Republicans would probably do better if so many weren't liars and hypocrites

[iNow]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/republican-war-obamacare-reaching-absurd-new-heights

Republican War on Obamacare Reaching Absurd New Heights

We all know that Republicans are hellbent on sabotaging Obamacare any way they can. But the lengths they're going to are pretty astonishing. A few weeks ago The Hill reported that some Republican congressional offices, which routinely help constituents navigate the federal government, plan to turn away callers with Obamacare questions….

Yesterday brought yet another wheeze as the state of Indiana released the projected cost of insurance on its Obamacare exchanges. The usual standard of comparison is for silver-level plans, but Indiana didn't release that separately because then it would have been clear that Indiana's costs were about the same as everyone else's. Instead they munged together the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans in some unspecificed way, and did it for no apparent reason except that it allowed them to trumpet a supposed 72 percent increase in the cost of health insurance.

Who do they think they're fooling? Nobody, I suppose, but it provides fodder for Fox hosts and right-wing radio talkers…. All they care about is having an outrageous number to bellow about on the air, and Indiana gave them one. Sarah Kliff breaks down the con job…

Any other examples of lying and hypocrisy? Do you agree with the title that republicans would probably fare better in elections if they weren't so often lying and spouting such hypocritical absurdities?

[CharonY]

I am not sure if they would do better. I have the feeling that they have not adapted to a new world in which facts can be checked in a matter of seconds. However, it is possible that much of their voter base does not care for facts too much so that they are not really forced to adapt. That is likely to change in the near future as the demographics is inevitably going to change.

[John Cuthber]

It think it's fair to say that they would do worse if they stopped lying.

I have two pieces of evidence for that.

The first is that they keep lying: they aren't stupid so they must be doing it deliberately and they ought to know what they are doing.

 

The second is more complex.

The policies of their party, such as cutting taxes and welfare payments, are really only beneficial to the rich, and are plainly detrimental to the poor.

Most people are not rich.

So most people shouldn't vote for them.

In order to get most people to vote for the, they have to convince voters that their policies are good for those who are not rich.

That's a lie.

 

So, they have to lie to succeed.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The hijack about Obamacare has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77673-obamacare-hijack-split-from-liars-and-hypocrites/

 

This thread is a discussion about Republican political methods and their effectiveness. Please stay on topic.

[overtone]

The Republicans, or at least the people they represent as a Party (the American plutocracy) are winning - they have had extraordinary success, acheived much of what they wanted, and the rest is within reach. They could hardly do "better", realistically.

 

Why would they change tactics now? Of course they may have to sacrifice some tools - lose a few Congressman or banks or the like - but they've been doing that all along.

[Nouveau]

Certainly they would perform better in the elections if they didn't keep get caught out lying or being hypocritical, it affects their credibility but then it would with any political party. Even they had a better stratergy for dealing with such events it would help. They need to have policies that actually appeal to the majority of voters as when they do get caught out, after a quick mea culpa so that no real momentum can be built in making a big deal out of their faux pas, they can actually present the public with something they actually want to hear.

 

Also perhaps if they did actually start to introduce some popular policies and have some sort of a clear message they wouldn't need to do quite so much lying in the first place, as it is people seem to think they are far more interested in stopping the Democrats than actually taking the country forward.

[Phi for All]

It seems to me that the Republicans have been working to stall any progressive agenda of any kind, even if it makes sense, even if it was their idea in the first place. They have invested a great deal in the "Liberal is the new Communist" campaign, and that's a shame. We've moved away from representing great ideas to representing ideologies that have to stretch to fit people they were never meant for.

[iNow]

Another couple of examples in this article that reminded me of this thread.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/25/republicans-had-a-plan-to-replace-obamacare-it-looked-a-lot-like-obamacare/

 

Remember “repeal and replace”? That was the Republican party’s 2010-vintage response to the Affordable Care Act. It wasn’t that they opposed the idea of universal health care; they just thought that the Obama administration and their allies in Congress went about it the wrong way. They wouldn’t just repeal the bill. They’d replace it with something better.

But what? The Romney campaign was very vague on this point, and the few points of commonality Congressional Republicans have on the issue don’t add up to a full replacement. Four years ago, however, they did. It was called the Patients’ Choice Act, it was proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), two of the most influential Congressional Republicans on the issue, and it was a credible way of covering almost all Americans;

 

<snip>

 

Obamacare bears a heavy resemblance to basically every real universal health-care plan that Republican legislators have proposed in the past half century, including the Patients’ Choice Act, Sen. John Chafee’s (R-R.I.) plan offered as an alternative to Hillarycare in 1993, and the universal plan Richard Nixon offered at the end of his presidency.

Here's a link discussing more about those "heavy resemblances:" http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-25/business/35262161_1_individual-mandate-employer-mandate-cap-and-trade

[Moontanman]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/republican-war-obamacare-reaching-absurd-new-heights

 

Republican War on Obamacare Reaching Absurd New Heights

 

 

Any other examples of lying and hypocrisy? Do you agree with the title that republicans would probably fare better in elections if they weren't so often lying and spouting such hypocritical absurdities?

We to be fair, if you are owned then you have to serve your masters, Republicans seem to do a pretty good job of sucking up to their owners...

[iNow]

I'm not ready to single out republicans on that particular point. When it comes to money in politics, democrats are hardly without sin. That particular issue I think is just about equally as bad on both sides (one of the few where there is true equivalence, IMO), it's just that the sources of money and the vested interests that money supports are different for republicans than for democrats, but both most certainly are slaves to external masters.

[Moontanman]

I'm not ready to single out republicans on that particular point. When it comes to money in politics, democrats are hardly without sin. That particular issue I think is just about equally as bad on both sides (one of the few where there is true equivalence, IMO), it's just that the sources of money and the vested interests that money supports are different for republicans than for democrats, but both most certainly are slaves to external masters.

 

 

That is a good point and one I heartily agree with...

If I am to be completely honest both sides are world class liars and hypocrites but you did specify Republicans...

[John Cuthber]

Well, I guess the Republicans are "owned" by big businesses.

Who "owns" the democrats?

If that's also big businesses then it confirms the image that the rest of the world has of US politics.

You have two Right-wing parties, but you think one of them is Left-wing.

[Moontanman]

Well, I guess the Republicans are "owned" by big businesses.

Who "owns" the democrats?

If that's also big businesses then it confirms the image that the rest of the world has of US politics.

You have two Right-wing parties, but you think one of them is Left-wing.

 

 

The same people own both sides, it is very weird to live in the middle of all this crap...

If it were not for the internet my stance on many things would be very limited, sometimes i think the politicians... sometimes i feel insulted that they are insinuating we are so stupid and some times i think they are correct...

[iNow]

Well, I guess the Republicans are "owned" by big businesses.

Who "owns" the democrats?

If that's also big businesses then it confirms the image that the rest of the world has of US politics.

You have two Right-wing parties, but you think one of them is Left-wing.

I believe this to be largely accurate. We have slightly right of center, and we have extreme right, with maybe one or two people out of the total 535 in congress that could legitimately be called "left."

[waitforufo]

We have the political class, and the non political class.

[overtone]

We have the political class, and the non political class.

Or in other words, given that we live in a democratic republic, the adult class and the non adult class.

 

 

 

democrats are hardly without sin. That particular issue I think is just about equally as bad on both sides (one of the few where there is true equivalence, IMO)

That the Dems are hardly without sin does not make the corruption equivalent on "both sides".

 

The takeover of the Republican Party by the uniquely and almost unprecedently corrupt corporate minions that we have seen in the US since Nixon showed the fascists how to get their boys elected is in a category of its own in American politics. We haven't seen the like since before WWII - long before. It's a mistake to think of it as "one side" of some kind of legitimate ideological battle - when fascism gets its hooks seriously into one's government, it's that faction against everyone else, not two "sides" of a political struggle.

 

 

 

Who "owns" the democrats?

In my general area it's fairly easy to name politicians who are not owned by big business - Al Franken, Tim Walz, Mark Dayton, off the top of my head. In the recent past, Paul Wellstone, Jesse Ventura, come easily to mind.and have national identities of sorts. There are several others less well known.

 

None of them are current Republicans. There is no equivalence in this matter - regardless of the obvious ageibusiness influence on some of the western Dem Congresscritters in my State, regardless of the obvious role of big money and influence peddling in the careers of guys like Oberstar, there are no Dem equivalents in my State of - say - Norm Coleman or Michelle Bachmann or Tim Pawlenty. They don't exist.

 

And it makes no sense to ask if "they" would do better if "they" were more honest - they wouldn't get their candidates elected dogcatcher in Fargo if those candidates were knowledgable and honest about their agenda. Figuring out how to get their politicians into power without showing their hand was the key to their ascendency.

Edited July 26, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

That the Dems are hardly without sin does not make the corruption equivalent on "both sides".

I wasn't talking about corruption. I was talking about being slaves to external money. Of course, exceptions exist, but this is at least one area where a suggestion of equivalence is not so immediately laughable.

[John Cuthber]

I wasn't talking about corruption. I was talking about being slaves to external money.

In one case you do something which you know isn't right, because that's the only way you get the money and in the other case...

[Phi for All]

In one case you do something which you know isn't right, because that's the only way you get the money and in the other case...

 

... you've made it legal to peddle influence between legislators and special interests who want to shelter their companies from the normal market pressures the rest of their competitors have to deal with.

[overtone]

 

 

I wasn't talking about corruption. I was talking about being slaves to external money.

What's the difference?

 

There are degrees of enslavement, is the observation; they matter a lot, and all the politicians of the Republican Party are more or less completely coopted either by nature or by choice - they don't get to be Republican politicians otherwise, as it is the price of the brand.

 

The old Texas adage was "If you can't take their money and vote against them anyway, you don't belong in politics". Unfortunately, that seems to be the position of all Republicans and too many - but not all - Democrats. They can't. The "but not all" is significant, in comparing the two Parties - if that's what you want to do.

 

The agenda of the wealthy elite behind this (the metaphor might be a bundle of sticks) is to embezzle and keep for themselves the wealth of the United States. Claearly this cause would be damaged by honesty and integrity, not bettered.

[waitforufo]

This topic has taken a rather interesting trajectory. It seems the consensus is that the Republicans are completely corrupt and the Democrats are partially corrupt. Can you really just be a little bit corrupt? If you answer yes I think you are at best mostly fooled.

 

Wake up. We are all just pawns of the political class. The Republicans and Democrats in congress are best friends. They hang out together and go to the same parties. Was anyone surprised when Senator Heinz’s widow married John Kerry? Of course not. I’m sure the Heniz and the Kerry families were fast friends before the John Heinz plane crash. Both sides are just playing us for cash and power.

[iNow]

It seems the consensus is that the Republicans are completely corrupt and the Democrats are partially corrupt. Can you really just be a little bit corrupt?

Do you not recognize that there exist very real and functional differences between the magnitude of corruption as well as its frequency? These seem like relevant differences worthy of further exploration and discussion, IMHO.

[waitforufo]

Do you not recognize that there exist very real and functional differences between the magnitude of corruption as well as its frequency? These seem like relevant differences worthy of further exploration and discussion, IMHO.

My guess is that one’s opinion on the magnitude and frequency of political corruption has more to do with the perceived motive of the perpetrator or their party. If one sees a particular politician or party as “good” and the other party as “bad” then their opinion is that the magnitude and frequency of corruption is less for the “good” politician or party. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Don’t be a fool and fall for it. Money and personal power is what it is all about for every politician.

 

Yes it would be nice if all politicians were as obvious as James Traficant. For years he was blatantly and humorously obvious in his corruption. I almost voted for him when I lived in Ohio but he was arrested before I could. Too stupid to hide his corruption, but smart enough to know what the game is all about.

[CharonY]

Do you not recognize that there exist very real and functional differences between the magnitude of corruption as well as its frequency? These seem like relevant differences worthy of further exploration and discussion, IMHO.

 

I am wondering, is there any metric that would quantify that? Maybe in terms of donations volumes, for example.

[iNow]

Wake up. We are all just pawns of the political class. The Republicans and Democrats in congress are best friends. They hang out together and go to the same parties. <snip> Both sides are just playing us for cash and power.

 

I heard a quote tonight from an author interviewing about a book he's recently written about the extreme dysfunction and revolving door or exploitation and wealth in Washington. He said:

 

"There's no such thing as republicans and democrats anymore. Just millionaires."

 

 

I am wondering, is there any metric that would quantify that? Maybe in terms of donations volumes, for example.

 

Volumes and amounts could be a decent proxy, yes, but I have to agree a bit with waitforufo... It's really all quite subjective. Not all donations are bad, nor are all large donations. Further, donations themselves are not really evidence of corruption. Where we draw those lines when performing such measures would very much be a personal and subjective decision. What is seen as corrupt by me might very well be seen as ethical and acceptable to you, and vice versa.

 

There's probably a better way to more objectively define and measure corruption in this context. I know it has to exist, and I suspect something is probably in use already by modern day political scientists and in the journals where they publish. I just don't personally know what it is.