What does the U.S. Republican party stand for?

[Warren Dew]

From a poll of about 35,000 recent contributors to the Republican National Committee:



It seems the Tea Party/libertarian/classical liberal wing of the party has soundly defeated the religious right - at least for now.

[Ian]

Not that I care for the likes of the Tea Party, but it's nice to see the evangelical wing finally take a back seat. I prefer fiscal loonies to the Moral Majority any day. They'd been in charge of the GOP for a couple decades prior to recently.

[Atheist-Lite]

Not that I care for the likes of the Tea Party, but it's nice to see the evangelical wing finally take a back seat. I prefer fiscal loonies to the Moral Majority any day. They'd been in charge of the GOP for a couple decades prior to recently.

[Seth]

I'd much rather put up with moralists than the fiscally insane. Fiscal insanity does far more personal harm to me than somebody's concerns about men buggering other men or suchlike moralizing.

[Warren Dew]

I'd much rather put up with moralists than the fiscally insane. Fiscal insanity does far more personal harm to me than somebody's concerns about men buggering other men or suchlike moralizing.

It's only Ian that thinks "fiscal discipline" and "limited government" constitute fiscal insanity, though.

[Ian]

I'd much rather put up with moralists than the fiscally insane. Fiscal insanity does far more personal harm to me than somebody's concerns about men buggering other men or suchlike moralizing.

It's only Ian that thinks "fiscal discipline" and "limited government" constitute fiscal insanity, though.

I think fiscal discipline amounts to fiscal insanity? Orly?

Perhaps I should rephrase "fiscal loonies" as "fiscal extremists". FFS, have a look at Ron Paul, possibly the most popular guy amongst the Tea Party groups, and in favor of abolishing the Dept. of Education, the IRS, etc.

Limited government sounds fine, but fiscal discipline can be echieved without such extreme and painful measures. But measures as extreme as some of what we've been hearing from the likes of him sound pretty insane to me.

Balanced budget and low debt = good policies and goals.
Abolishing the Dept. of Education = Backwardness to the point of insanity.

[maiforpeace]

From a poll of about 35,000 recent contributors to the Republican National Committee:



It seems the Tea Party/libertarian/classical liberal wing of the party has soundly defeated the religious right - at least for now.

Wouldn't we have to see a former chart (from the Bush years, perhaps) to determine this? What are we comparing this to?

[sandinista]

What does it mean? What social issues? What accounts for social issues? WTF are family values? Ethics? In what sense? Personal responsibility, for what? Free markets? Free how? Where? What the fuck does any of this mean?

[Ian]

It's a straw poll, not some scientific analysis. To the respondents, those things mean whatever they each assume them to mean.

[sandinista]

It's a straw poll, no some scientific analysis. To the respondents, those things mean whatever they each assume them to mean.

So it means nothing at all. That's what I figured, bunch of vague notions.

[Ian]

It's a straw poll, no some scientific analysis. To the respondents, those things mean whatever they each assume them to mean.

So it means nothing at all. That's what I figured, bunch of vague notions.

Pretty much, yes. But it indicates some broad trends happening in the GOP. It wasn't so long ago that Republicans could only talk about abortion and gay marriage and Terry Schiavo, etc.. Now some of those voices are being drowned out, just a little, by those who want to kill the deficit, etc. During the last administration, those Republicans who wanted fiscal discipline were apparently locked away in a Congressional broom closet. They weren't heard from much. Now they're everywhere.

[sandinista]

It's a straw poll, no some scientific analysis. To the respondents, those things mean whatever they each assume them to mean.

So it means nothing at all. That's what I figured, bunch of vague notions.

Pretty much, yes. But it indicates some broad trends happening in the GOP. It wasn't so long ago that Republicans could only talk about abortion and gay marriage and Terry Schiavo, etc.. Now some of those voices are being drowned out, just a little, by those who want to kill the deficit, etc. During the last administration, those Republicans who wanted fiscal discipline were apparently locked away in a Congressional broom closet. They weren't heard from much. Now they're everywhere.

So, by killing the deficit and fiscal discipline that must mean cutting the "defense" budget by at least half. Is this what the republicans will run with?

[Ian]

It's a straw poll, no some scientific analysis. To the respondents, those things mean whatever they each assume them to mean.

So it means nothing at all. That's what I figured, bunch of vague notions.

Pretty much, yes. But it indicates some broad trends happening in the GOP. It wasn't so long ago that Republicans could only talk about abortion and gay marriage and Terry Schiavo, etc.. Now some of those voices are being drowned out, just a little, by those who want to kill the deficit, etc. During the last administration, those Republicans who wanted fiscal discipline were apparently locked away in a Congressional broom closet. They weren't heard from much. Now they're everywhere.

So, by killing the deficit and fiscal discipline that must mean cutting the "defense" budget by at least half. Is this what the republicans will run with?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are more than a few Tea Party-type fiscal hawks who have been eyeing the DoD budget greedily. They want big cuts, including from Defense. This is something that establishment (neocon, really) Republicans are worried about: an alliance between liberal Democrats and fiscally right-wing Republicans to force the DoD budget down.

Sounds fine to me. Taxes are going to have to go back up sooner or later, but I think the DoD budget is one area where spending ought to go down, maybe quite a bit. It's expenditures are big enough to be counterproductive. Hell, the Secretary of Defense himself has been saying as much. And I'm saying this as an analyst who draws a DoD paycheck (I'm not personally worried though: my job is far enough in the meat that I should be fine when some of the fat starts to get trimmed away).

[Seth]

I'd much rather put up with moralists than the fiscally insane. Fiscal insanity does far more personal harm to me than somebody's concerns about men buggering other men or suchlike moralizing.

It's only Ian that thinks "fiscal discipline" and "limited government" constitute fiscal insanity, though.

I think fiscal discipline amounts to fiscal insanity? Orly?

Perhaps I should rephrase "fiscal loonies" as "fiscal extremists". FFS, have a look at Ron Paul, possibly the most popular guy amongst the Tea Party groups, and in favor of abolishing the Dept. of Education, the IRS, etc.

Limited government sounds fine, but fiscal discipline can be echieved without such extreme and painful measures. But measures as extreme as some of what we've been hearing from the likes of him sound pretty insane to me.

Balanced budget and low debt = good policies and goals.
Abolishing the Dept. of Education = Backwardness to the point of insanity.

Why? What on earth do we need an unconstitutional federal education bureaucracy for? It was originally set up to help fund universities and to research and disseminate information regarding how the states could set up effective public school programs. It outlived it's usefulness once the states actually did so, but like every other federal zombie program, it never died and only got bigger and more intrusive on state's rights and individual incomes.

States are perfectly capable of running their own school systems without the involvement of the federal government, much less the sort of intimate regulatory power the DOE is exerting, particularly with non-government-employee Michelle Obama's meddling with food in public schools, which is a complete violation of both state sovereignty and entirely unauthorized by the Constitution.

The Department of Education is now a bloated bureaucracy that serves only the function of extracting tax money from the states, skimming off a goodly amount to pay useless, meddlesome bureaucrats, and sending what's left right back to the very states they took it from.

There is NO better example of a detrimental and useless bureaucracy that could be vanished overnight without a single ripple to the rest of the country than the Department of Education.

[sandinista]

It's a straw poll, no some scientific analysis. To the respondents, those things mean whatever they each assume them to mean.

So it means nothing at all. That's what I figured, bunch of vague notions.

Pretty much, yes. But it indicates some broad trends happening in the GOP. It wasn't so long ago that Republicans could only talk about abortion and gay marriage and Terry Schiavo, etc.. Now some of those voices are being drowned out, just a little, by those who want to kill the deficit, etc. During the last administration, those Republicans who wanted fiscal discipline were apparently locked away in a Congressional broom closet. They weren't heard from much. Now they're everywhere.

So, by killing the deficit and fiscal discipline that must mean cutting the "defense" budget by at least half. Is this what the republicans will run with?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are more than a few Tea Party-type fiscal hawks who have been eyeing the DoD budget greedily. They want big cuts, including from Defense. This is something that establishment (neocon, really) Republicans are worried about: an alliance between liberal Democrats and fiscally right-wing Republicans to force the DoD budget down.

Sounds fine to me. Taxes are going to have to go back up sooner or later, but I think the DoD budget is one area where spending ought to go down, maybe quite a bit. It's expenditures are big enough to be counterproductive. Hell, the Secretary of Defense himself has been saying as much. And I'm saying this as an analyst who draws a DoD paycheck (I'm not personally worried though: my job is far enough in the meat that I should be fine when some of the fat starts to get trimmed away).

I'll believe it when I see it. Hope you're right though.