GOP: Titanic or S. S. Minnow?

Here’s a really insightful, historical perspective from Dylan Loewe over at Huffington Post.

Another 1994? Or Another 1946?

In the article he points out that Democrats held huge majorities throughout FDR’s entire 12 years before Republicans finally made a comeback.

In the years that followed, however, the Republican comeback turned out to be awfully short-lived. The Republicans famously lost the White House in 1948, along with control of the House and Senate. They would briefly regain control of Congress in 1952, but by 1954, they would lose their grip on the majority for a generation. Democrats regained a House they would not lose until 1994, and a Senate they would hold until 1980.

He also notes some things we have discussed here, most notably:

The voting population is changing in stunning ways, all of which will benefit the Democrats.

And that:

Tea Party Republicans are a dying demographic.

As Filistro pointed out in the comments section recently, we’ll be forced to endure a lot of bluster, bravado, and spin after November 2nd. But unless Republicans get on message and attract larger numbers from the emerging demography such as younger and minority voters, their message becomes increasingly archaic and smaller. And as angry as some of the conservative constituency is, anger does not a party make.

I remain skeptical as well that the polling isn’t entirely accurate and that the November results are not going to be the landslide being predicted. But even if it is, there’s plenty of time for Republicans to bury themselves before 2012. Enjoy the celebrations as you sail off on the Titanic. She is unsinkable after all.


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to GOP: Titanic or S. S. Minnow?

  1. shiloh says:

    w/Gilligan, the Skipper too, the Millionaire, and his Wife, the Movie Star, and the rest, are here on Gilligan’s Isle …Disappointing Mary Ann and the Professor didn’t get proper billing the first season. ;)>The age old question:Ginger or Mary AnnerDems or RepsI’ll take Independents for $1,000 Alex.

  2. Monotreme says:

    Dawn Wells (Mary Ann), by a country mile.

  3. robert verdi says:

    When Regan was elected in 1980 he tied the youth vote with Carter, in 1984 he won the you vote by 19 percent.In 88 Bush won the youth vote again. In 1992 Clinton won the youth vote and only in 1996 did he get a majority. IN 2000 Bush got 46 to Gore’s 48 and only in 2004 did the youth vote decidedly go Democrat. It stayed that way for 2008 (obviously). In general the youth are affected by the general view of what is going on at the time. If the country as a whole rejects Democrats, there is strong chance those views will be adopted by people just becoming politically aware. To check that data here is a link, its actually a pretty nifty tool if you wish to look at exit polling data for past elections. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

  4. filistro says:

    robert… the years when the youth vote was more unpredictable were the years before the GOP became totally captive to evangelical Christians/social conservatives, and the major differences between the two parties broke out along lines of fiscal policy.As long as the Republicans remain strongly opposed to gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose, and separation of church of state, they are not going to win the youth vote. But with the new power of the Tea Party and the Palinites, those socially conservative values are going to become MORE firmly rooted in the GOP… which is doomed to slow death from the inside out.

  5. shiloh says:

    1992 Clinton got (49.2%).Close to a majority, but no cigar! ;)btw, Nixon got 43.4% in ’68.carry on

  6. shiloh says:

    1996, not 1992 Clinton got (49.2%).

  7. Bart DePalma says:

    Looks like Huff Post has already fast forwarded to the acceptance stage of grief – if not grounded reality. In the face of what appears to be around a double digit GOP lead where the Dems have lost both the right and the middle, the Huff Post argument hoping that enough conservatives die off to even the odds smacks of pure desperation. Maybe if 10% of the electorate dies off, we might have a chance. Great strategy guys!One would think that the Dems’ time would be better spent by figuring out what they are doing which is driving away the center of the electorate and shit canning it.

  8. Scott says:

    There was an excellent article on this about how more 30-and-unders have a more negative view of not Republicans but “conservatism” than ever before, for most all of the social stances that they have taken. So, fili is right – there is a definite change in ideology for that generation of which I am part.Unfortunately, I can’t find it right now, but it was quite well-done. If I can dig it up I’ll post it here to view;

  9. Mr. Universe says:

    Wow. Mary Ann is 69. She still looks pretty good for her age. She was definately the one. Ginger was a tart.

  10. GROG says:

    Fili,You think Republicans as a whole are opposed to seperation of church and state? Other than Christine O’Donnell’s comments, do you any facts to back that up?

  11. robert verdi says:

    The Tea Party is more fiscal right then social right, although there is a significant overlap of the two.

  12. Bart DePalma says:

    Grog:A heavy majority of the GOP and perhaps a majority of the country is opposed to the progressive idea of separation of church and state – the complete banishment of religion from the public square. See school prayer, religious displays on public property and tax money to religious institutions for non-religious purposes.

  13. Scott says:

    @Grog -Though it probably depends on what your definition of “separation” is, Ken Buck said recently:“I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state,” Buck said at Republican Senate candidates’ forum. “It was not written into the Constitution. While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not going to have a religion that’s sanctioned by the government, it doesn’t mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion. And so that, that concerns me a great deal.”http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/10/ken-buck-said-he-opposes-separ.html

  14. GROG says:

    Fili,Being for traditional marriage and being opposed to killing babies are not radical positions. With that said, no longer do evangelical or social issues dominate the Republican party. Now economic and fiscal issues prevail. The Tea Party has made the Republican Party safe for libertarians. We’ll do just fine with the youth.

  15. GROG says:

    Bart and Scott,True. Thomas Jefferson’s definition of “a wall of seperation” is very much different from today’s progressive definition.

  16. filistro says:

    @GROG… do you any facts to back that up?Oh, c’mon… you think I’m going to waste my time looking up facts that YOU will then blandly ignore or pretend don’t say what they clearly say?I’ve got better things to do… like painting my toenails, and teaching the kids’ hamster to do ballet. (God, he’s so CUTE in his tiny tutu…)

  17. Scott says:

    True. Thomas Jefferson’s definition of “a wall of seperation” is very much different from today’s progressive definition.And I think this is likely where we begin to diverge – in what we define as the “establishment” of religion. Personally, I feel that any actions that the government takes in concert with organized religion (and, let’s be honest, the government’s actions in concert with religion almost exclusively deal with the Christian church) lead to a situation in which the state is essentially endorsing one religion over another.…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]“Congress inhibited from acts respecting religion.” I believe that goes further than just making laws, but speaks to the process by which government goes about making laws.I’m sure you’ll disagree – which is fine, I totally understand that position. But does what I said really sound like a “radical” position when compared to the words of one of our great leaders?

  18. shrinkers says:

    @BartSee school prayer, Now, see, that’s the thing. That’s where you get into trouble. School prayer happens all the time. “Oh God, PLEASE let me pass this test!” What is illegal (and should be) is organized prayer officially sanctioned by a public school.But you know this, being a lawyer. But you pretend not to. Why?

  19. Bart DePalma says:

    shrinkers:I knows the range of fictions the courts have created around the Establishment Clause. However, the only question posed by the actual text is whether the government is creating a de jure or de facto state religion. This would prohibit teachers from leading a denominational prayer, but I see no constitutional problem with a teacher leading a general non-denominational prayer. Whether this excludes atheists is irrelevant.

  20. Mule Rider says:

    Re: separation of church/state, how do y’all feel about “In God We Trust” being printed on our currency?

  21. filistro says:

    So Bart… this is another example of your “libertarian” views, I presume?We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We oppose the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service.Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000 Sweetie, you’re just such a fraud… 🙂

  22. Scott says:

    Re: separation of church/state, how do y’all feel about “In God We Trust” being printed on our currency?Personally, I’m indifferent. That’s more from a desire to deal with much bigger issues than obsessing over a phrase which has appeared on our currency for 150 years.I’d like to stand up here and spout off about how it’s wrong and terrible and the U.S. needs to strike down such blatant displays of religion… but I can’t. It’s really a non-issue to me.If you take “we” to mean the majority of Americans, it’s technically a true statement. The majority of Americans believe in God. That is an indisputable fact. Because I don’t, or because I respect someone’s right not to believe in God, doesn’t change that.

  23. filistro says:

    Scott… let me know if GROG ever acknowledges the FACT you pointed out… that Ken Buck also opposes separation of church and state… okay?I’d read GROG’s posts myself, but the hamster and I are working hard on pirouettes today. The little sucker just can’t seem to grasp the concept. (The hamster, I mean. GROG grasps the concept all right… and then he ignores or discounts it.)

  24. Realist says:

    @Bart,I knows the range of fictions the courts have created around the Establishment Clause.And yet you don’t know the range of facts regarding judicial review? Remarkable, for a lawyer.But, hey, maybe I’m just ignorant. Would you care to enlighten us as to:1) The meaning of judicial review2) Whether you are in favor of or opposed to judicial review

  25. Scott says:

    This post is for no purpose other than to keep following this thread on my cell phone as I head home for the day.Stay beautiful in case I don’t talk to you guys until tomorrow. 🙂

  26. GROG says:

    @Scott,Ken Buck is one man. Filistro made a sweeping generalization that Republicans are opposed to seperation of church and state. She remains unable to back it up.

  27. Bart DePalma says:

    Realist:Judicial review is limited to applying the law as it is written and most definitely does not empower judges to rewrite the law to conform with their policy preferences or those of Tom Jefferson expressed in a letter to a friend.

  28. filistro says:

    GROG… google “Republicans” and “separation of church and state”(You do know how to use the google, right?)Be sure to come back and let us know what you find.

  29. GROG says:

    I hope everything’s okay with you fili. These childish insults are unlike you.The first page of google search results all have to do with O’Donnell and Buck unless you want to include the bipartisan “atheists.com” or the highly respected and world renowned website “enotalone.com”. Are you saying Buck and O’Donnell speak for the entire Republican party? Your generalizations are becoming tiresome. Especially when you’re unable to back them up.

  30. shortchain says:

    Bart,Correction: the letter was not to a friend, but to the Denbury Baptists.I’ll let Realist discuss your habit of didactically giving opinion as fact.

  31. Mule Rider says:

    “habit of didactically giving opinion as fact.”Much like when shrinkers declares (as he did in the last post) that the stimulus (or other actions on Obama’s part) was necessary to prevent a “Second Great Depression” or a “total collapse of the American economy.”

  32. Mule Rider says:

    “google “Republicans” and “separation of church and state””I did. And I don’t think it shows what you want or think it shows.

  33. Mule Rider says:

    I’m amazed that the same people who deride Bart De Palma for his “opinion as fact” idea that an Obama speech “talked down” the stock market can sit there with a straight face and declare (in the same “opinion as fact” tone) that Obama’s actions have prevented a “total collapse of the US economy.” Simply. Boggles. The. Mind.

  34. Scott says:

    Okay, how about this. Again, depends on your definition of “separation,” but is is a state GOP pillar:The 2010 Republican Party of Texas platform, Page 15:”Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties – We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history andis vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the FirstAmendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state. ability of faith-based institutions and other organizations to assist the needy and to reduce regulation of suchorganizations.”http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

  35. filistro says:

    Jeez, you guys aren’t very good googlers.From the 2010 platform of the Texas Republican Party… page 15:”We affirm that the public acknowledgment of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of the separation of church and state.” Verbatim. Look it up.

  36. filistro says:

    Scott.. HIGH FIVE!!LOL…

  37. shortchain says:

    filistro,Here are some links which GROG will find useful in his search for refutation of your generalization:Angle, Palin, O’Donnell.DeMint — who, to be scrupulously accurate, doesn’t say there should be no wall between church and state — no, he just wants to ban through legislation anything his religion finds objectionable.Of course, that’s the position of a lot of the GOP. No, they don’t want to overturn the wall between church and state, they just want to enshrine, preferably as constitutional amendments, their religious preferences. Quelle difference!

  38. Monotreme says:

    @GROG:Is it your intention to make filistro document pro-religion, anti-First Amendment positions for all 450-odd Republican Congressional candidates?If so, this could get to be a long thread.If it’s data you’re looking for, there’s some here. I would particularly call your attention to the last set of cross-tabs, having to do with whether there is too much, too little or about the right amount of religion currently in public schools.http://www.gallup.com/poll/18136/Public-Favors-Voluntary-Prayer-Public-Schools.aspx

  39. GROG says:

    I actually tried to link to that but my browser wouldn’t load it. So now you’re using the Republican Party platform FROM A SINGLE STATE 8 YEARS AGO, to prove that the entire Republican Party in 2010 opposes seperation of church and state? Wow! (and sorry for shouting)

  40. filistro says:

    GROG… what part of “2010” don’t you understand, dear? Is it the zeroes that are hard for you?

  41. GROG says:

    fili,OK, you’re right about it being in the 2010 Texas Rep Party platform, but you’re still unable to establish that the Republican party as whole is out there opposing seperation of church and state. Are they sponsoring bills in Congress? Are they holding rallys or town hall meetings on the subject? Are there any national level Republicans campaigning on the issue? Give me something.

  42. GROG says:

    @monotreme,The Gallup poll finds that 60% of Americans think there is too little religion in schools. It doesn’t refer to political party.Like discussed above, the right’s definition of “separation” and the left’s definition of “separation” is surely much different. The founders mentioned God everywhere and on just about every government document they possibly could. They clearly wanted God to be present in their new nation.

  43. Monotreme says:

    @GROG:Here ya go. Scroll down to VoteMatch, topic 4.http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm

  44. Monotreme says:

    @GROG,There are crosstabs by political party affiliation. Look again.There is ample historical evidence that the Founding Fathers were Deists, which is an entirely different animal than today’s fundamentalist Christians. For example, they did not support a literal interpretation of Biblical writings or the doctrine of inerrancy.

  45. Mule Rider says:

    “There is ample historical evidence that the Founding Fathers were Deists, which is an entirely different animal than today’s fundamentalist Christians. For example, they did not support a literal interpretation of Biblical writings or the doctrine of inerrancy”Not entirely true either. The evidence shows that the Founding Fathers came from a variety of backgrounds. Some were Deists as you mention and some could even be considered atheists, but there were definitely some who came from a staunchly religious background that would parallel modern-day “fundamentalist Christians.”Just like today, there was a little bit of everything back then.

  46. Mule Rider says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion(2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the “Jefferson Bible”), and Benjamin Franklin. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.

  47. filistro says:

    Holy Cow… you can find these for every state! Oklahoma Republican Party platform: 2010 (Summary)”The party interprets the First Amendment as protecting all forms of religious expression and does not agree with Supreme Court interpretations of a separation of church and state.”IOWA Republican Party platfrom, 2008 section 7:28″We call on our courts to interpret and apply the First Amendment as the Framers intended. We assert that the phrase, “the separation of church and state” as is commonly used, contradicts the original intent and practice of the Framers of the Constitution.” (How many more do I need to find, GROG? The ball game’s on!)

  48. GROG says:

    @momotreme,Thanks. I didn’t scroll down far enough. Not paying attention to detail tonight. Even Democrats favor more religion by 67%. Interesting poll.

  49. Monotreme says:

    @Mule Rider,Point taken. We were specifically discussing those who crafted the First Amendment, but your general historical observation applies. I stand corrected. I was oversimplifying to make a point.

  50. Mule Rider says:

    That 49 is out of a total of 74 delegates, or roughly 2/3rds, and consists what could arguably be considered “mainstream Christians.” So it stands to reason that the remaining 25 consisted of Deists, very passive believers, and probably some non-believers. I don’t find that number to be too out of whack with today as estimates suggest 80%-90% of the US believe in a God with a smaller portion, but still the majority of this (80%-90%) group, believing in the Christian God. And then you’ve got the rest as non-believers.

  51. GROG says:

    Well done Fili. I concede the putt. Back to your original point. You think this opposition by Republicans hurts them among youth. Why? According to monotreme’s Gallup link, 67% of Democrats would like to see more religion in schools. It doesn’t seem like an issue that hurts R’s.

  52. Mule Rider says:

    FTR, I believe in the separation of church and state, but I believe there has been some overreach at times in trying to remove God – or at least His name – from the public domain.

  53. filistro says:

    GROG… young people may not be opposed to generic religion in schools, but they certainly DO NOT not want somebody else’s religion legislated upon their personal choices like reproduction and marriage. And they will vote en masse against any party that tries to do that.Now leave me alone, I’m watching the ball game.

  54. Mainer says:

    Grog I have worked in one capacity or another with young people most of my adult life and yes a party built on religion is going to be a turn off to all but those young people that have been totaly bought into some form of religion by the time they graduate from high school.

  55. GROG says:

    I FTR, can’t say that I disagree with the statements from the Iowa and Oklahoma Rep Party platform. I believe the phrase “separation of church and state” has been taken out of context from what the founders intended. I believe they did not want a state run religion, or for a particular religion to govern in anyway. That’s what many Americans fled in the old world.But in no way did they intend for something like prayer in public schools to outlawed, or for a national day of prayer to be unconstitutional. The Continental Congress made their first official act a call to prayer on September 6, 1774, after just receiving news that the British troops had attacked Boston. The first prayer in Congress was uttered on September 7, 1774, in Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia.Now how can anyone say they wouldn’t have approved of prayer in public schools?

  56. Anonymous says:

    mainer,I don’t think the Rep party is built on religion. They just think it’s ok to talk about God and faith in public, no matter what a person’s religion is. I don’t see where the party is trying to force their beliefs on others.

  57. shortchain says:

    GROG,Since there were no public schools at the time, how can you say they would have approved of prayer in public schools?There is a fundamental difference between a group of adults, in free association, agreeing to a public prayer service, and an organized, concerted plan to indoctrinate the young by forcing them to participate in public prayers, by a state entity, the public school, no less.I cannot believe the free thinkers who created the Constitution would have wanted to see such indoctrination.

  58. Mainer says:

    Ok if not built then featuring socialy conservative positions including but not limited to religion. Poor wording on my part.

  59. 75052 says:

    @shortchain,I totally agree. And if the Rep party favors forced prayer in school, or a forced national day of prayer, I would vehemently reject that. Btw, the post at 5:17 was me.

  60. filistro says:

    There is a fundamental difference between a group of adults, in free association, agreeing to a public prayer service, and an organized, concerted plan to indoctrinate the young by forcing them to participate in public prayers, by a state entity, the public school, no less.Plus the fact that by current census 78% of Americans are Christian, 6% are “other”… (Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish) and 16% are “atheist or unaffiliated.”So if traditional generic Christian observances are forced upon students, there is a good chance that one in every four children will be subjected by those in authority over them to a religion that is not their own. (Imagine yourself being transferred to Saudi Arabia for your job, and your kids being forced to participate in Muslim prayers at school.)This is not what America is about. In fact, it is what America was expressly founded in order to prevent.

  61. GROG says:

    That was me above, too. Having a rough night.

  62. GROG says:

    That was me at 5:33, too. Having a rough night.

  63. GROG says:

    Oh boy. I better call it a night.

  64. GROG says:

    fili,I am strongly opposed to forcing anyone to pray and I would hope anyone who calls themselves a Republican would agree.

  65. filistro says:

    Well then GROG when you say… I don’t see where the party is trying to force their beliefs on others… what do you call the party’s opposition to gay marriage, if not “forcing their beliefs on others?”

  66. shrinkers says:

    @BartHowever, the only question posed by the actual text is whether the government is creating a de jure or de facto state religion. No. That is your opinion. It is your interpretation. And it is at odds with 200 years of legislation and SCOTUS rulings. And you know it.You are pushing a far right social agenda, one that is at odds not only with history and court rulings, but also with the libertarian philosophy you pretend to embrace.The government engages in the “establishment” of religion every time it officially sanctions a religious display. As a lawyer, one might expect you to have a better understanding of the law.

  67. shrinkers says:

    @GROGKen Buck is one man. Filistro made a sweeping generalization that Republicans are opposed to seperation of church and state. She remains unable to back it up.Bart makes two.

  68. filistro says:

    the libertarian philosophy you pretend to embrace.The ONLY libertarian policy Bart espouses is a reluctance to pay taxes.It’s interesting that he is so unwilling to call himself what he clearly is… a socially conservative Republican. I guess that brand is really, irreparably damaged.

  69. filistro says:

    This World Series is GREAT for a person with progressive leanings.I get to cheer for a team from SAN FRANCISCO over a team once managed by George W. Bush.GO GIANTS!!!! :-):-):-)

  70. GROG says:

    fili,Are you trying to force your beliefs on me by trying to change the definition of marriage?

  71. shrinkers says:

    @Mule RiderMuch like when shrinkers declares (as he did in the last post) that the stimulus (or other actions on Obama’s part) was necessary to prevent a “Second Great Depression” or a “total collapse of the American economy.”No, sir. I said those were parts of the purpose and effect of ARRA. I did not say “necessary”. Perhaps there were other routes. (No one suggested any, however.) Again, please put it into context; I was making an argument about your contention that we should look only at the ARRA’s effect on jobs. I pointed out that it had other effects as well, and that “immediate short-term impact on jobs” was not its only purpose, and, therefore, to divide the cost of ARRA by the number of jobs impacted produces a senseless and useless metric.You did, however, support my point that too often, people are unable to put facts — or opinions — into context. They tend, rather, to pull them away from their proper context in order (they hope) to score rhetorical poitns.

  72. filistro says:

    I’m a Deist, GROG. I have no beliefs about marriage, and I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t hurt anybody.

  73. shrinkers says:

    sit there with a straight face and declare (in the same “opinion as fact” tone) that Obama’s actions have prevented a “total collapse of the US economy.” Obama’s actions? One man? No. It took a couple of acts of Congress.

  74. shrinkers says:

    I believe they did not want a state run religion, or for a particular religion to govern in anyway. That’s what many Americans fled in the old world.But in no way did they intend for something like prayer in public schools to outlawed, or for a national day of prayer to be unconstitutional. There are reasonable enough opinions. If we are talking “in general” an no one offers data otherwise, there is nothing necessarily to prevent one from holding the opinion you express. It is, however, merely your opinion. Agreed?

  75. Scott says:

    Little late on this but, Fili, what do they say about great minds? 🙂

  76. filistro says:

    Scott… that was awesome. Total simultaneity, and on something so obscure, too.What are the odds? 🙂

  77. Scott says:

    Could be because I’m totally stalking you and just happened to type in on Blackberry faster than you could on your PC.(And I’m totally kidding, lest anyone think I’m actually a stalker…)

  78. filistro says:

    Scott.. 😉 And not only did we both find that obscure Texas party platform… WE ACTUALLY GOT GROG TO CONCEDE THE POINT.It’s sort of historic, actually. (An extra glass of wine has been drunk on your behalf 🙂

  79. Scott says:

    Wine, eh? I usually go for something stronger, but alright. That’ll work. 🙂

  80. Mainer says:

    I was already to throw the Maine Republican platform in as well but you two beat me to the punch.

  81. filistro says:

    Mainer… you know, it was deeply unsettling to read all those Republican party platforms. A real education, but unsettling. Really, I had no idea.When they’re behind closed doors, putting their heads together to decide how the world should be… those dudes are CRAZY.

  82. shrinkers says:

    filistro, what’s crazier is hearing conservative commeners on liberal blogs trying to deny it. Just sayin’.I mean, this crazy stuff is what the Republicans have been running on for as long as I’ve been alive (and that’s saying something). Maybe the youngsters are just not quite aware of the strangeness of the cult they’ve wandered into? 😉

  83. filistro says:

    @shrinkers… every one of those state party platforms states that they believe “Intelligent Design” should be taught in high school science classes.Every single one.These people really need to be kept in check.Seriously, they do. For the good of everyone.

  84. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “However, the only question posed by the actual text is whether the government is creating a de jure or de facto state religion.”shrinkers: “No. That is your opinion. It is your interpretation.”How precisely does a government establish a religion unless it is a state religion?If you prefer the original intent approach, no less a liberal than Lawrence Tribe recognizes that the founders intended the Establishment Clause to keep the Feds from establishing an national religion or siding with one religion over the others.shrinkers: “And it is at odds with 200 years of legislation and SCOTUS rulings. And you know it.”Actually, you do not know what you think you know. The modern progressive judicial rewrite of the Establishment Clause taking Tom Jefferson’s phrase out of context started in 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education. Before that case, all levels of government freely employed religion in a variety of contexts including prayers in all branches of government including schools. Somehow, the United States never became a theocracy.

  85. shrinkers says:

    @filsitro every one of those state party platforms states that they believe “Intelligent Design” should be taught in high school science classes.Yes. See? The crazies are not the Republican fringe. They’re the base, the policymakers. What happened during the Bush years isn’t the least bit surprising. When you put clowns in charge, that’s what happens.

  86. shrinkers says:

    Bart, you are free to point to any SCOTUS decision which allows officially sanctioned and required prayer in public schools.

  87. shrinkers says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … “… respecting the establishment of religion …”Not merely “establishing religion,” not “creating an official religion,” but even “respecting the establishment of religion.” Bart, do you need a legal dictionary? (And no, try try quoting one to me, I don’t need your selective cherrypicking. I already know what it means.)So you don’t like the established body of law. You are free to propose a repeal of the First Amendment.

  88. shrinkers says:

    Bart, read this (it might provide you with a basic understanding of constitutional law regarding the First Amendment):http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/02.html#1

  89. Realist says:

    @Bart,Judicial review is limited to applying the law as it is written and most definitely does not empower judges to rewrite the lawSeriously? You’re a lawyer? Judicial review is not limited to applying the law. That role belongs in the executive branch, not the judicial.Judicial review is limited to interpreting the law. When a case is brought before the court, and there is either ambiguity or conflict within or among laws, it is up to the court to interpret those laws, and further clarify their meaning. This dates back in England to the year 1610, and was reaffirmed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.There is nothing in the Constitution detailing guidelines for interpretation. They can, therefore, use extralegal documentation, or interpretations used in other countries (particularly Great Britain, from whom we developed much of our founding principles and legal jargon). They can even make stuff up.You should already know this if you are a lawyer.But please, if my understanding of this basic principle of law is flawed, by all means give us the appropriate case law to explain how Marbury v. Madison has changed to match the definition you provided.

  90. Mule Rider says:

    @shrinkers,Now you’re playing word games, but that doesn’t change anything. The semantics of me erroneously using the word “necessary” doesn’t change that you trotted out an opinion as a fact when you said that the stimulus prevented a Second Great Depression or a total collapse of the economy. You said those exact words. There are quotes I can link to if you like. And, btw, they are OPINIONS, not facts, as much as you like to tell yourself they are. So quit hounding other people for passing off opinions as facts when you do the exact same thing.

  91. Realist says:

    You know, watching some of the exchanges in this thread has been heartening.GROG admits to being bettered by a handful of liberals on one point, Monotreme admits to being bettered by Mule Rider on another, and it’s done in a respectful and admiring way.It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. B)

  92. shrinkers says:

    Mule Rider, I’m happy to say that it is indeed my understanding, based on the analysis of many respected economists, that the ARRA helped to prevent a Second Great Depression and a total collapse of the economy. This was irrelevant to the discussion we were having, but I’m happy to concede the point that, based on the evidence available, this is my conclusion.I also want to stress that you are, of course, missing my point entirely, and are trying to cloud it with another issue. My point was that your idea of dividing the amount of money allocated for ARRA by the number of jobs saved or gained provides a meaningless statistic, since the purpose of ARRA was not simply to save or create jobs. There was a lot else going on, there was far more that ARRA was intended to do. ARRA costs / # jobs is a meaningless statistic, with value only as a propaganda device. And, with training in economics, you should know that. Do you agree, yes or no?

  93. Mule Rider says:

    “Do you agree, yes or no?”I’m not agreeing with shit until you admit that you trotted out an opinion and presented it as fact. You can sugarcoat it how you want about how you “interpreted” the analysis of “respected economists” and came to that “conclusion,” but the FACT is that it’s nothing more than your opinion. There is no way of knowing for sure that without ARRA we would have had a “2nd GD” or “total economic collapse.”By the way, I work with 40 or so “respected economists” and not a single one of them believes that would have been the alternative without ARRA.

  94. Mule Rider says:

    “trying to cloud it with another issue.”Again, I’m not clouding SHIT. I’m calling you out – as you guys love to always call Bart out so much/often – for expressing an opinion and masquerading it as fact. You wouldn’t hesitate to do the same to me, Bart, GROG, Jeff, etc. if we did that – even if the discussion was about something somewhat unrelated or even entirely different – so don’t act like you should get any special privileges just because the primary discussion in that thread was about ARRA cost v. jobs.

  95. Monotreme says:

    I’m confident we can get this discussion back to a respectful basis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s