Election: Repubs win; Conservatives Lose - Page 3

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

Secretary Duncan Says Rewrite of 'No Child Left Behind' Should Start Now; Reauthorization Can't Wait

Yeah, the proper role of the Federal Government in Education is to not involve itself. Let States compete with each other for being the best, and eliminate the uniform mediocrity that the Federal Government enables and creates.

KAM

Micael · 11/04/2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

If you drum out, dismiss, or label as RINO's / liberals any people who deviate from your vary narrow set of "values" (i.e. Powell, Snowe, McCain), then it is indeed about purity. To-may-to, To-mah-to.

If you say so. I see purity and "agreeing on a common set of fundamental values" as two different things. Are you saying that the Democrat's do not a have a common set of values that they use to gauge where someone sits, either to the left or right of that baseline? Wasn't Leibermann "drummed out", as you say?

Quote:

For the record, I've stated many times that if the Republicans can decide on a set of values, they will be very successful. They currently have two distinct sets of values: fiscal conservatism and evangelical social conservatism. If they could stick to the former and jettison the latter, they will likely not turn off so many libertarians and those who are fiscally conservative but not hung up on the social issues.

The party needs to realize that not every fiscally conservative person is a religious ideologue. There should be room for those who (for example) are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage in the Republican Party. That's not a matter of core fiscal values, but rather of ideological purity. And that turns independents off.

I think the same argument could be made the other way around. Swap out the term liberals and viola.

Quote:

So folks may have a leaning toward one way if pushed, but those not identifying with a party does indeed outnumber those identifying with the party...despite your statement of my being "just plain wrong". Stating something with certainty doesn't actually make it correct. I accept your apology in advance.

I appreciate that, but there is no apology necessary. You didn't say "other" before, you said "Independents" with a capital "I":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

There are more Independents than either Dems or Repubs.

Per Office of the Clerk Member FAQs here's the current breakdown:

Quote:

There are currently no Independents serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) are currently serving in the U.S. Senate.

Using the right words makes it easier for the rest of us to follow along. That's ok though, I screw up all the time! I accept your apology in advance

ryleyinstl · 11/04/2009, 06:21 PM

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Its a bit refreshing to hear someone so openly expressing their views however, instead of hiding them. For that I congratulate you, despite the fact that I find those views repulsive.
KAM

Micael · 11/04/2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

This is a highly conservative district (in the hands of Republicans since the 1800's), and had national attention (including endorsements by anyone who is someone in the party), and they still lost. I think it's a bigger message that even a high profile conservative candidate will turn off enough voters to cost elections.

If they can't win in a conservative district like this one, their prospects in less highly-publicized elections will likely be even worse.

He wasn't a high profile conservative candidate. This is really a small mostly rural district (not in size, but in headcount). He came in late into the race, and was relatively unknown. Your spin ain't flying

Micael · 11/04/2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

Another step backward, that's what. Why this nation feels it has the right to push it's version of democracy on other countries but yet still isn't treating all of it's own citizens fairly is beyond me.

which country was that?

Micael · 11/04/2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

Well of course we will. Spending on silly things like education:

Obama coaxes states to change with school dollars

Pesky investing in America's future.

Oh great... more failing Education policy. Just what we need. Meanwhile we continue to lag behind the rest of the industrialized nations. Must need more money thrown at it, don't you think?

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Yeah, the proper role of the Federal Government in Education is to not involve itself. Let States compete with each other for being the best, and eliminate the uniform mediocrity that the Federal Government enables and creates.

KAM

There you go again. Dramatic, over-reaching, philosophical statement.

How about concrete examples of Fed dollars on the local education level:
News Hour: Stimulus Money Trickling Into the Classroom (7 minutes)

Micael · 11/04/2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

You can continue to use dramatic inflammatory words like "indoctrination" all day long but this administration has tapped the best minds to apply the logical changes to fix the things which need fixing. Plain and simple.

Yes, Glenn Beck has been talking about some of these great minds....

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micael

Must need more money thrown at it, don't you think?

No, just need to spend the money intelligently on it.

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micael

Yes, Glenn Beck has been talking about some of these great minds....

You'd have to elaborate as I find Glenn Beck so sad that I start weeping after being exposed to it for more than 30 seconds.

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

There you go again. Dramatic, over-reaching, philosophical statement.

How about concrete examples of Fed dollars on the local education level:
News Hour: Stimulus Money Trickling Into the Classroom (7 minutes)

No, it is just my view. I'm sure that Federal (tax) money makes it way, but only after taking it out of those communities in the first place, adding various inefficiencies, and then making local folks beg for their own money back.

Stupid, wasteful, corrupt system.

KAM

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAM1138

No, it is just my view. I'm sure that Federal (tax) money makes it way, but only after taking it out of those communities in the first place, adding various inefficiencies, and then making local folks beg for their own money back.

Stupid, wasteful, corrupt system.

KAM

So the gated community's taxes should be spent exclusively on their school and the impoverished neighborhood has to educate their children with their limited tax base. That way the wealthy can keep them uneducated, thus poor, thus they can't compete with gated community's college entry and so on.

Try comparing North Carolina's public schools to South Carolina's.

Bujin · 11/04/2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micael

If you say so. I see purity and "agreeing on a common set of fundamental values" as two different things. Are you saying that the Democrat's do not a have a common set of values that they use to gauge where someone sits, either to the left or right of that baseline?

That's what I'm saying...because they have a much bigger and more inclusive range of opinions, it's proving harder to herd the kittens - hence the difficulties in health care passage. You have a range from very liberal to the "blue dogs" - and all are considered part of the party. It makes for messy legislation, but keeping a large coalition is better for winning elections.

As I said, "agreeing on common values" such as fiscal conservatism, is actually a good thing for the party. It's when candidates (and voters) have to fit both the fiscal values and the religious values that the party becomes self-limiting.

Quote:

Wasn't Leibermann "drummed out", as you say?

Absolutely not - he lost a primary & decided to run as an Independent. He was even allowed to keep his chairmanship...even after campaigning for McCain. Far from being "drummed out".

Quote:

There are currently no Independents serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) are currently serving in the U.S. Senate.

Since we were talking about independent voters, that whole quote is rather irrelevant.

Bujin · 11/04/2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micael

He wasn't a high profile conservative candidate. This is really a small mostly rural district (not in size, but in headcount). He came in late into the race, and was relatively unknown. Your spin ain't flying

Oh please. He was endorsed by high profile presidential wanna-bes (Palin, Pawlenty), former candidates (Fred Thompson) and those national figures who didn't endorse him were roundly criticized (Gingrich, Jindal).

It was, indeed, high profile in a very conservative region - and they still couldn't win.

groovy · 11/04/2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

Oh please. He was endorsed by high profile presidential wanna-bes (Palin, Pawlenty), former candidates (Fred Thompson) and those national figures who didn't endorse him were roundly criticized (Gingrich, Jindal).

It was, indeed, high profile in a very conservative region - and they still couldn't win.

A "very conservative" region where the seat had been held mostly by Democrats and by some moderate Repubicans? Really?

davidra · 11/04/2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groovy

A "very conservative" region where the seat had been held mostly by Democrats and by some moderate Repubicans? Really?

Sounds like you need to bone up a bit. What a surprise. You might study up on Medicare as well.

Quote:

Unofficial results show Mr. Owens made a strong showing in St. Lawrence and Jefferson counties, considered Ms. Scozzafava's home base, on his way to being elected the first Democrat to represent New York's 23rd District in more than a century.

Bujin · 11/04/2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groovy

A "very conservative" region where the seat had been held mostly by Democrats and by some moderate Repubicans? Really?

Since 1996 (8 elections), the narrowest gap was 63%/36% for the Republicans....it was as high as 80%/20%, except for the year the Republican ran unopposed. So, yes, very conservative.

Bujin · 11/04/2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Spoken like a true statist. Maybe YOU need government to make decisions for you--that's your failure, don't drag me down with you. Who the heck gives you or anyone the right to make decisions for me? You have no right to declare yourself or anyone else the power to define what is proper for me.

KAM

So I assume that you're a proponent of gay marriage, on the grounds that you don't have the right to make decisions about what is proper for others, correct?

groovy · 11/04/2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidra

Sounds like you need to bone up a bit. What a surprise. You might study up on Medicare as well.

Read up.

New York's 23rd congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, what was it about Medicare?

groovy · 11/04/2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

Since 1996 (8 elections), the narrowest gap was 63%/36% for the Republicans....it was as high as 80%/20%, except for the year the Republican ran unopposed. So, yes, very conservative.

100 years, 13 years... what's the difference. Oh, by the way, read up on those few Republicans who held the seat. They were all moderates. McHugh was the only one who was moderately conservative.