Convention junkies can obsess details here!

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Hopefully Afghanistan has proved that some things aren't worth fighting. Hell, most of the free elections in the Middle East are electing fundamentalists anyway. What's the point? Even our own elections are electing fundamentalists.

If Vietnam didn't prove that, I highly doubt Afghanistan would.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

We can hope they are done for our lifetime, anyway. I can imagine a future Muscular Liberalism launching a crusade to free the world from religious fundamentalism, the way the US had led defense against other forms of dictatorship. Imagine say a Pentacostal South America becomes militarized by Christianists who want to give the Islamists a run for their money and nuke the world for Jesus. Who's gonna stop them? We have our own fundy fifth column to worry about on the right.

Hopefully Afghanistan has proved that some things aren't worth fighting. Hell, most of the free elections in the Middle East are electing fundamentalists anyway. What's the point? Even our own elections are electing fundamentalists.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I disagree. I think the Dems are done with global whack-a-mole.

We can hope they are done for our lifetime, anyway. I can imagine a future Muscular Liberalism launching a crusade to free the world from religious fundamentalism, the way the US had led defense against other forms of dictatorship. Imagine say a Pentacostal South America becomes militarized by Christianists who want to give the Islamists a run for their money and nuke the world for Jesus. Who's gonna stop them? We have our own fundy fifth column to worry about on the right.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Militarism and aggression are hemlines within the parties. For most of the 20th Century the Republicans were far more conservative in involving the US in the world's eternal whack-a-mole game while the Dems wanted to be all over the globe spreading the Gospel of America. Now it has reversed. It will, eventually, reverse again.

I disagree. I think the Dems are done with global whack-a-mole.

[Rover]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The GOP did not control both the house and senate until 2003.

Factually incorrect. GOP controlled the Senate coming out of the 2000 elections due to Cheney being the tiebreaker vote in a 50/50 Senate. Only until Jeffords switched in early 2002 I believe did the inept Daschle become majority leader, a position he held until Jan of 2003 when the new Congress took over after the Nov elections which gave the Republicans a clear majority.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Right. And I'd rather have what we have now then some nutbar who wants to go to war with Iran and Russia in there.

Militarism and aggression are hemlines within the parties. For most of the 20th Century the Republicans were far more conservative in involving the US in the world's eternal whack-a-mole game while the Dems wanted to be all over the globe spreading the Gospel of America. Now it has reversed. It will, eventually, reverse again.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The GOP did not control both the house and senate until 2003.

We still had bipartisan cooperation at that time. It's gotten progressively worse over the last decade. Thus, Obama has had it MUCH WORSE than GW ever did.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Right. And I'd rather have what we have now then some nutbar who wants to go to war with Iran and Russia in there.

So, you want some nutbar who wants to go to war with Israel in there?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Crock.

The GOP did not control both the house and senate until 2003.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The only real solution to gridlock is to give one party the keys, and for that you need a wave election plus a strong incumbent of the same party plus systemic forces that are pushing for change rather than the status quo.

I can't see that happening in November for either party under any set of circumstances, so I think what we see is what we get for another few years.

Right. And I'd rather have what we have now then some nutbar who wants to go to war with Iran and Russia in there.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The only real solution to gridlock is to give one party the keys, and for that you need a wave election plus a strong incumbent of the same party plus systemic forces that are pushing for change rather than the status quo.

I can't see that happening in November for either party under any set of circumstances, so I think what we see is what we get for another few years. The Republicans are the logical party to emerge with a strong majority across the board, but they are locked in their demographic and ideological death spiral right now.

By 2020 I expect the political landscape to be unrecognizable. The GOP has to change or die, and modern major parties do not die. With the GOP changing significantly it will be like conference realignment, with dramatic effects on Democratic constituencies even though they didn't initiate the change.

I would not be surprised if the new order that emerges has much more regional diversity within the parties, like what we see now with Governships and state houses. The "big box store" model of the national parties is becoming obsolete.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

He had just as much of a mandate as Obama at the time: two years.

Crock.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Right. Cause we all know GW Bush didn't get 90% of his agenda passed.

He had just as much of a mandate as Obama at the time: two years.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I'm going to have to do a quick FYP on that one.

Right. Cause we all know GW Bush didn't get 90% of his agenda passed.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The Republicans have chosen option 2. Anyone who thinks they're the first and only party to have adopted this tactic didn't watch the 2004 process.

I'm going to have to do a quick FYP on that one.