Iowa GOP seeks to reintroduce slavery, revoke Obama's citizenship, ban lawyers

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Lum

Because prior to 1995 or so it was conceivable that one could be a Republican based on fiscal responsibility and still be a social libertarian.

Were the pre-1995 Republicans (rough date) actually the party of fiscal responsibility? Ever since I've started following politics closely, they've been even worse in that department than Democrats, but I started following closelyaround 1996.

[Andrew Mayer]

Originally Posted by ElGuapo

If Sarah Palin gets the nomination it would be awesome for Democrats. Simply awesome. Like 58% - 42% awesome.

The problem is the legitimacy it will give the whackadoodle point of view during the debate.

[Jason McCullough]

More importantly, if Obama gets caught with a dead girl or live boy, and she wins....then what? The universe explodes?

[Dufresne]

Originally Posted by Robert Sharp

Yes. For a long while, even though Republicans were socially conservative, there wasn't the massive push for actually restricting what people did with their social lives. As a result, it was easier to see Republicans as pushing a largely economic agenda (one that I agreed with, and to some extent still do, though not in the same ways/degrees). I don't remember the hardcore fundamentalism bent. The politicians may have had it (so did Southern Democrats back in the day), but I don't remember the attempt to push it onto others.

I'm only speaking for myself here, obviously.

I can say the same for my parents, at least. Bush/Kerry was the first election in their lives where they both voted Democrat. In previous years I'd asked them why Republican when X, Y, and Z social issues and they'd always reply that keeping our country's economy healthy was more important to us all. 2004 marked the year where social issues were at the absolute forefront, and the Republican party made it impossible for economically conservative, socially progressive people like my parents to ignore the crazy anymore.

Originally Posted by Jason McCullough

More importantly, if Obama gets caught with a dead girl or live boy, and she wins....then what? The universe explodes?

V.I.P. section of eternity, baby.

[Shadarr]

Originally Posted by Dufresne

In previous years I'd asked them why Republican when X, Y, and Z social issues and they'd always reply that keeping our country's economy healthy was more important to us all. 2004 marked the year where social issues were at the absolute forefront, and the Republican party made it impossible for economically conservative, socially progressive people like my parents to ignore the crazy anymore.

It's really sad that voters still fall for the "Republicans are economic conservatives" line. I highly doubt Al Gore could have been even half as profligate as Bush, and yet from what I infer from your post, in 2004 they still believed that Bush was the more economically conservative choice.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Dave Markell

*I've never voted straight party lines and still don't. The fact that I supported Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama at the Presidential level doesn't mean that I also voted for every Democratic congressional and state office candidate during the same elections.

Total digression, but there's a very strong case to be made for party-line voting at the House/Senate level. Basically regardless of what they may campaign on, or claim to represent individually, the single strongest predictor of a Congressman or Senator's performance is party identification. This is especially true on the GOP side of the aisle. If you vote for a Republican in Congress, you are voting to support Republican policies, regardless of the actual candidate you vote for. If you vote for a Democrat, you are probably (but not quite as certainly) voting to support Democratic policies.

[Kebooo]

It's not fair to say "regardless of the actual candidate", since there are clear exceptions, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are both in the Republican party but definitely branch out enough to be fairly unique from the party platform. I'm sure there are some house equivalents as well. In general you're spot on, but using the word regardless is pretty strong diction. Many liberals in Maine vote for Snowe and Collins precisely because they diverge from the Republican platform on several issues.

[Greatatlantic]

Originally Posted by Johan O

Wasn't Wilson(D) rather progressive? And IIRC Coolidge(R) became vice president in the next cabinet partly because his reputation as a union buster.

Wilson is called one of the 3 progressive presidents alongside Taft and T. Roosevelt. He did engage in trust busting and supported female suffrage. However, he also resegregated the white house staff.

"Progressive" is essentially an umbrella term for an enormous swath of people who wanted the government to pass more laws in a way they percieved as improving society. Compared to the do-nothings that proceeded them during the Gilded Age and do-nothings that followed in the Roaring '20s, I say the label is fair.

[Jason McCullough]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are both in the Republican party but definitely branch out enough to be fairly unique from the party platform. I'm sure there are some house equivalents as well.

They still vote more conservative than literally every Democrat, including that bastard Ben Nelson. They're very conservative compared to the liberal Republicans of yore.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

It's not fair to say "regardless of the actual candidate", since there are clear exceptions, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are both in the Republican party but definitely branch out enough to be fairly unique from the party platform. I'm sure there are some house equivalents as well. In general you're spot on, but using the word regardless is pretty strong diction. Many liberals in Maine vote for Snowe and Collins precisely because they diverge from the Republican platform on several issues.

Please tally the specific, votes on which Senators Snow and Collins have bucked their party leadership. Then tally the votes where they haven't. They may buck leadership more often than other Republicans, but they're still going to vote with their party leaders nine out of ten times.

Again, if you vote for a Republican candidate - any Republican candidate - you are voting for the policies preferred by the Republican leadership. Period, end of story.

Liberals in Maine are fucking deluded if they are voting for Snow and Collins because they believe they will buck their party leadership more than once in a blue moon.

[Dave Markell]

Originally Posted by Shadarr

It's really sad that voters still fall for the "Republicans are economic conservatives" line. I highly doubt Al Gore could have been even half as profligate as Bush, and yet from what I infer from your post, in 2004 they still believed that Bush was the more economically conservative choice.

Some did, some did not. I'd concluded the Republicans weren't economic conservatives more than a decade earlier.

[Kebooo]

Are you guys suggesting there should be democrats that vote with republicans more often than a particular republican does, and vice versa? Come now, that doesn't even make sense and is hardly worth arguing. If one party represents their overall position better than the other, they should be in that party. Some would argue Snowe should be an independent. Jeff, voting for the stimulus bill wasn't just some irrelevant bone she threw to her more liberal supporters, and "liberal" doesn't always mean full blown liberal, although it seems some people interpret it that way. There's a spectrum of liberal-moderates and conservative-moderates out there that look for like-minded individuals.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/olympia_snowe.htm

Their analysis and graph of her voting record puts her in their center moderate category, with a slight tilt toward conservative. But you know best, I'm sure. just how versed are you on her voting history?

Also: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...663/key-votes/

There you can see she has voted opposite of the Republican party a fair number of times on key votes.

Oh, and here you go, similar voting records in the 111th congress: http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com...tee/snowe.html

An analysis of her voting record this year shows that she is more likely to vote with the Democrats than to vote with her Republican peers

Weird, it seems like she's voting most similar to democrats lately. But nonsense! Voting for a republican means you support their platform, period, end of story! I guess forums aren't immune to blind partisanship either, are they?

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

Are you guys suggesting there should be democrats that vote with republicans more often with republicans than a particular republican does, and vice versa? Come now, that doesn't even make sense and is hardly worth arguing. If one party represents their overall position better than the other, they should be in that party. Some would argue Snowe should be an independent. Jeff, voting for the stimulus bill wasn't just some irrelevant bone she threw to her more liberal supporters, and "liberal" doesn't always mean full blown liberal, although it seems some people interpret it that way. There's a spectrum of liberal-moderates and conservative-moderates out there that look for like-minded individuals.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/olympia_snowe.htm

Their analysis and graph of her voting record puts her in their center moderate category, with a slight tilt toward conservative. But you know best, I'm sure. just how versed are you on her voting history?

Also: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...663/key-votes/

There you can see she has voted opposite of the Republican party a fair number of times on key votes.

Oh, and here you go, similar voting records in the 111th congress: http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com...tee/snowe.html

An analysis of her voting record this year shows that she is more likely to vote with the Democrats than to vote with her Republican peers

Weird, it seems like she's voting most similar to democrats lately. But nonsense! Voting for a republican means you support their platform, period, end of story! I guess forums aren't immune to blind partisanship either, are they?

As you've pointed out, Olympia Snowe's voting record is more liberal than that of the rest of her caucus. That being said, it is less liberal than the most conservative Democrat. In terms of the political spectrum, Olympia Snow is the 60th most liberal member of Congress. She bucks her party leadership more often than most conservatives - and she had done so on a few major votes, as you've pointed out.

But more often than that, she sides with her party leadership. If there are liberals in Maine who support Olympia Snowe, then they are suckers. They could do better by electing a Democrat.

As to your first question - no, I don't expect Republicans to vote like Democrats. Nor am I suggesting that there are Democrats who should vote with Republicans. Quite the opposite in fact - I'm acknowledging that such creatures do not, by and large, exist and that when you as a voter choose a representative for Congress, be it the Senate or House, the most accurate predictor of their voting pattern will be their party identity.

edit: Also what the hell - your WaPo link on Olympia Snowe's voting record contains precisely four votes from 2009 and zero votes from 2010. Uhh....

[Jason McCullough]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

Are you guys suggesting there should be democrats that vote with republicans more often than a particular republican does, and vice versa? Come now, that doesn't even make sense and is hardly worth arguing.

It was the case for the entire period from the 1920s or so until the 1990s or so.



Personally I prefer partisan parties, but they're a very recent development and the vast bulk of the population doesn't realize it's happened. So people in Maine don't actually realize they're voting for someone who votes across party lines like 10% of the time or something.

Their analysis and graph of her voting record puts her in their center moderate category, with a slight tilt toward conservative. But you know best, I'm sure. just how versed are you on her voting history?

They're wrong. She's a reliable republican vote, but votes just liberal enough to say in office on key must-have issues with their constituents. For example, both Collins and Snowe want to extend the Bush tax cuts.

[Kebooo]

Jeff, the point is that there are a lot more moderates than there are pure liberals or pure conservatives, even people that identify as one or the other are usually closer to the center than they are to the edge. A lot of people here like her because they think she's honest and going to do what's best for the state. She doesn't vote with Republicans on certain issues, and the disagreements are not arbitrary. Yes, a fully blue liberal would be a sucker to vote for her, just as a fully red conservative would be a sucker to vote for any democrat out there. But given the fact a lot of liberals have various conservative tendencies, and vice versa, she has pretty huge support here. And Maine was one of the states with the biggest victory margin for Obama. Moderate liberals aren't delusional for supporting her if they feel she's the better candidate.

You could spin the fact she votes more conservative than any democrat against democrats - she votes more often with them than against them in the 111th congress, and not a single democrat votes more conservatively than her? So let's re-iterate that, she votes more often with democrats than republicans, but not a single democrat is more conservative than her. See how it sounds when you reverse the roles?

They're wrong. She's a reliable republican vote, but votes just liberal enough to say in office on key must-have issues with their constituents. For example, both Collins and Snowe want to extend the Bush tax cuts.

She voted for the tax cuts in 2001. She voted against the one in 2003. Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)

Also, where did you hear she wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts? I'd like to see it, since the last I read on it was: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...-bush-tax-cuts from a couple weeks ago. Maybe she's articulated a position since then, but I haven't heard about it.

As yesterday's vote on extending unemployment benefits shows, if the vote is taken after the election, there are only three GOP senators likely to vote with the Democrats: Scott Brown (MA), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Susan Collins (ME).

They're wrong, so how about the fact she's voted more reliably with democrats than republicans in the 111th congress, including for a huge stimulus bill? Are you going to ignore that? Obviously if she went fully liberal then she should be with the democrats. The point is, and I'm not sure why someone would deny this, there are those that do not vote with their own party on several big, key issues and so by voting for those candidates you are not just broadly voting in that party's platform. Fact and reality say otherwise.

[Jason McCullough]

So let's re-iterate that, she votes more often with democrats than republicans.....

No, she doesn't. Your links are wrong - one selectively picks votes, and the other doesn't separate out the clusters.

You're correct about Snowe not having a stated opinion on the Bush tax cuts though; I was misreading.

[Kebooo]

Originally Posted by Jason McCullough

No, she doesn't. Your links are wrong.

You're correct about Snowe not having a stated opinion on the Bush tax cuts though; I was misreading.

They're wrong, so the data is wrong? No offense, but care to refute the link with something more than "they're wrong"? What about the Sunlight organization's data is wrong? They claim the data is from: http://developer.nytimes.com/docs/congress_api

Is the New York Times' data wrong?

She might not cross party lines more often than not - that's not what I'm arguing (nor do I know if she does or not), she just has more in common with democrat voting history than republican. I don't see any contrary evidence. Keep in mind, this is for the 111th congress, not her entire senatorial history. Will you get a more conservative agenda with Snowe than democrats? Sure. Will you get the republican party platform with Snowe? No. That's all I'm arguing against, the notion that even someone like Snowe is hoisting up the GOP platform as a whole, as if a vote for her is a vote for the GOP platform, when her voting history says otherwise. We should vote on candidates based on that history, and not based on a party's platform. I'm glad Maine generally has more moderate candidates, even when I disagree with them, it's a breath of fresh air. Angus King ran as an independent governor and won. The more we can dismantle two-party politics, the better. But trying to eliminate the Snowes out there is worse for politics, not better.

You need candidates that are open to compromise (Collins wanted to cut the tax cuts in half) to have a working congress, that, or a huge majority on one side. Claiming that a vote for any republican (or democrat) is voting for that respective platform as a whole is detrimental to moderate republicans or democrats. You'll see fewer moderate candidates doing well, increasing polarization, and more senate/house deadlocks.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

They're wrong, so the data is wrong? No offense, but care to refute the link with something more than "they're wrong"? What about the Sunlight organization's data is wrong? They claim the data is from: http://developer.nytimes.com/docs/congress_api

You cut out the part of his quote where he says why they're wrong. In other words, he already answered your question. I don't know if Jason's post is accurate, but I now know yours isn't.

[Kebooo]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

You cut out the part of his quote where he says why they're wrong. In other words, he already answered your question. I don't know if Jason's post is accurate, but I now know yours isn't.

He edited it after I quoted it. Don't be so quick to judge. I quoted his entire post at the time of its posting.

one selectively picks votes, and the other doesn't separate out the clusters.

Separate out the clusters? One is all of the votes, factual data, and you said it was wrong - Snowe has more common voting history with democrats in the 111th congress than republicans. That's not wrong. The other isn't wrong either, it was picking votes that were considered key issues. It may have been too selective for your taste, but nothing about it is wrong or inaccurate. I'm not saying Snowe crosses the "party line" the majority of the time - no senator does that, or else they'd be in the other party. The key point is that she is a very moderate republican that often bucks the trend and is willing to go against the party platform. If we start considering voting for any republican or democrat to be voting in the party's platform as a whole, we really will start to see fewer moderate candidates and may even see fewer moderates come out to vote.

Snowe has a 60% or higher voting agreement with every Democratic or Independent senator for the 111th Congress, while maintaining the same level of voting agreement with only twelve Republicans.

The voting similarity between Snowe and Democrats is so similar that she holds a 70% or higher voting agreement with eleven Democratic senators. She holds this level of voting agreement with two Republicans.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

He edited it after I quoted it. Don't be so quick to judge. I quoted his entire post at the time of its posting.

My bad.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

He edited it after I quoted it. Don't be so quick to judge. I quoted his entire post at the time of its posting.

Separate out the clusters? One is all of the votes, factual data, and you said it was wrong - Snowe has more common voting history with democrats in the 111th congress than republicans. That's not wrong. The other isn't wrong either, it was picking votes that were considered key issues. It may have been too selective for your taste, but nothing about it is wrong or inaccurate. I'm not saying Snowe crosses the "party line" the majority of the time - no senator does that, or else they'd be in the other party. The key point is that she is a very moderate republican that often bucks the trend and is willing to go against the party platform. If we start considering voting for any republican or democrat to be voting in the party's platform as a whole, we really will start to see fewer moderates and may even see fewer moderates come out to vote.

Four votes from 2009. None from 2010.

I haven't parsed your other source more closely yet. But one of your sources is a fucking joke.

The real question is when did Snowe vote against most of her caucus. I might play around with the NYT API this weekend to figure that out.

[Kebooo]

Originally Posted by jeffd

Four votes from 2009. None from 2010.

I haven't parsed your other source more closely yet. But one of your sources is a fucking joke.

The real question is when did Snowe vote against most of her caucus. I might play around with the NYT API this weekend to figure that out.

I'll save you the trouble: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...against-party/

See why boiling it down to what the average person considers big/key issues is more useful? It's hard to really care when she does or doesn't cross party line on the most minor of issues and obscure appointments.

Here's an interesting analysis of congressmen: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd

Sometimes just pure voting records isn't as telling as when you assign certain values to voting patterns. Of course, you can probably skew the data a lot of ways, but I've always considered it common sense that Collins and Snowe are not boxed into the party platform.

Back in November we found that only 31% of Maine Republicans would be inclined to nominate Snowe for another term while 59% said they would prefer a more conservative alternative.

I'm actually shocked I'm even having to debate this. I thought it was just common knowledge that Snowe was a moderate Republican that has pissed off conservatives more than once.

Perhaps more telling is this: In the 110th congress, Collins and Snowe voted with their party less often than any other senator - including Specter. Specter switched parties. In fact, looking at how often senators voted with their party, it seems in the senate there's more republicans that vote less often with their party than democrats. Now I don't believe someone like Ben Nelson is boxed in by his party platform - so why would we say a Collins, Snowe or Specter is?

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

I'll save you the trouble: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...against-party/

See why boiling it down to what the average person considers big/key issues is more useful? It's hard to really care when she does or doesn't cross party line on the most minor of issues and obscure appointments.

Here's an interesting analysis of congressmen: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd

Sometimes just pure voting records isn't as telling as when you assign certain values to voting patterns. Of course, you can probably skew the data a lot of ways, but I've always considered it common sense that Collins and Snowe are not boxed into the party platform.

Back in November we found that only 31% of Maine Republicans would be inclined to nominate Snowe for another term while 59% said they would prefer a more conservative alternative.

I'm actually shocked I'm even having to debate this. I thought it was just common knowledge that Snowe was a moderate Republican that has pissed off conservatives more than once.

Perhaps more telling is this: In the 110th congress, Collins and Snowe voted with their party less often than any other senator - including Specter. Specter switched parties. In fact, looking at how often senators voted with their party, it seems in the senate there's more republicans that vote less often with their party than democrats. Now I don't believe someone like Ben Nelson is boxed in by his party platform - so why would we say a Collins, Snowe or Specter is?

Let me do some data parsing this weekend and get back to you. :)

[Jason McCullough]

Originally Posted by Kebooo

It's hard to really care when she does or doesn't cross party line on the most minor of issues and obscure appointments.

That's where the really important stuff happens. Every time they vote against cloture on something, it means it eats another day of floor time in the Senate, which means another day the Democrats can't pass anything.

I'm actually shocked I'm even having to debate this. I thought it was just common knowledge that Snowe was a moderate Republican that has pissed off conservatives more than once.

Erm, yes? She's just in no way whatssover liberal, any more than Ben Nelson is, and she still votes with her party the bulk of the time.

Snowe has more common voting history with democrats in the 111th congress than republicans. That's not wrong.

That doesn't automatically mean she voted more in line with the Democrats than with Republicans; it's an interesting way to look at the data, but it's not obvious what conclusions to draw from it. We can say with high confidence that she definitely didn't vote with the Democrats more often in general, however - if so, why doesn't that show up in Voteview, which is explicitly designed to create a partisan cluster map?

[AaronSofaer]

More to the point, the Democrats aren't exactly liberals by what I'd consider a reasonable measurement. Moderates, maybe. We don't have a functional left wing in this country.

[Kebooo]

Jason, I'm not saying she's a liberal. If she was, why would she be in the republican party? The argument started based on this: If you vote for a Republican in Congress, you are voting to support Republican policies, regardless of the actual candidate you vote for.

I said it was generally spot on, but not true in all cases. If you vote for Snowe, for example, you know you're voting for pro-choice abortion rights. Is that the Republican platform?

Why the heck does someone need to vote liberal more than conservative to not be considered "voting for the republican platform"? If you are in fact not voting for key parts of the republican platform, why would we call it voting for the republican platform? Voting conservatively in general, sure, but that's a whole different creature than saying voting for the republican platform and we all know it. Snowe isn't a liberal, but you can sure bet most core conservatives disapprove of her at this point precisely because she so often goes against the republican platform.

[Jason McCullough]

Conservatives also disapprove of Lindsey Graham because he's not crazy enough, so that doesn't show much.

In general, they always votes against cloture until they've extracted their pound of flesh, and cloture is the entire ball game in government for the last 10 years.

They consistently push bills to the right and closer to the GOP platform. For a point of comparision; they don't get in the way on major GOP initiatives, like the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war, or torture; they tinker around the edges on the issues that'll really kill them at home, like abortion. For Democratic policies, by contrast, they'll vote for very popular issues only if the Democrats obey their dictated terms; otherwise, hey, not their fault it collapsed.

I don't know what to call that other than "supporting Republican policies"; the Senate is a zero sum game. They're not independent operators. People who think they're doing anything else are operating under wrong assumptions.

The same also applies to Ben Nelson in reverse, by the way.

[Kebooo]

Voting against the 2003 tax cuts, voting for the stimulus package, voting to expand healthcare for children, federal funding of stem cell research, voted against extending the tax cuts back in 2006, voted against various social spending/welfare cuts, and so forth constitute more than just skirting the edges. Back in 2006: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2081408.shtml

Do I have to remind you it was Collins, Snowe and Specter that got the stimulus package 60 votes? Two of those three are still republicans, and hey, happen to be the subject of discussion. Without those two, no 60 votes. I seem to recall Harry Reid tearing up about it. If you seriously believe that isn't getting in the way of one of the major cores to the republican party, I don't know what to say to you.

Obviously she's going to support conservative policies more often than liberal ones. But the fact is there is hard evidence of her voting against important republican platform issues and having a key role in passing a massive stimulus bill that caused some to speculate she was going to defect parties. Sadly we have too much of a team mentality in congress, if you look at Specter's votes, he sure had a big change of mind all of a sudden in the way he voted. A vote for Ben Nelson is closer to a vote for Olympia Snowe and vice versa than either are to their respective party platforms. But if she went too rogue, she wouldn't be able to win the republican or democratic nomination in Maine. Every politician has to play politics.

[Jason McCullough]

Again, you're just looking at the high profile stuff where they'd be committing political suicide to vote against it.

[Janster]

None of you are rich enough to get anything from Republican party.