Journal pudge's Journal: Compare and Contrast 7
David Brooks: I think it is a suicide pact for the Republican Party, essentially taking a moderate Republican, dead-center in American politics, and saying, sorry, you are too liberal. That's crazy.
George Will: Newt [Gingrich] was just tone deaf as were the people who picked this woman, who is a candidate of, among other things, the Working Families Party, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Public Employees Union. She's for tax increases, same-sex marriage. She's for abolishing the right of secret ballot in union elections. There's already a party for people who think like that. It's called the Democratic Party.
I like David Brooks a lot. But when it comes to his perspective of where the Republican Party is, he is completely out to lunch. George Will, as usual, is correct.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
I loathe Brooks (Score:2)
The guys pines for the good ole' Democrat Lite days of the 50's to the 70's, where Republican campaign slogans were "All that great New Deal taste with half the calories".
Refresh my memory... how many times did the GOP win Congress during this period?
Honestly, I think some people like being in second place, and further, some people like being a Quisling in their own group.
BTW, Brooks is utterly full of **** on the "moderate" thing. Scozzafava wasn't a moderate in any way, shape, or form. She was so far left
big tents suck (Score:1)
Big tents are fine for circuses, but unless that's what a political party aspires to, they should be avoided. The big tent mentality is only to lock in the two entrenched parties and lock out all others, and denies people choices. What choice do I have if there's only Democrat and Democrat-lite parties? Unfortunately, the country is (has been, and is now accelerating in) moving Left, and the GOP needs to decide if they're going to be a party of the new center(-Left), or of the Right. Just pick one already,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Big tents ... should be avoided.
There's only two ways to get your views into policy, generally. One is to be in the majority. The other is to form coalitions with other minorities.
Of course, since we disagree so much, we form coalitions regardless: the only question is whether they are internal or external to the party.
Frankly, I prefer it when they are internal to the party, for many reasons, which are beside the point here. I say this stuff just to point out that wanting a "big tent" party, as I do, doesn't mean you let just anyone r
Re: (Score:1)
But the center of 100 years ago is far from where it is now. So now effectively the GOP is struggling to be a coalition of the Left and Right, which of course is nonsensical.
And if that weren't bad enough, a big tent party, like any two-headed monster, requires a vastly dominant head, to not be dysfunctional. In the past when the GOP was led by Conservatives and were winning, the moderates mostly just went along and shut up. But now they're vociferous and thinking maybe it's their time to lead the party for
Re: (Score:2)
now effectively the GOP is struggling to be a coalition of the Left and Right
Not moreso than it's been before, no. The same arguments we are having now in the GOP are the ones they had 100 years ago: whether govt should interfere in this or that, taxes, social programs, and so on.
And if anything the GOP itself is further to the right than it's ever been before, which only makes sense, as the county's policies have moved left and people have realized that the more "moderate" or even "progressive" views of many Republicans over the past 100 years have failed.
And if that weren't bad enough, a big tent party, like any two-headed monster, requires a vastly dominant head, to not be dysfunctional.
No, it doesn't. It just
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Shrug. It's why we have elections. The biggest problem is when they do NOT have elections, like in NY, where they selected their candidate by fiat."
I know it was a short notice special election and all, but had the local party bosses in NY-23 did the right thing and held a short primary, then the NY-23 race would have never even made the news. I'll never complain when local Republicans pick whoever they want, be it right or left leaning. I may not understand it or even like it, but my attitude is "Hey, the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The NYS Election Law has no provision for a special primary election. I don't see how the party bosses would have held one. Pull a list of all the registered Republicans in the district and conduct a straw poll via telephone? I'm not sure that would have been any better. What we really need in NYS is to reform our electoral process but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. The party bosses (on both sides of the aisle) like the current system and have no inclination to change it.
I'll co