A Republican on Republican fanaticism

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 11:29 PM GMT
    David Brook's concluding paragraphs:

    "The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

    "If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

    "And they will be right."

    You can read the complete article at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Of course, since he writes for the Times, some Republicans will dismiss him. But he is a Republican, and he has a generally conservative point of view. And he's coming to the conclusion that the Republicans (in Congress) are unfit to govern.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 11:52 PM GMT
    There is a good reason why Democrats took over in 2008. I'm not going to go into a long diatribe as to what the Republicans did wrong in the 8 years prior to that. If they take their heads out of the sand, they will realize that they are on a path of losing in 2012. I wouldn't mind seeing an old style Republican who is fiscally conservative win in 2012, but unless they change their mantra and nominate a regular candidate in 2012, I'm afraid they'll lose. I don't think the Tea Party element is embraced by much of a percentage. It looks like the Republican Congressmen and Senators are just looking for re-election and pandering to the rich boys and girls. I like Hermann Cain's common sense, no nonsense approach.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 12:05 AM GMT
    theatrengym saidYou can read the complete article at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Of course, since he writes for the Times, some Republicans will dismiss him. But he is a Republican, and he has a generally conservative point of view. And he's coming to the conclusion that the Republicans (in Congress) are unfit to govern.


    I generally don't get party identification as it is like an invitation to group think - and it doesn't take too much work to see how there are both Independents and Democrats who "blame" Obama for the mess. That said, mainstream pundits both in the Republican Party and the Democratic party have struggled to understand the rise of independents. Within the Republican party, there have been many favored by the party apparatchiks who have been summarily defeated. To read the reporting of the rise of the tea party movement is often like reading about landing on the moon.

    While there are some who have pointed out that the movement seems to have allowed some extremists to find a home (and to that point, the same charity afforded the anti-war/moveon.org/acorn crowd has never been similar), those that self identify with the tea partiers are a much larger group according to polling consistently with rejection of the increasing encroachment of government.

    David Brooks is wrong - especially since he conveniently ignores the fact that most Americans reject an increase to the debt limit (though I accept the point that most Americans don't really understand what this means). I think Megan McArdle who supported Obama in the last election, takes balanced approach noting that this is a big gamble for both the Democrats and the Republicans:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/gop-base-spending-cuts-now-or-never/241461/

    Further, it should be noted that it is the President that rejected a short term increase to the debt limit:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/05/2996507/obama-says-no-to-short-term-debt.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:33 AM GMT
    If only all Republicans are like him, we won't need the Democrats.
    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)[/url]On August 10, 2006, Brooks wrote a column for The New York Times titled "Party No. 3". The column proposed the idea of the McCain-Lieberman Party, or the fictional representation of the moderate majority in America.[22]

    Ottawa Citizen commentator David Warren has identified Brooks as the sort of conservative pundit that liberals like, someone who is "sophisticated" and "engages with" the liberal agenda, in contrast to a "real conservative" like Charles Krauthammer.[23] Outspoken conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have denounced Brooks for being too compromising[citation needed]. Brooks has long been a supporter of John McCain; however, he did not show a liking for McCain's former running mate Sarah Palin, calling her a "cancer" on the Republican Party.[24] He has referred to her as a "joke," unlikely to ever win the Republican nomination.[25]

    In a March 2007 article published in The New York Times titled "No U-Turns",[26] Brooks explains that the Republican Party must distance itself from the minimal-government conservative principles that had arisen during the Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan eras. He claims that these outdated concepts had served their purposes and should no longer be embraced by Republicans in order to win elections.
    ...
    Brooks also broke with many in the conservative movement when, in late 2003, he came out in favor of same-sex marriage in his New York Times column. He equated the idea with traditional conservative values: "We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.... It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage."[31]

    Regarding abortion, Brooks has advocated for pro-choice government regulations: abortion would be legal, with parental consent for minors, during the first four or five months, and illegal except in extremely rare circumstances afterward. (New York Times, April 22, 2002.)[32]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:51 AM GMT
    http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2011/20110705023040.aspx

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58337.html

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/david-brooks-loves-imaginary-tax-deal-exists-his-own-brain#ixzz1RFWx3gxJ

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/05/brooks-those-tax-hike-blocking-republicans-are-just-indecent/

    http://cafehayek.com/2011/07/ye-olde-question-for-mister-brooks.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:53 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    theatrengym saidYou can read the complete article at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Of course, since he writes for the Times, some Republicans will dismiss him. But he is a Republican, and he has a generally conservative point of view. And he's coming to the conclusion that the Republicans (in Congress) are unfit to govern.


    I generally don't get party identification as it is like an invitation to group think - and it doesn't take too much work to see how there are both Independents and Democrats who "blame" Obama for the mess. That said, mainstream pundits both in the Republican Party and the Democratic party have struggled to understand the rise of independents. Within the Republican party, there have been many favored by the party apparatchiks who have been summarily defeated. To read the reporting of the rise of the tea party movement is often like reading about landing on the moon.

    While there are some who have pointed out that the movement seems to have allowed some extremists to find a home (and to that point, the same charity afforded the anti-war/moveon.org/acorn crowd has never been similar), those that self identify with the tea partiers are a much larger group according to polling consistently with rejection of the increasing encroachment of government.

    David Brooks is wrong - especially since he conveniently ignores the fact that most Americans reject an increase to the debt limit (though I accept the point that most Americans don't really understand what this means). I think Megan McArdle who supported Obama in the last election, takes balanced approach noting that this is a big gamble for both the Democrats and the Republicans:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/gop-base-spending-cuts-now-or-never/241461/

    Further, it should be noted that it is the President that rejected a short term increase to the debt limit:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/05/2996507/obama-says-no-to-short-term-debt.html


    As usual, you're completely wrong. The Republican Party is imploding because it can no longer get electable candidates past its primaries who are filled with religious extremists.

    The Tea Party is also not only not as large as the 1960s anti-war movement, it's not as big as the Iraq/Afghanistan antiwar movements that motivated millions into the streets. The largest tea party rallies have maybe reached 100,000, though that's suspect.

    Independents actually dislike Tea Baggers more than they do Obama or most democrats.

    The debt limit "debate" is actually a policy of internal terrorism foisted upon the public by a few crazed extremists who, like Eric Cantor, also have investments that will allow them to profit off any downgrade of the US's debt. For that alone, Cantor et al should be removed from office.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:58 AM GMT
    Thanks for posting this.
    It's a great article that everyone should read - and David Brooks is dead right.

    The Repubs are treading on dangerous ground.
    I think it's no coincidence that we've finally heard some sane and moderate bipartisan comments from the Repubs today, expressing a willingness to compromise on raising revenues in addition to cutting spending.
    Perhaps a few Repubs read the arcicle and woke up to reality.
    The fact is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NO SUPPORT YOUR PROPOSAL ON DEBT REDUCTION, REPUBS.
    Face the facts.
    The American people support the debt reduction proposal of the Democrats.
    The American people support a balanced debt reduction package which consists of spending cuts AND revenue increases.

    If the Repubs don't back down and agree to some revenue increases, they're in "deep do-do".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 2:04 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    theatrengym saidYou can read the complete article at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Of course, since he writes for the Times, some Republicans will dismiss him. But he is a Republican, and he has a generally conservative point of view. And he's coming to the conclusion that the Republicans (in Congress) are unfit to govern.


    I generally don't get party identification as it is like an invitation to group think - and it doesn't take too much work to see how there are both Independents and Democrats who "blame" Obama for the mess. That said, mainstream pundits both in the Republican Party and the Democratic party have struggled to understand the rise of independents. Within the Republican party, there have been many favored by the party apparatchiks who have been summarily defeated. To read the reporting of the rise of the tea party movement is often like reading about landing on the moon.

    While there are some who have pointed out that the movement seems to have allowed some extremists to find a home (and to that point, the same charity afforded the anti-war/moveon.org/acorn crowd has never been similar), those that self identify with the tea partiers are a much larger group according to polling consistently with rejection of the increasing encroachment of government.

    David Brooks is wrong - especially since he conveniently ignores the fact that most Americans reject an increase to the debt limit (though I accept the point that most Americans don't really understand what this means). I think Megan McArdle who supported Obama in the last election, takes balanced approach noting that this is a big gamble for both the Democrats and the Republicans:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/gop-base-spending-cuts-now-or-never/241461/

    Further, it should be noted that it is the President that rejected a short term increase to the debt limit:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/05/2996507/obama-says-no-to-short-term-debt.html


    As usual, you're completely wrong. The Republican Party is imploding because it can no longer get electable candidates past its primaries who are filled with religious extremists.

    The Tea Party is also not only not as large as the 1960s anti-war movement, it's not as big as the Iraq/Afghanistan antiwar movements that motivated millions into the streets. The largest tea party rallies have maybe reached 100,000, though that's suspect.

    Independents actually dislike Tea Baggers more than they do Obama or most democrats.

    The debt limit "debate" is actually a policy of internal terrorism foisted upon the public by a few crazed extremists who, like Eric Cantor, also have investments that will allow them to profit off any downgrade of the US's debt. For that alone, Cantor et al should be removed from office.





    Yeah, riddler's comment is pretty much a pile of BS.
    Trying to suggest that Independents and Teabaggers are one and the same is total garbage.
    REPUBLICANS and Teabaggers are one and the same.

    PLUS, for riddler to express a supposed dislike for "group think" when he posts near daily pro-right-wing talking points on the blogs here like some sort of a propaganda vendor is really just too damn funny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 5:37 AM GMT
    I'm waiting for them to implode again. Makes for great entertainment.

    I'm also waiting for the Schock Sex/Meth Scandal.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 07, 2011 10:33 AM GMT
    This is the same hypocrisy the republicans had with the spending wildfire they had during the Bush years
    .........

    Listen to what I say and don't watch what I DO

    Stimulus didn't work ?
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlU_oHw-wJ7qHwHddMzEz
    Jindal was one of the GOP governors who opposed the Recovery Act and he succeeded in blocking money for unemployment compensation

    This is just one of dozens upon dozens of instances where republicans TRY to take credit for the money the stimulus sent them

    The republicans DO need to take credit for what they are proposing
    Going what no one in America had ever done before and is what is actually prohibited by the Constitution (see 14th Amendment)
    and that is not having America pay its debt
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 07, 2011 11:21 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]Christian73 said... The Republican Party is imploding because it can no longer get electable candidates past its primaries who are filled with religious extremists... [/quote]



    THIS middle-of-the-road former Republican started to become disenchanted with the GOP "party line" during President reagan's second term, when he and the party ignored and showed little compassion for the exploding AIDS crisis.

    when the "religious right" gained influence, and eventually corrupted and took control of the GOP party, i quickly became disgusted with them and their intolerance.

    i now consider myself a reluctant, just-barely-Democrat.

    surely i am not the only American who feels abandonded and isolated by the Republican party icon_exclaim.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jul 07, 2011 12:20 PM GMT
    Thanks for posting this. I certainly respect David Brooks and his views.... may not agree much of the time, but I always listen.

    Very interesting insight... I would agree.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 07, 2011 12:33 PM GMT
    theatrengym saidDavid Brook's.... he's coming to the conclusion that the Republicans (in Congress) are unfit to govern.



    more than a few Americans are arriving at the same conclusion!



    icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 3:22 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    theatrengym saidYou can read the complete article at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Of course, since he writes for the Times, some Republicans will dismiss him. But he is a Republican, and he has a generally conservative point of view. And he's coming to the conclusion that the Republicans (in Congress) are unfit to govern.


    I generally don't get party identification as it is like an invitation to group think - and it doesn't take too much work to see how there are both Independents and Democrats who "blame" Obama for the mess. That said, mainstream pundits both in the Republican Party and the Democratic party have struggled to understand the rise of independents. Within the Republican party, there have been many favored by the party apparatchiks who have been summarily defeated. To read the reporting of the rise of the tea party movement is often like reading about landing on the moon.

    While there are some who have pointed out that the movement seems to have allowed some extremists to find a home (and to that point, the same charity afforded the anti-war/moveon.org/acorn crowd has never been similar), those that self identify with the tea partiers are a much larger group according to polling consistently with rejection of the increasing encroachment of government.

    David Brooks is wrong - especially since he conveniently ignores the fact that most Americans reject an increase to the debt limit (though I accept the point that most Americans don't really understand what this means). I think Megan McArdle who supported Obama in the last election, takes balanced approach noting that this is a big gamble for both the Democrats and the Republicans:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/gop-base-spending-cuts-now-or-never/241461/

    Further, it should be noted that it is the President that rejected a short term increase to the debt limit:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/05/2996507/obama-says-no-to-short-term-debt.html


    As usual, you're completely wrong. The Republican Party is imploding because it can no longer get electable candidates past its primaries who are filled with religious extremists.

    The Tea Party is also not only not as large as the 1960s anti-war movement, it's not as big as the Iraq/Afghanistan antiwar movements that motivated millions into the streets. The largest tea party rallies have maybe reached 100,000, though that's suspect.

    Independents actually dislike Tea Baggers more than they do Obama or most democrats.

    The debt limit "debate" is actually a policy of internal terrorism foisted upon the public by a few crazed extremists who, like Eric Cantor, also have investments that will allow them to profit off any downgrade of the US's debt. For that alone, Cantor et al should be removed from office.





    Yeah, riddler's comment is pretty much a pile of BS.
    Trying to suggest that Independents and Teabaggers are one and the same is total garbage.
    REPUBLICANS and Teabaggers are one and the same.

    PLUS, for riddler to express a supposed dislike for "group think" when he posts near daily pro-right-wing talking points on the blogs here like some sort of a propaganda vendor is really just too damn funny.


    +1 I got a huge laugh out of that too. icon_lol.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 07, 2011 4:06 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]catfish5 said...
    Yeah, riddler's comment is pretty much a pile of BS.
    Trying to suggest that Independents and Teabaggers are one and the same is total garbage.
    REPUBLICANS and Teabaggers are one and the same.

    PLUS, for riddler to express a supposed dislike for "group think" when he posts near daily pro-right-wing talking points on the blogs here like some sort of a propaganda vendor is really just too damn funny.


    +1 I got a huge laugh out of that too. icon_lol.gif[/quote]


    it makes one wonder how an otherwise intelligent appearing man can be so "Real World Stooopid"!



    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 4:54 PM GMT
    Both parties pander to their bases and their major funding sponsors. But this sudden TeaBagger prominence, has the Republicans on the run to see which of them can bag more TBagger support is over the top. Most Americans see right through this.

    These people would gladly mix their religious beliefs with legislation on their way to bringing 'America Back to God'. Its a very dangerous trend and though out history has been responsible for loss of freedoms in nearly every case. I've lost count of how many of these far righters, neighbors here in the south and relatives who say that "when your right, you don't need to compromise, because your right" and this is the typical Christian far right way of thinking, God is behind us against 'them'. and them are all those who disagree.

    We should take these far righters seriously and fight hard against their 'hard right' turn, because if we don't, we will regret it. Seems to me that every time a crisis comes about, these far righters gain prominence and its quite alarming how much influence they have had on repubs this time around.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 9:22 PM GMT
    taxes%20and%20spending%20past%20deals.jp

    Somebody see a trend here?

    DEMINT: The reason the president hasn’t addressed the issue even though we knew it was facing us, and this is the fourth time he’s asked for an increase in the debt limit, he has been burning time — that’s what [Vice President Joe] Biden was supposed to do is get the Republicans behind closed doors — is burn the clock up until we have a crisis. So now we’re at the point where there would have to be some serious disruptions in order not to raise it. I’m willing to do that, I just don’t think we can find enough of Republicans and Democrats to say it’s time to stop spending.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 10:17 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidtaxes%20and%20spending%20past%20deals.jp

    Somebody see a trend here?

    DEMINT: The reason the president hasn’t addressed the issue even though we knew it was facing us, and this is the fourth time he’s asked for an increase in the debt limit, he has been burning time — that’s what [Vice President Joe] Biden was supposed to do is get the Republicans behind closed doors — is burn the clock up until we have a crisis. So now we’re at the point where there would have to be some serious disruptions in order not to raise it. I’m willing to do that, I just don’t think we can find enough of Republicans and Democrats to say it’s time to stop spending.





    Yes.
    A deeper and deeper entrenchment of the insane "tax cuts cure all economic ills" ideology of the Repub party.
    Despite the fact that the historical record shows very clearly that tax cuts do NOT cure all ills.

    We would never have paid off our massive WWII war debt if we hadn't raised taxes on the rich significantly.
    And there was NO negative impact on the economy when taxes on the rich were raised in the post WWII years - or when taxes were raised on the rich during the Clinton administration.

    When faced with a massive debt problem like the war debt we were saddled with after WWII - or like the Repub debt we're saddled with now (after the last four Repub presidents blew up the National Debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms as shown in this link info)
    revenue increases are an unfortunate necessity in order to reduce our debt load.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2011 1:00 AM GMT

    http://www.economist.com/node/18928600
    America's debt
    Shame on them
    The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

    The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

    This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

    And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

    Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2011 1:55 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.economist.com/node/18928600
    America's debt
    Shame on them
    The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

    The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

    This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

    And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

    Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.


    Oh those wacky Marxists at The Economist icon_lol.gif