The Republican Thread

[Rex Kickass]

I don't think that is true at all. The centrist repubs are the ones who wanted limited interference in all aspects of their lives. They are excited by this movement because it not only focuses on taxes, but also spending and rules. The real center of the party is much more hands-off. The Democrats are threatened by this which is why they have mobilized so quickly to label the entire movement as racist and uneducated, which you are seeing on this very board. They are painting a vocal minority as much more than it really is. It would be akin to painting guys like Al Sharpton and the guy who took Discovery hostage as the center of the Democratic party.

 

I think anytime a force comes in to excite the party and make it more apt to bring growth to a party, its a good thing for that party. This doesn't always translate into near term success. I think what the Tea Party movement has accomplished in 18 months, whatever its origins, is pretty astonishing. Whether it ultimately leads to Reagan type electoral success, or Goldwater type wandering in the woods remains to be seen.

[Balta1701]

You don't think there's a difference between government action to combat illegal acts and needless government action mandating how Americans should live their lives (and how to spend their money)? I haven't heard the Tea Partiers claiming that we don't need police departments either, but that doesn't make their message of limited government interference invalid.

Frankly...if the goal is protection of individual rights against government interference...it really starts to ring hollow when you say "it's protection against government interference in my pocketbook, with exceptions for funding additional police presence, border patrols, the defense department...drug enforcement...big business...corn subsidies..." and whatever other exceptions you want to add on the list.

[southsider2k5]

But sir...the reason why the racial angles and everything else comes up is that "limited interference in all aspects of their lives" is a slogan that goes away the moment that it becomes inconvenient. By far the best example I could ever give of this effect is SB 1070...which, whether you want to admit it or not, is by definition a gigantic government interference in people's lives. "I'm from the government and I'm here to check your papers to make sure you're not breaking the law" is about the most classic oppressive government line you can come up with, yet, that bill has gotten virtually zero anger out of the tea party.

 

I can come up with a solid variety of continuing examples from the past couple years as well. "I'm from the government and I'm listening to your phone calls to make sure you're not breaking the law" would be one of those things that would get a legimate "limited government interference" group riled up, but because the Terrorism excuse gets applied...no one cares. I'm from the government and I'm here to torture you until you talk, or I'm from the government and you don't get a trial because I say you don't...same exact line.

 

The center of the Republican party is no more hands-off than the center of the Democratic party, it just picks different issues to be hands-off about.

 

Protecting the country from foriegn invaders is supposed to be one of the things that our federal government does.

[Rex Kickass]

You don't think there's a difference between government action to combat illegal acts and needless government action mandating how Americans should live their lives (and how to spend their money)? I haven't heard the Tea Partiers claiming that we don't need police departments either, but that doesn't make their message of limited government interference invalid.

 

I think an argument can be made here that a bill like SB 1070 in Arizona changes the prism of the government from presumed innocent until found guilty to the other way around.

[Jenksismyhero]

Way to put words in my mouth. I don't think that "conservative" listeners are morons. In fact, as an unapologetic Democrat, I honestly wish that we had a stronger echo chamber similar to what the Republicans have. It would make for a much stronger position this November, because the party's message might actually get some traction in pundit land.

 

But the demographics of the "liberal"audience are different, because the "liberal" audience is frankly more diverse. I don't have the numbers, but I'd wager that the average Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, random Conservative pundit audience is pretty much the same - white and primarily male. Not making a judgment call on what that means, that's just what the audience appears to me to be.

 

On the other hand a "liberal" audience is more female than male, and is more likely to consist of multiple minority communities, each of whom have their own narrative. "Liberal"audiences don't maintain the kind of ideological purity that "conservative" audiences tends to have, because so many communities come from completely different places. And that audience doesn't tend to be attracted to political talk radio - at least partially because its not marketed to those people, partially because its not created with those people in mind, and partially because they aren't inclined to that kind of format.

 

I think this is the point I was trying to make earlier.

 

Bulls***. The conservative party is just as diverse, but you all like to define conservatives as one crazy religious racist homophobic rich (though sometimes hillbilly) group. Again, you have fiscal conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, the hardcore right, etc - all different groups with diverse viewpoints.

 

And while "liberals" might be more diverse, I dunno that it's THAT much more. I'll defer to Balta to find a study on that. But either way, it's not like Republicans are 99.9% white males over 40.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Protecting the country from foriegn invaders is supposed to be one of the things that our federal government does.

As is regulating interstate commerce.

[southsider2k5]

I think an argument can be made here that a bill like SB 1070 in Arizona changes the prism of the government from presumed innocent until found guilty to the other way around.

 

Which is the reason I am actually against this bill. That type of logic has become way to easy to use in this country. I have no problem accepting that people will die because of the rights we have. Those rights are the most important thing here.

[Jenksismyhero]

Frankly...if the goal is protection of individual rights against government interference...it really starts to ring hollow when you say "it's protection against government interference in my pocketbook, with exceptions for funding additional police presence, border patrols, the defense department...drug enforcement...big business...corn subsidies..." and whatever other exceptions you want to add on the list.

 

Kinda like the liberal viewpoint that all groups are equal, discrimination is bad, yadda yadda.....unless you're 1) a tea party member, 2) rich, 3) religious (christian specifically), etc.

 

No policy view is 100%. There are always exceptions. I think protecting the state from terrorism and from illegal immigrants is a job for the federal government.

 

And I have yet to hear how providing proof of citizenship is in anyway different than me having to provide a drivers license and proof of insurance. Oh the humanity for having to come up with those two pieces of paper. Again, you don't hear tea partiers crying foul over that either.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think an argument can be made here that a bill like SB 1070 in Arizona changes the prism of the government from presumed innocent until found guilty to the other way around.

 

Please. It's yet another technical requirement in our law books. Apparently having to provide a drivers license, proof of insurance, SS card, blah blah, is all the government assuming I don't have them. Why can't they just take my word for it?

[Balta1701]

And I have yet to hear how providing proof of citizenship is in anyway different than me having to provide a drivers license and proof of insurance. Oh the humanity for having to come up with those two pieces of paper. Again, you don't hear tea partiers crying foul over that either.

That one's easy and you ought to know it. Although I'll admit I've managed a full thread derailment and I apologize....it doesn't require papers to live in the country. It requires papers and permission to use roads. If I choose to not be driving and I'm not breaking any other law, by every standard of "government intrusion into my life" having to produce papers at the request of authorities is the definition of a government intrusion into people's lives.

[Rex Kickass]

Bulls***. The conservative party is just as diverse, but you all like to define conservatives as one crazy religious racist homophobic rich (though sometimes hillbilly) group. Again, you have fiscal conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, the hardcore right, etc - all different groups with diverse viewpoints.

 

And while "liberals" might be more diverse, I dunno that it's THAT much more. I'll defer to Balta to find a study on that. But either way, it's not like Republicans are 99.9% white males over 40.

 

I never said that conservatives are crazy, religious, racist, homophobic, rich or hillbilly. I did say that conservatives and the Republican party tends to attract a more homogenous audience (in this case, primarily white male) and that there's a bit more ideological rigidity there.

 

Most exit polling from election after election shows that women tend to lean left over right. African Americans consistently vote Democrat, the Latino community tends to vote Democrat in much stronger numbers than Republican, so does the GLBT community, as do Jewish voters, etc.

[StrangeSox]

The conservative message as sold by Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etc. is not diverse. The Republican party typically can stay 'on message' and votes more cohesively than Democrats.

 

On talk radio and talking head TV, opinions and positions are dictated, not discussed. It is more cohesive to an authoritarian philosophy than to "free thought" or progressive philosophy. The opinions expressed by Limbaugh, Hannity et al are right-wing authoritarian in nature. Compare this to some show on NPR that may blather on and on in a round-table feel-good discussion of ideas.

 

For whatever reason, the conservative message sells well via the "shout things at you and tell it the way it is over the airwaves" model. While you do get intelligent conversations from people like the late William Buckley, actual conversations and discussions (not having someone parrot what you believe or bring someone on to berate them) are the exception and not the norm. The inability of liberal talk radio to catch on may be somewhat self-fulfilling, since the people who would typically be the target audience of liberal talk radio is also going to buy into the idea of "intellectual liberal" and will not value a talk radio host as much as an NPR round table.

 

The above may or may not make sense. I'm a bit sleep-deprived right now.

 

Also libertarians are libertarians, not conservatives, at least imo. I think they'd describe themselves as "classical liberals" more so than associate with modern conservative movements.

 

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Kinda like the liberal viewpoint that all groups are equal, discrimination is bad, yadda yadda.....unless you're 1) a tea party member, 2) rich, 3) religious (christian specifically), etc.

 

No policy view is 100%. There are always exceptions. I think protecting the state from terrorism and from illegal immigrants is a job for the federal government.

 

And I have yet to hear how providing proof of citizenship is in anyway different than me having to provide a drivers license and proof of insurance. Oh the humanity for having to come up with those two pieces of paper. Again, you don't hear tea partiers crying foul over that either.

 

So you feel that you should be asked to carry around your birth certificate and/or passport at all times? Because that's essentially what SB 1070 asks of you, IIRC. It's not just about a traffic stop. It's about being in any public place in Arizona, at any time. Personally, I think that's fairly unreasonable. What happens when your documents are stolen from you, or lost, or destroyed in the laundry, etc. - and you get stopped and can't prove your citizenship. Do you feel you should be detained until such time that your citizenship can be proven?

[Jenksismyhero]

That one's easy and you ought to know it. Although I'll admit I've managed a full thread derailment and I apologize....it doesn't require papers to live in the country. It requires papers and permission to use roads. If I choose to not be driving and I'm not breaking any other law, by every standard of "government intrusion into my life" having to produce papers at the request of authorities is the definition of a government intrusion into people's lives.

 

I'm pretty sure as standard police procedure, if you're being stopped (in a car or otherwise), the first question is to produce ID. If you fail to produce ID, they can take you to the station and try to find out who you are.

[StrangeSox]

I'm pretty sure as standard police procedure, if you're being stopped (in a car or otherwise), the first question is to produce ID. If you fail to produce ID, they can take you to the station and try to find out who you are.

 

Foreign tourists, foreign visitors, people on work/school visas etc. can't simply provide a driver's license for identification. People with brown skin and a heavy accent may be required to present more than a state driver's license simply to prove that they're here legally. That's a radical change.

[Balta1701]

I'm pretty sure as standard police procedure, if you're being stopped (in a car or otherwise), the first question is to produce ID. If you fail to produce ID, they can take you to the station and try to find out who you are.

If you're driving, the rules of states require you to have permission to use the automobile on you while driving. However, while walking or while in your own home...etc...unless the police have at least a reasonable suspicion that you're committing a crime, you have every right to ref.use to provide that identification and ask what suspicion they have that you're actually committing a crime. That's why the "check your papers" line is so commonly used in references to the Soviet Union...they had the full right to check your papers no matter what you were doing, just to make sure you were being good.

[Jenksismyhero]

The conservative message as sold by Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etc. is not diverse. The Republican party typically can stay 'on message' and votes more cohesively than Democrats.

 

On talk radio and talking head TV, opinions and positions are dictated, not discussed. It is more cohesive to an authoritarian philosophy than to "free thought" or progressive philosophy. The opinions expressed by Limbaugh, Hannity et al are right-wing authoritarian in nature. Compare this to some show on NPR that may blather on and on in a round-table feel-good discussion of ideas.

 

For whatever reason, the conservative message sells well via the "shout things at you and tell it the way it is over the airwaves" model. While you do get intelligent conversations from people like the late William Buckley, actual conversations and discussions (not having someone parrot what you believe or bring someone on to berate them) are the exception and not the norm. The inability of liberal talk radio to catch on may be somewhat self-fulfilling, since the people who would typically be the target audience of liberal talk radio is also going to buy into the idea of "intellectual liberal" and will not value a talk radio host as much as an NPR round table.

 

The above may or may not make sense. I'm a bit sleep-deprived right now.

 

Also libertarians are libertarians, not conservatives, at least imo. I think they'd describe themselves as "classical liberals" more so than associate with modern conservative movements.

 

1) have you actually watched those shows? The "message" of O'Reilly and Beck are not the same. You've lumped them together for no other reason than because they're under the umbrella of Fox News.

 

2) As discussed with Rex, how does this differ from the "liberal" talking heads like Olbermann or Maddow? Or, 2 of the 5 "sources" for news from liberals, the daily show and the colbert report. Apparently the "liberal" message sells just fine in that arena.

 

And I think NPR doesn't even belong in this discussion. They pick so many random bits of news to report that it's hardly an up-to-date look on the days news, which is what most of the shows we're talking about provide (in addition to the fact that it's radio v. tv)

 

Funny too how CNN is considered "neutral" in these discussions, even though they provide the exact same format. Entertaining host, viewpoints from one side or the other, opinion piece by host, commercial. It's the same exact process, only with a different emphasis depending on the issue.

[Chisoxfn]

That one's easy and you ought to know it. Although I'll admit I've managed a full thread derailment and I apologize....it doesn't require papers to live in the country. It requires papers and permission to use roads. If I choose to not be driving and I'm not breaking any other law, by every standard of "government intrusion into my life" having to produce papers at the request of authorities is the definition of a government intrusion into people's lives.

But aren't you required to be a citizen (or have a work visa) to receive a drivers license? Or at least, shouldn't you be?

[Jenksismyhero]

If you're driving, the rules of states require you to have permission to use the automobile on you while driving. However, while walking or while in your own home...etc...unless the police have at least a reasonable suspicion that you're committing a crime, you have every right to ref.use to provide that identification and ask what suspicion they have that you're actually committing a crime. That's why the "check your papers" line is so commonly used in references to the Soviet Union...they had the full right to check your papers no matter what you were doing, just to make sure you were being good.

 

Right, and under that law the cops had to have suspicion of wrongdoing (if not an actual act, if i recall correctly). They couldn't just go up to random brown people and ask for papers. They can do exactly what they can do to white people - make up a reasonable suspicion, go ask for ID, and take them in if they don't like their answer. There's little difference except some irrational fear that the Arizona police will become the SS.

[Rex Kickass]

But aren't you required to be a citizen (or have a work visa) to receive a drivers license? Or at least, shouldn't you be?

 

Not necessarily, if that were the case, a driver's license would be considered proof of citizenship and/or legal residency. It isn't by the Federal Government. Not every state requires proof of citizenship to get a license, just proof of residency - and frankly, it shouldn't. Don't you think it would be better for all involved if the state DMV was focused on making sure that people were following the rules of the road and properly educated on driving rather than determining whether or not someone has the right to live in our country?

[Rex Kickass]

And I think NPR doesn't even belong in this discussion. They pick so many random bits of news to report that it's hardly an up-to-date look on the days news, which is what most of the shows we're talking about provide (in addition to the fact that it's radio v. tv)

 

I listen to public radio every day. And they report a three to six minute news summary every half hour, followed by in depth stories, many of which are not examined by everyone else. If you want to say NPR isn't news, you'd have to exclude pretty much everything outside of generic AP summaries, because its the same format that network newscasts use, as well as things like the Fox Report on FNC, etc.

[Balta1701]

But aren't you required to be a citizen (or have a work visa) to receive a drivers license? Or at least, shouldn't you be?

In general yes...although in states with high immigrant populations (CA) this actually becomes a public safety issue. I'm sure you remember a few years ago where CA had debate over a bill to allow drivers licenses to be issued without a citizenship check...because if you have a large immigrant population that can't get licensed, they're still going to be on the roads, and they're still going to get into accidents...therefore you're requiring the people who are licensed to pay higher insurance rates because the immigrant community gets their insurance covered by everyone else.

 

That's a different issue...and it winds up being one of those "how do you want to deal with the immigration issue overall" matters.

 

The real reason I keep bringing this up is...when you come right down to it...if you are anti-government intrusion and pro-complete interpretation of the constitution...you don't get to choose which clauses of the constitution you want to ignore, or which class of people gets the constitution applied to them. All the other discussion is getting away from that point. The Tea party is a huge fan of certain constitution clauses, and I'm a fan of different ones.

[Jenksismyhero]

I listen to public radio every day. And they report a three to six minute news summary every half hour, followed by in depth stories, many of which are not examined by everyone else. If you want to say NPR isn't news, you'd have to exclude pretty much everything outside of generic AP summaries, because its the same format that network newscasts use, as well as things like the Fox Report on FNC, etc.

 

No, i'm not saying they're not "news," i'm just saying the format is so different that when you're discussing why people gravitate towards one news organization over another that has to be a factor. Most people get their news from the tv or internet, not the radio. The majority of NPR's coverage is news about random topics (I listen to it to, all those fancy sound bites included).

 

I dunno, I mean I also listen to WBBM every morning. They give 3-4 minutes of headline news too, but you can only get so much information in that format. It's not the same as an hour long show with a host on TV where they can cover 15 topics.

[Rex Kickass]

No, i'm not saying they're not "news," i'm just saying the format is so different that when you're discussing why people gravitate towards one news organization over another that has to be a factor. Most people get their news from the tv or internet, not the radio. The majority of NPR's coverage is news about random topics (I listen to it to, all those fancy sound bites included).

 

I dunno, I mean I also listen to WBBM every morning. They give 3-4 minutes of headline news too, but you can only get so much information in that format. It's not the same as an hour long show with a host on TV where they can cover 15 topics.

 

NPR's Morning Edition has a weekly audience of 20 million - greater than Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC.

[Balta1701]

NPR's Morning Edition has a weekly audience of 20 million - greater than Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC.

Now wait a second...are those numbers being counted the same way? You said weekly audience...that's typically not how the numbers are given for TV programs...the ratings for TV programs are typically given as numbers watching a show per day.

 

Is that 20 million people listening simultaneously, or is that 20 million people who tune in for some indeterminate length of time while on the 10 minute drive in to the office if ESPN radio is on commercial like this particular poster does?