters but a strong red (conservative, Republican) majority among the house of representatives contingent.
This is because of a phenomenon spelled out in the NY Times' Upshot section a few weeks ago. The overwhelming blue majority in the city elects a few blue representatives, but the slight red majority in all the rural districts elects a lot of red ones. So, even though the state is slightly blue over all, the house districts are mostly red.
This is not what Madison and friends intended when they wrote the Constitution. They made the House terms short (two years) so they could reflect changes in public opinion quickly. Their idea was that each district would approximate the opinion distribution of the state. Changed opinion would result in changed representation.
It hasn't worked out that way. The solution is pie slice districts, with a part of the city and a part of the country. These districts really would reflect the state's opinion, and would result in fairer representation. States like California have established non-partisan citizen's committees to do re-districting. Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube for more ideas.
Specifically, people have concentrated in urban areas. Most of them are blue (liberal, Democratic). In most states, there is a clear blue majority among voters but a strong red (conservative, Republican) majority among the house of representatives contingent.
This is because of a phenomenon spelled out in the NY Times' Upshot section a few weeks ago. The overwhelming blue majority in the city elects a few blue representatives, but the slight red majority in all the rural districts elects a lot of red ones. So, even though the state is slightly blue over all, the house districts are mostly red.
This is not what Madison and friends intended when they wrote the Constitution. They made the House terms short (two years) so they could reflect changes in public opinion quickly. Their idea was that each district would approximate the opinion distribution of the state. Changed opinion would result in changed representation.
It hasn't worked out that way. The solution is pie slice districts, with a part of the city and a part of the country. These districts really would reflect the state's opinion, and would result in fairer representation. States like California have established non-partisan citizen's committees to do re-districting. Watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube for more ideas.
105
How about proportional representation, giving third parties a chance?
2
The conservative tilt of the Congress is almost entirely the result of historical gerrymandering. That is, the effects of history are similar to the effects of gerrymandering.
=====================
You can't gerrymander a Senate seat. It's a state-wide office
=====================
You can't gerrymander a Senate seat. It's a state-wide office
Add Citizens United to gerrymandering and this is the result. The republicans out spent Udall four to one. This is our future unless the supreme court levels the
playing field. Welcome to the oligarchy!
playing field. Welcome to the oligarchy!
3
The true question is whether republicans will give up their deep antagonism for Obama who is himself a middle of the road moderate and work with democrats in general. If they do not then it will be politics as usual.
As for Gardener this article says basically what I have said about him in the past that he attempted to take a middle road on social issues. Coloradans will be watching to see if he follows through on this. His true test will come when he is faced with such issues as social security and Medicare and whether he will give rubber stamp approval to tax decreases to the rich And whether he will sell out his middle class, Hispanic and lower class supporters. We will see.
As for Gardener this article says basically what I have said about him in the past that he attempted to take a middle road on social issues. Coloradans will be watching to see if he follows through on this. His true test will come when he is faced with such issues as social security and Medicare and whether he will give rubber stamp approval to tax decreases to the rich And whether he will sell out his middle class, Hispanic and lower class supporters. We will see.
58
Unfortunately the wait and see lasts 6 years. For the average dope voter in this country you might as well say infinity.
2
Obama is a middle of the road Republican and he will be happy to work with McConnell if he is given the chance.
1
Obama moderate? What planet are you living on? No moderate would host Al Sharpton over sixty times in the White House let alone have Bill Ayers for a friend.
2
"I don’t want the American people to think that if they add a Republican president to a Republican Congress, that’s going to be a scary outcome. I want the American people to be comfortable with the fact that the Republican House and Senate is a responsible, right-of-center, governing majority."
So, in other words, more GOP fantasy-making.
So, in other words, more GOP fantasy-making.
185
buck c - Yes, as C-SPAN caught Grover Norquist telling GOP'ers in 2012 " we just need a President to sign this stuff ", and " pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen ", since GOP'ers don't want a leader, just someone to sign the Ryan " magic asterisk " (hat tip Paul Krugman) budget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wYYX0mZsQA
Very scary indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wYYX0mZsQA
Very scary indeed.
33
Absolutely...a GOP dominated congress and a Republican president would indeed be a very scary development.
4
Let's not forget that it was then-Senate Minority Leader McConnell who declared "We're not going to work with this president" even before Mr. Obama was inaugurated. Now he'd have us believe he's going to be acting responsibly and in the best interests of the people. Or at least 1% of them.
214
Why should the GOP have worked with Obama in ramming socialized medicine down our throats?
3
Let's not forget that it was then-Senate Minority Leader McConnell who declared "We're not going to work with this president" even before Mr. Obama was inaugurated.
====================
Not true. McConnell's statement that he wanted Obama to be a one term president was made in October 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell...
====================
Not true. McConnell's statement that he wanted Obama to be a one term president was made in October 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell...
McConnell said both.
3
"Running statewide for the first time after representing largely conservative rural voters, Gardner radically altered his ideological self-positioning."
So, which time was he lying?
I don't for a second consider an election-time about face to be a principled reconsideration of world view.
His base didn't care, because they thought he was lying to Hispanics and liberals.
Liberals apparently believed he must have been lying to those conservatives all along.
Now he's going to have to show by his actions which it is. He can't play that game forever, it will be put up or shut up, one way or the other.
So, which time was he lying?
I don't for a second consider an election-time about face to be a principled reconsideration of world view.
His base didn't care, because they thought he was lying to Hispanics and liberals.
Liberals apparently believed he must have been lying to those conservatives all along.
Now he's going to have to show by his actions which it is. He can't play that game forever, it will be put up or shut up, one way or the other.
264
So, someone can't change their mind? Really? Then why do we try?
And, if he doesn't believe what he is now saying but is doing what the voters want, isn't that all matters?
How about Obama's enormous lies on everything from Health care to his multitude of scandals? Does that bother you, or are you ignorant of all that because you only watch the MSM and see/hear only what you want to see?
And, if he doesn't believe what he is now saying but is doing what the voters want, isn't that all matters?
How about Obama's enormous lies on everything from Health care to his multitude of scandals? Does that bother you, or are you ignorant of all that because you only watch the MSM and see/hear only what you want to see?
3
How comforting to know that, regardless of what the media tells us about "progressive" California, we can still count on it for a bumper crop of conservative loons. It's good to know that some things will never change.
So tell us about those "enormous lies," neighbor.
So tell us about those "enormous lies," neighbor.
13
To Straight Thinker-What multiple scandals? I guess that you only watch Fox News and actually missed the announcements that those "scandals "were dismissed as unsubstantiated by every committee. Darrel Isis spent millions of dollars and countless hours of wasted time uncovering nothing.
As for Health Care. The country needs single payer. Stop lining the pockets of the insurance companies. The Affordable Health Care is that compromise. If the Republicans don't destroy it (unlikely) they could move to improve it (very unlikely ). I suppose a country where millions die without health insurance is the Republican model. What a sad state our Congress has become.
As for Health Care. The country needs single payer. Stop lining the pockets of the insurance companies. The Affordable Health Care is that compromise. If the Republicans don't destroy it (unlikely) they could move to improve it (very unlikely ). I suppose a country where millions die without health insurance is the Republican model. What a sad state our Congress has become.
31