Guapo wrote:I am with you on language liberalism. The problem arises when it is considered gootenglapher. It makes things a little yugulobbe and that doesn't help the haklajar.

Oh, yeah, you made a point there.

Oddly enough, made up words from random words are meaningless, while words constructed from pre-existing words have some meaning. Can you guess why?

And how does it affect how non-Paulista Republicans might react to Paul winning states where he doesn't have the plurality of support?

It's ironic and funny. The more the pretend patriots have to choke on their sham system, the better.

Danivon, I'm sorry. My humor is apparently sinking in the pond. :( I'm not trying to patronize you. Yes, I'm talking down a little, but that's only because you so arrogantly declare that you know the system here. Neal is right, there isn't one system. Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians all have different systems by which they select their candidates. Then the states have their say, too.

As an "ideologue," I am diametrically opposed to "Big Tent" parties. Parties should be smaller, more plentiful, and more diverse. This constant obsession with moving towards "the center" in our two-party system has only accomplished one thing: more statism, more of the ridiculous business cycle, more war, and a more difficult system to navigate through.

Libertarians have a runoff system at their convention, and the local primaries are really more about ballot access within the party. It's ironic that the Libertarian Party has a more top-down approach that the Republicans or Democrats, but it works because we are small.

Anyway, I spent a lot of time and effort in school to get the limited understanding I have. I've learned much more since school, than I did while in it. So it's not about having a degree, or not having one. It's about the fact that our system is much more complex than I think you give it credit for.

As for your opinion on whether the caucus system is democratic, I have to wonder if you are against runoff voting. Because that's a similar approach to how it works. Of course, it's not exactly the same, which is why Ron Paul is able to go from 6% to 100% in the one Colorado caucus. But that's the closest example I can point you to. And isn't that the point of a democratic society? Those that care get the spoils. If you define democratic as "majoritarian", then you need to look at what federalism is. Majoritarian, whether democratic or not, is un-American--and that's a fact.

I'm not against run off voting per se, but I tend to favour proportional systems. Which are, as you know, not always majoritarian.

Besides, as I keep pointing out (and you seem desperate to avoid by telling me how ignorant I am) it's not my opinion that matters. It's the opinions of Republican primary voters and caucus-goers and the reactions of the party bosses that will matter.

I got validated with Americans Elect and I have to say I'm impressed with their method, it's like what I've seen from some of the most advanced online lending verification methods.

It will forward a candidate based on simple democracy, unlike the medieval system used by Republicans and Democrats. So theoretically sometime in the future we could actually have an opportunity to vote for someone selected by the people.

Pete Thiel Donates $1.7M to ...

Pete Thiel Donates $1.7M to

Big Deal. Gingrinch got $10 million from one Nevada casino owner the same day.

Paul is polling in fourth place, in Michigan Georgia and Arizona. Except for the scenario where Romney comes to the convention with fewer than the delegates required to cement his nomination, Pauls' collection of 10 to 15% of delegates won't matter....
Money counts becasue what it can accomplish in media spending. But if that 1.7 million had come from 170,000 people rather than 1 it would have far more meaning. Same with Gingriches donor.
All massive donations from individuals mean is that some few fanatics have a lot of money to throw away. And that they'll give a candidate money to throw into media. (good time to own a television station in a primary state). Romney spent $18 million in January and he's losing ground in both the nomination process and in the head to head polling against Obama. A lot of money doesn't disguise the lack of a compelling platform or presonna.

"I don't want a mandate...it sounds gay." Bill Maher

Rasmussen Poll has Paul beating Obama 43 to 41. Romney also wins, but if we can make a guess based on polling to votes, Paul might have a 10 point lead on Obama.

sure.

Here's an interesting article on today's Republican party

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opini ... avidbrooks

Ray Jay wrote:sure.

Here's an interesting article on today's Republican party

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opini ... avidbrooks

Spot on, though I would challenge Brook's timeline. This hasn't been happening for "50 years." Probably started during Reagan's administration and ramped up during the Contract with America and is at its zenith now. My worry is that this can't end well.

Brooks is wrong, and the article is sloppy.

The nonsense starts in paragraph three:

Still, it is worth pointing out that this behavior is not entirely honorable. It’s not honorable to adjust your true nature in order to win re-election. It’s not honorable to kowtow to the extremes so you can preserve your political career.

What? I've read that paragraph about 5 times, and it makes less sense every time. How can someone adjust their true nature. If they flow with the current, well, that's their nature.

Furthermore, this idea that incumbents need to scramble in order to keep their seat (from a party challenger, no less) flies in the face of reality. The Republican establishment couldn't unseat Ron Paul from the inside, and they tried over and over again.

And then there's the cognitive dissonance in paragraph 5:

Republicans on the extreme ferociously attack their fellow party members. Those in the middle backpedal to avoid conflict. Republicans on the extreme are willing to lose elections in order to promote their principles. Those in the mainstream are quick to fudge their principles if it will help them get a short-term win.

Indicating that the latter (of the two last sentences) is better than the former, he completely argues against himself.

The next paragraph provides another gem:

In the 1960s and ’70s, the fight was between conservatives and moderates. Conservatives trounced the moderates and have driven them from the party. These days the fight is between the protesters and the professionals. The grass-roots protesters in the Tea Party and elsewhere have certain policy ideas, but they are not that different from the Republicans in the “establishment.”

Really? JBS type-ideology grew within the Republican Party during the 60s and 70s? What is he smoking?

I think he is trying to repackage one of the mantras from my early political science courses: that when a conservative is in the presidency, the congress moves to the left, and vice versa. While this has tended to be true, this is far different from what this guy is saying.

But the winner is the disgraceful last paragraph:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Right, and the concentration camps are right around the corner..

This paragraph seems pretty accurate though:

Without real opposition, the wingers go from strength to strength. Under their influence, we’ve had a primary campaign that isn’t really an argument about issues. It’s a series of heresy trials in which each of the candidates accuse the others of tribal impurity. Two kinds of candidates emerge from this process: first, those who are forceful but outside the mainstream; second, those who started out mainstream but look weak and unprincipled because they have spent so much time genuflecting before those who despise them.

It's less inaccurate. lol.

He's juxtaposing a Presidential primary with the congress. There has never been a correlation between a Presidential primary that is moving to the right and a congress moving to the right.

And what are these people moving to the right on, exactly? He doesn't like the populist movements, I get it. But that's what political parties are for. Big business types (really the only group that qualifies as "moderates" to the author), belong in the democratic party. The alliance of big business and big government was a progressive ideal (the counter revolution to socialism, if you will). If the Democrat party is the party of the left, and the Republican party, the party of the right, then the Rockefellers belong with the Dems.

It's not like the Dems are a bastion of left-wing populism.

Correcting myself, in the last real paragraph, please change left/right to big gov't/small

Left/Right doesn't really work anymore.