In short, “Bigotry is an opinion, and I’m allowed to have my opinion so you can’t hold it against me”
I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid [<- not an opinion]
Rightbug
2003
I sort of see it as a last man standing kind of thing ala Romney. No one seems to want Bush and I wonder if Rubio can win the nomination in a party that is beating the anti-Hispanic drum so hard at the moment. That leaves Kasich and maybe Christie as the only two viable candidates?
Timex
2004
What ends up being ridiculous is that these folks say that they are allowed to have biggotted opinions, but that simultaneously no one else is allowed to then believe they are bigots and call then on it.
It’s totally inconsistent.
It’s true that you have every right to believe that Muslims are bad. But then I have JUST as much right to believe that YOU are bad.
The real problem that these folks have, and why they are getting upset, is that they are a shrinking minority, and the people that condemn them is growing.
Well, too fucking bad for them.
Telefrog
2005
Agreed. The “You’re prejudiced against my prejudice!” call is the dumbest thing ever.
Pyperkub
2006
The ugly head of Citizens United:
The letter goes on to accuse Club for Growth of attempting a “shake-down” because Trump refused to donate $1 million to the group in exchange for its support.
I find it interesting that Trump is threatening to sue a Super PAC which is critical of him, but this tidbit really shows what a horrible decision Citizens United has been, and how much damage it does to our democratic institution by opening them up to even more corruption.
I have no trouble whatsoever believing this actually happened, either. IMHO, Super PACs are one of the most clear and present threats to our democratic republic.
Edit - apparently they actually made that request in writing I don’t think this is the last we’ve heard of this.
RichVR
2007
Welp, you convinced me. Newsletter, pls.
Edit: Not sarcasm.
Pyperkub
2008
Another way to put it is that 3 of the last 7 Presidents have lost their re-election campaigns (Ford/Carter/HW Bush).
Timex
2009
Well, when looking at his policy positions, are you apt to support any conservative policy positions? I mean, if you are on the left, then you are unlikely to really think most conservative positions are good. That’s why you aren’t a conservative.
That being said, I think it’s important to note that even in the list you provided there, the issues are perhaps a bit more nuanced than might appear from how you presented them.
For instance, as a prime example, voting against the “Violence against women act”. Well gosh darn! He must want violence against women! He’s a monster!
But no, it course not. That’s ridiculous.
We need to remember that law are always given silly names like that, essentially for PR purposes, and in many ways to result in the perception you are repeating… If you vote against this, it’s going to look like you are voting against women!
But then you look at the actual issues that rubio had to the bill, it seems way less monstrous. It’s not like he opposes funding programs to reduce domestic violence. He just thought that the funding should be given to the states and allow them to decide on the specific domestic violence programs to fund with it. Note, the money would still be going specifically to programs fighting domestic violence… But the changes he opposed to the bill funneled the money into specific federal programs and limited the states’ ability to decide on their own how to spend it. And then he opposed some other portion which let native Americans prosecute non native Americans on their reservations, which potentially had some issues in terms of constitutionality.
That’s not a crazy right wing position. It makes perhaps a great deal more sense, and is much more understandable, when is not boiled down to a soundbyte of, “Rubio voted for more violence against women!”
Why are those positions inherently conservative? Most are just a combination of stupidity or corruption. The Bush tax cuts were the #1 policy-based driver of deficits when Obama entered the WH. Did they spur job growth, economic growth? We went into the red to the tune of 100s of billions per year once they were enacted, yet job growth was 1/3 that of the 90s and its higher rates. Roe v Wade: aside from turning abortion into a social wedge issue in teh late 70s/early 80s, how is it conservative to have a pack of middle aged white men over in the state’s capitol telling women what medical procedures they should have access to regarding their private health care? I love shoving Exodus 21:22-25 at evangelicals on this issue. Physician, educate thyself. Having marijuana illegal in a society that sells alcoholic beverages is only the result of decades, even generations, of ignorant stigmatization, and I write this having never taken one hit of a joint in my entire life. Again, big ole’ govt telling people what they can or can’t have. Climate change? Do I really need to write anything here, other than willful ignorance or simply being in bed with corporate interests. Neither is good.
Someone like Rubio ushered into the halls of power by the Tea Party is hardly what I would call a conservative.
magnet
2012
Even when you cherry pick the most favorable time frame possible (last seven presidents, what??), it’s still a bad bet.
Ford wasn’t going to win two years after the Watergate scandal. Carter was beaten by a very able politician and was also undone by crazy inflation and the Iran hostages. Bush was beaten by a very able politician and was undone by a cratering economy.
So if Hilary is elected chances are she’s re-elected as long as the economy isn’t cratering or there isn’t some kind of major scandal attached to her.
Obama (reelected, then term limited)
W Bush (reelected, then term limited)
Clinton (reelected, then term limited)
HW Bush (lost reelection)
Reagan (reelected, then term limited)
<So far in our trip back through time, it looks pretty good for incumbents. But then…>
Carter (lost reelection)
Ford (lost)
Nixon (resigned)
LBJ (won first time, but quit race in '68 after bad primary result and amidst unpopularity)
Kennedy (died in office)
<Hmm, not such a good stretch there…>
Eisenhower (reelected, then term limited)
Truman (won first time, was eligible in '52 IIUC, didn’t run)
FDR (the gold standard for re-election - 3 times re-elected)
Hoover (lost reelection)
Coolidge (chose not to run for relection)
Harding (died in office)
Wilson (won reelection)
Taft (lost reelection)
Teddy Roosevelt (won first time)
So, a pretty mixed bag on reelections.
If we expand things to consider the PARTY staying in office, then we haven’t had too many long stretches with the same party:
2012: Dem
2008: Dem
2004: Rep
2000: Rep
1996: Dem
1992: Dem
1988: Rep
1984: Rep
1980: Rep
1976: Dem
1972: Rep
1968: Rep
1964: Dem
1960: Dem
1956: Rep
1952: Rep
1948: Dem
Out of seven post-Truman era elections in which the incumbent party has been in office for at least two terms, only once (1992) has the incumbent party seen its candidate elected.
Timex
2015
Steven Colbert is very subtly making fun of trump right to his face on his show. Talking about debt, Colbert says, “Can we just declare bankruptcy and not pay anyone back?”
I think the demise of the Republican Party in the New England, and the collapse of the Democrats in the South explains so much of this.
Jay Cost writing about the issue in 2002.
The Democrats abandoned positions that were popular across the country choosing to focus on the issues that resonated with suburban and urban America. Rather than focusing on what brought poor Americans together, they would focus on what made towns and cities different. They would embrace socially divisive issues.
The changes in the Republican Party mirrored those of the Democrats. The New Englanders wing simply died, and the leadership shifted to a younger generation of southerners. Where the Republicans once appealed to Americans across the country, they now focused on the countryside and the south. The South is not America and a party rooted in our culture will have great trouble getting anything done. And that’s not to say that we are unusually stubborn, or prone to ill will. It’s the regionalism which is the problem. Regional parties focus on issues which are broadly popular in their sections of the country. Issues which ensure their local success, but in turn doom them nationally.
Where the old parties were obliged to work together to overcome their internal contradictions, the new parties revelled in their narrow and ideologically pure identities. Rather than reach out to ensure electoral success, they turned inwards to and relied on every stricter purity tests to achieve victory.
This was a recipe for acrimony and gridlock.
I think it’s important to articulate that distinction.
ShivaX
2017
Not really when it comes to a politics discussion. Forcing Desslock to say that Obama speaks well and dresses sharp doesn’t really matter. It’s just being pedantic when you’re talking about a politician’s politics.
I mean do I have to find something nice to say about Justin Beiber when discussing music? Or can I just say “he sucks” without citing his taste in cars or whatever?
Telefrog
2018
Where’s my popcorn?
Keep in mind that the last time Trump dropped Fox News appearances (the Megyn Kelly thing) Fox wound up telling Kelly to take a vacation for a bit to get Trump back on.
This is the best fucking primary season evar!
Papageno
2020
Well, if you enjoy clown shows, I guess. Not that I care much since I’m not voting for any of these people.
Never thought I would see the day where a GOP frontrunner is boycotting Fox News, but it is glorious.
-Todd
