"A New Kind of Republican" (Slate article, Jeb Bush-related..somewhat)

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/jeb_bush_and_reform_conservatism_is_bush_a_reformocon_a_founder_of_the_movement.html

[retromike22]

RINO!

[Jerseyrules]

This is essential for any GOP candidate to have a shot in the general election.  Romney tailored his phraseology to the conservative audience in the primary, and emphasized his more conservative positions (in both language and focusing on different issues) before pivoting in the general election.  He didn't change his positions on the issues, but he definitely changed his rhetoric, which underscored the flip-flopper image.  For independent/moderate voters to trust Republicans in the general, the standard-bearer needs to run as the same candidate in the general as in the primary, and thus far it appears that Jeb is the only candidate committed to doing that, though Kasich, Paul (and potentially Christie) would be able to do it as well.

As far as I know, Jeb is the only one who has actually spoken about this issue, saying in an interview that "I would run as myself in the general and in the primary"

[bobloblaw]

The second people actually read Republican proposals and their platform is the moment this country becomes 60% Democrat. Republican proposals will ruin this country. The Gold Standard? Privatization of Social Security?

Who is pushing for those? SHow me either of those in the GOP platform. Actually the policies that would turn the USA into Greece are advoicated by Bernie Sanders. Even France ditched their Piketty tax rates when Hollande ended up with a 25% approval rating.

[Indy Texas]

This is essential for any GOP candidate to have a shot in the general election.  Romney tailored his phraseology to the conservative audience in the primary, and emphasized his more conservative positions (in both language and focusing on different issues) before pivoting in the general election.  He didn't change his positions on the issues, but he definitely changed his rhetoric, which underscored the flip-flopper image.  For independent/moderate voters to trust Republicans in the general, the standard-bearer needs to run as the same candidate in the general as in the primary, and thus far it appears that Jeb is the only candidate committed to doing that, though Kasich, Paul (and potentially Christie) would be able to do it as well.

As far as I know, Jeb is the only one who has actually spoken about this issue, saying in an interview that "I would run as myself in the general and in the primary"

Here's the problem: you can't do that anymore. Not with YouTube, Twitter and every other variant of social media. If Romney had been running in 1980 and made that "self deport" quip at some obscure local debate, it would have been forgotten about. The reporters scribbling hand written notes on steno pads to type up later might have missed it completely.

If you say something in a primary in 2016, it doesn't "go away." It has to be acceptable for the general election because if it isn't, the video/audio of it will be shown relentlessly on a neverending loop until November.

The Republicans' problem is that what their base believes is so divorced from what mainstream America believes that it's impossible to square that circle. Normal Americans don't want to let people die on the doorsteps of emergency rooms and don't think a rape victim giving birth to a son who is the spitting image of the man who raped her is a "beautiful gift from God."

[anvi]

Several things about this essay I don't understand.  How do any of Jeb's positions make him a "new kind of Republican?"  Just because he is not a TEA-Party member or a libertarian doesn't mean most of his positions have not been standard GOP fare for a long time.  And why was the author decrying W. for pushing comprehensive immigration reform when Jeb pretty much wants the same thing, as far as I can tell. 

Anyway, who knows who will be nominated at this point?  But the whole prospect of another dynastic face-off, with another Clinton running against another Bush, kinda makes my stomach turn.

[Matty]

The fact that people think the gold standard will ruin the country is shocking and sad.

[bobloblaw]

The second people actually read Republican proposals and their platform is the moment this country becomes 60% Democrat. Republican proposals will ruin this country. The Gold Standard? Privatization of Social Security?

Who is pushing for those? SHow me either of those in the GOP platform. Actually the policies that would turn the USA into Greece are advoicated by Bernie Sanders. Even France ditched their Piketty tax rates when Hollande ended up with a 25% approval rating.

The Gold Standard is definitely in the platform, it was a plank saying economists have looked into the gold standard, and the republicans would look into it as well.

I'm pretty sure privatization of SS was in there as well, but the gold standard definitely was.

Maybe in 1980 the Gold Standard was in the platform. Which BTW would have stopped inflation in its tracks. One of the major causes of 1970s inflation was going off the gold standard in 1971 and the disolution of Bretton Woods.

[bobloblaw]

The fact that people think the gold standard will ruin the country is shocking and sad.

You have to understnd the liberal mind. They are wedded to continuous and constant inflation. The reason is inflation is good for debtors and the biggest debtor is the federal govt. It is why the left fears deflation so much. Without inflation, the govt has to live within its means or else debt becomes so high it cannot be managed and the govt cannot even pay to service the debt. . So the way you manage debt is through inflation. Wihtout inflation, you cannot have activist government.

[bobloblaw]

The fact that people think the gold standard will ruin the country is shocking and sad.

What's shocking and sad is the huge deflation and recession we'll get with the gold standard. Sorry.

There is nothing wrong with deflation if deflation is due to continuous increases in productivity. There is NO reason why prices must forever be on a continuous upward trejectory.

[Dereich]

The fact that people think the gold standard will ruin the country is shocking and sad.

What's shocking and sad is the huge deflation and recession we'll get with the gold standard. Sorry.

There is nothing wrong with deflation if deflation is due to continuous increases in productivity. There is NO reason why prices must forever be on a continuous upward trejectory.

The problems with deflation have nothing to do with government debt and everything to due with maintaining stable levels of private consumption; its the start of a vicious cycle. Prices start going down and people reduce spending in anticipation even lower prices in the future; less spending means businesses need to reduce production, leading to job loss and even less spending. From there you're quickly moving into recession or worse. The massive deflation in the 30s did more to create the Great Depression than anything else. I don't know why anyone would want to bring that threat back.

It would be possible to operate a successful modern gold standard, if the government would be willing to constantly adjust the exchange rate to prevent deflation or runs on gold, but why even bother at that point?

[bobloblaw]

The fact that people think the gold standard will ruin the country is shocking and sad.

What's shocking and sad is the huge deflation and recession we'll get with the gold standard. Sorry.

There is nothing wrong with deflation if deflation is due to continuous increases in productivity. There is NO reason why prices must forever be on a continuous upward trejectory.

The problems with deflation have nothing to do with government debt and everything to due with maintaining stable levels of private consumption; its the start of a vicious cycle. Prices start going down and people reduce spending in anticipation even lower prices in the future; less spending means businesses need to reduce production, leading to job loss and even less spending. From there you're quickly moving into recession or worse. The massive deflation in the 30s did more to create the Great Depression than anything else. I don't know why anyone would want to bring that threat back.

It would be possible to operate a successful modern gold standard, if the government would be willing to constantly adjust the exchange rate to prevent deflation or runs on gold, but why even bother at that point?

It has EVERYTHING to do with debt, both public and private and the burden that deflation creates. Go look up William Jennings Bryan. He wanted inflation because farmers were hurting from falling prices and heavy debt.

There is no evidence that people wait for lower prices when prices are falling. We are talkng about slow and stready deflation of 1% or less per year, not 10% annual deflation during the 1929-33 period. No one sits around and waits for a $30,000 car to fall $300 12 months from now.