I'm changing parties

[Nym90]

As I look at the calendar, I realize it is the time of year to begin to reassess one's life. Whether the assossciations that one makes in life are really in line with one's own principles and moral values.

I've become fed up with the Democrats for good. They have absolutely no agenda and no backbone. I realize that they no longer stand for the principles which made this country great. They are a bunch of tree hugging hippies stuck in the 60's. They kowtow to each and every interest group on the left and have no principles. They have absolutely no right to criticize Bush for his brilliant stewardship of the country over the last 5 plus years.

Therefore, with a heavy heart and an open mind, I am officially abandoning the party of my youth and becoming a Republican.

[dazzleman]

Eric, I think this is an April Fool's joke.

But know that you are always welcome to do this for real.  We'd love to have you.

[Keystone Phil]

Eric, I think this is an April Fool's joke.

As I look at the calendar

What gave that away? 

[dazzleman]

Eric, I think this is an April Fool's joke.

As I look at the calendar

What gave that away? 

I've already had an April Fool's joke played on me, but I didn't fall for it.

A friend of mine called me and told me she had gotten arrested for getting into a brawl at a hair salon with which she has already had an unsatisfactory experience.

She told me she went in there, and the girl got nasty with her and asked her to leave, and she said she wasn't going anywhere, and shoved the girl.  In her story, the girl called the police, and they came, took her to the station, booked her, and held her in jail overnight.

When it got to the jail overnight part, I knew it wasn't true.  But it was a pretty funny story.

[Nym90]

This blue feels weird. It feels like I'm being an unfaithful adulterer.

I guess I don't have a very good poker face, eh? I didn't want to give anyone a heart attack though.

[dazzleman]

This blue feels weird. It feels like I'm being an unfaithful adulterer.

I guess I don't have a very good poker face, eh? I didn't want to give anyone a heart attack though.

You really should switch, Eric.  The Democratic party sucks.

[MasterJedi]

This blue feels weird. It feels like I'm being an unfaithful adulterer.

I guess I don't have a very good poker face, eh? I didn't want to give anyone a heart attack though.

You really should switch, Eric.  The Democratic party sucks.

^^^^^

[WalterMitty]

Eric, I think this is an April Fool's joke.

But know that you are always welcome to do this for real.  We'd love to have you.

^^

[Frodo]

Each time I have (seriously) considered switching parties over differences regarding cultural issues like abortion and gun control, I need only look to the anti-tax (and, apparently, anti-mass transit) wing of the Republican Party here in Virginia to remind myself why I originally became a Democrat in the first place.   

[dazzleman]

Each time I have (seriously) considered switching parties over differences regarding cultural issues like abortion and gun control, I need only look to the anti-tax (and, apparently, anti-mass transit) wing of the Republican Party here in Virginia to remind myself why I originally became a Democrat in the first place.   

And why is that, Frodo?  You love taxes?

I agree the Repubs could do better on mass transit in urban areas.  But we're not really an urban party, so the anti-mass transit attitude reflects the Republican majority.

I'm the rare Republican (nationally, not around here) who takes mass transit on a daily basis.  I think only about 5% of the people in the country get to work the way I do.

[Dave from Michigan]

we have no mass transit here (no one wants the poor blacks in there city)
very few cities even have bus service you can't even ride a bus from one side of Wayne county to the other.  every year another city drops regional bus service this year it was (don't build a wall mart here because it may attract black people) Livonia.  Oakland county won't help pay for it either.



just in case anyone was wondering about the status of mass transit here

[Gabu]

Each time I have (seriously) considered switching parties over differences regarding cultural issues like abortion and gun control, I need only look to the anti-tax (and, apparently, anti-mass transit) wing of the Republican Party here in Virginia to remind myself why I originally became a Democrat in the first place.   

I don't always agree with what the Democrats do or have to say, but quite frankly, the current Republican Party is far too scary for me to be anything else.

[Frodo]

Each time I have (seriously) considered switching parties over differences regarding cultural issues like abortion and gun control, I need only look to the anti-tax (and, apparently, anti-mass transit) wing of the Republican Party here in Virginia to remind myself why I originally became a Democrat in the first place.   

And why is that, Frodo?  You love taxes?

No, but I tend to be more pragmatic, and less ideological, when it comes to economic issues like taxes, and recognize that at times it is prudent to invest in healthcare, education, and transportation -and preferably without robbing Peter (drawing resources from education and health care) to pay Paul (to invest those same resources into transportation as a one-time fling), as Republicans in the House of Delegates would have it.  The state  needs a dedicated funding source solely for transportation that would be there through boom-or-bust -God knows the need is dire here, and no one-time infusion (esp. with the diversion of resources originally intended to other programs towards transportation) will suffice. 

In fact, Republicans in the House of Delegates are so ideologically opposed to raising taxes that even if the business community (Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce, etc.) happens to support raising revenues to fund certain needs like transportation improvements (and you would expect that as a self-professed 'pro-business' party that they would at least soften their opposition somewhat), they actively go after them, threatening retribution for straying from party orthodoxy.

Look, I understand the necessity of cutting taxes when it is necessary to do so, but I do not support cutting taxes ALL THE TIME or keeping them cut permanently, for whatever reason concocted by Grover Norquist-wannabes. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is also clear that they represent the surburbs less and less as they become more urbanized, at least here in Northern Virginia.  They are losing their grip in Loudoun County, the one county (outside Fairfax County and the beltway) that would benefit immensely from a Metrorail extension along the Dulles Toll Road to Dulles International Airport and beyond. They have already lost several seats in the House of Delegates to Democrats in that county.

[Nym90]

Each time I have (seriously) considered switching parties over differences regarding cultural issues like abortion and gun control, I need only look to the anti-tax (and, apparently, anti-mass transit) wing of the Republican Party here in Virginia to remind myself why I originally became a Democrat in the first place.  

And why is that, Frodo?  You love taxes?

No, but I tend to be more pragmatic, and less ideological, when it comes to economic issues like taxes, and recognize that at times it is prudent to invest in healthcare, education, and transportation -and preferably without robbing Peter (drawing resources from education and health care) to pay Paul (to invest those same resources into transportation as a one-time fling), as Republicans in the House of Delegates would have it.  The state  needs a dedicated funding source solely for transportation that would be there through boom-or-bust -God knows the need is dire here, and no one-time infusion (esp. with the diversion of resources originally intended to other programs towards transportation) will suffice. 

In fact, Republicans in the House of Delegates are so ideologically opposed to raising taxes that even if the business community (Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce, etc.) happens to support raising revenues to fund certain needs like transportation improvements (and you would expect that as a self-professed 'pro-business' party that they would at least soften their opposition somewhat), they actively go after them, threatening retribution for straying from party orthodoxy.

Look, I understand the necessity of cutting taxes when it is necessary to do so, but I do not support cutting taxes ALL THE TIME or keeping them cut permanently, for whatever reason concocted by Grover Norquist-wannabes. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is also clear that they represent the surburbs less and less as they become more urbanized, at least here in Northern Virginia.  They are losing their grip in Loudoun County, the one county (outside Fairfax County and the beltway) that would benefit immensely from a Metrorail extension along the Dulles Toll Road to Dulles International Airport and beyond. They have already lost several seats in the House of Delegates to Democrats in that county.

The main reason I am a Democrat is indeed economics. I believe that demand side economics works much better than supply side. I also believe it is morally right to help the poor, though of course too much in the way of government handouts obviously doesn't help people and can actually hurt them despite its good intentions. But I do strongly believe in everyone having equal opportunity to succeed regardless of their background. I just don't see the Republican leadership as really caring about anything other than what's in the interests of the wealthy. Sometimes what's good for the rich is good for the country, and sometimes not. But overall I think demand side (trickle up) economics, focused on raising up the lowest part of the economic spectrum, makes the most sense. I believe the economy is like a chain, only as strong as its weakest link.

I'm also somewhat liberal on social issues, though less so than on economics. I strongly dislike some of the Democrats' special interest groups, but I find the Republican special interests much more abhorrent, especially large corporations.

[WalterMitty]

Each time I have (seriously) considered switching parties over differences regarding cultural issues like abortion and gun control, I need only look to the anti-tax (and, apparently, anti-mass transit) wing of the Republican Party here in Virginia to remind myself why I originally became a Democrat in the first place.   

im a very strong advocate of mass transit and im a republican.  dont let that issue stand in your way of joining the normal party.

personally i dont think mass transit is a partisan issue.  middle class white folk tend to think they are too good to ride a bus.  that is hogwash, of course.  they also dont want poor minorities to be a bus ride away from their neighborhoods.

[Gabu]

The main reason I am a Democrat is indeed economics. I believe that demand side economics works much better than supply side. I also believe it is morally right to help the poor, though of course too much in the way of government handouts obviously doesn't help people and can actually hurt them despite its good intentions. But I do strongly believe in everyone having equal opportunity to succeed regardless of their background. I just don't see the Republican leadership as really caring about anything other than what's in the interests of the wealthy. Sometimes what's good for the rich is good for the country, and sometimes not. But overall I think demand side (trickle up) economics, focused on raising up the lowest part of the economic spectrum, makes the most sense. I believe the economy is like a chain, only as strong as its weakest link.

I'm also somewhat liberal on social issues, though less so than on economics. I strongly dislike some of the Democrats' special interest groups, but I find the Republican special interests much more abhorrent, especially large corporations.

I'm actually the opposite, myself.  While I largely agree with the Democrats over the Republicans on both economic and social issues, one of the main reasons that I'm so averse to the Republican Party is their proximity to the Religious Right, which is what makes me call them scary.  I can't help but feel extremely unsettled when seeing guys like Sam Brownback, who seem to care more about their religion than about other people.  These people not only are essentially exclusive to the Republican Party (save for a few stubborn Democrats in the South), but also are much closer to positions of real power than the kooks in the Democratic Party (as opposed to positions of fake power that the Republicans love to say people like Michael Moore have).

[The Duke]

Frodo, I think you're completely wrong that having dedicated streams of revenue for specific projects (in this case transit) is a good idea.  California has a lot of this kind of "autopilot" spending, and we've gotten into a mess of toruble because of it.  It makes it too hard to adjust what you're doing.  Flexibility is your friend.  Just pay for everything out of the general revenue fund and you'll be fine.

Nym90, I think you actually ought to become a Republican.  I don't have a good reason for saying that, I just want us to win more elections.  Anyway, its nice to se you back on the block.

[Gabu]

Nym90, I think you actually ought to become a Republican.  I don't have a good reason for saying that, I just want us to win more elections.

At least you're honest about it.

[Speed of Sound]

lol, that was rreeeeaaalllll clever there, Nym.

[dazzleman]

Each time I have (seriously) considered switching parties over differences regarding cultural issues like abortion and gun control, I need only look to the anti-tax (and, apparently, anti-mass transit) wing of the Republican Party here in Virginia to remind myself why I originally became a Democrat in the first place.   

im a very strong advocate of mass transit and im a republican.  dont let that issue stand in your way of joining the normal party.

personally i dont think mass transit is a partisan issue.  middle class white folk tend to think they are too good to ride a bus.  that is hogwash, of course.  they also dont want poor minorities to be a bus ride away from their neighborhoods.

I think position on mass transit is more a function of where you live than a partisan issue.  It is therefore a derivative issue, one that doesn't really drive party membership.  It is a Democratic issue because there are already more Democrats living in areas where mass transit is useful.

As far as middle class white people thinking they're too good to ride a bus, there is some of that to be sure, but much of the attitude toward buses relates to the fact that they are so slow.

If you have a car, and you're living in an area where the roads are passible and there's parking at your destination (in other words, the suburbs), there's simply no good reason to use a bus.  It will take you at least 3x as long to get where you're going, you may have to switch, etc.

Yes, there's a class component to it.  Where I live now, there are hardly any buses, but where I used to live, there were more.  The buses primarily served the scattered urban centers in the county.  They passed through the more affluent towns in-between, but few people there used them.  Sometimes, teenagers too young to drive got on and off in those towns, but otherwise, it was mostly people who lived in the urban parts and worked in those towns who got on and off there.  There was a definite racial component, in that most people riding the bus were black.

Mass transit can't be made convenient or cost effective in spread-out areas.  That's the fact of the matter.  There has to be a certain level of density before mass transit works.  Buses are the least attractive form of mass transit, since they're slow, and have to share the roads with cars.  Trains are far better.  The key thing with trains is to anticipate density and build the trains before it gets too dense, at which point the project becomes impossibly expensive.

And John Ford is right about dedicated cash flow streams.  They are an invitation to corruption, since having a dedicated income that automatically flows in creates a 'fiefdom' that is supported by taxpayers, but unaccountable to them.  New York and New Jersey both have different forms of these, and this income stream gives the organizations receiving them a power they shouldn't have in a democratic society.

Cash is fungible in any case, and the dedicated cash flow stream set-up is mainly used to fool taxpayers into supporting taxes they would otherwise reject.

[jokerman]

The main reason I am a Democrat is indeed economics. I believe that demand side economics works much better than supply side. I also believe it is morally right to help the poor, though of course too much in the way of government handouts obviously doesn't help people and can actually hurt them despite its good intentions. But I do strongly believe in everyone having equal opportunity to succeed regardless of their background. I just don't see the Republican leadership as really caring about anything other than what's in the interests of the wealthy. Sometimes what's good for the rich is good for the country, and sometimes not. But overall I think demand side (trickle up) economics, focused on raising up the lowest part of the economic spectrum, makes the most sense. I believe the economy is like a chain, only as strong as its weakest link.

I'm also somewhat liberal on social issues, though less so than on economics. I strongly dislike some of the Democrats' special interest groups, but I find the Republican special interests much more abhorrent, especially large corporations.

I'm actually the opposite, myself.  While I largely agree with the Democrats over the Republicans on both economic and social issues, one of the main reasons that I'm so averse to the Republican Party is their proximity to the Religious Right, which is what makes me call them scary.  I can't help but feel extremely unsettled when seeing guys like Sam Brownback, who seem to care more about their religion than about other people.  These people not only are essentially exclusive to the Republican Party (save for a few stubborn Democrats in the South), but also are much closer to positions of real power than the kooks in the Democratic Party (as opposed to positions of fake power that the Republicans love to say people like Michael Moore have).

The kooks don't have power in the Democratic Party? 

Tell me then, why wasn't Bob Casey ever able to speak at one of our conventions?

[dazzleman]

The main reason I am a Democrat is indeed economics. I believe that demand side economics works much better than supply side. I also believe it is morally right to help the poor, though of course too much in the way of government handouts obviously doesn't help people and can actually hurt them despite its good intentions. But I do strongly believe in everyone having equal opportunity to succeed regardless of their background. I just don't see the Republican leadership as really caring about anything other than what's in the interests of the wealthy. Sometimes what's good for the rich is good for the country, and sometimes not. But overall I think demand side (trickle up) economics, focused on raising up the lowest part of the economic spectrum, makes the most sense. I believe the economy is like a chain, only as strong as its weakest link.

I'm also somewhat liberal on social issues, though less so than on economics. I strongly dislike some of the Democrats' special interest groups, but I find the Republican special interests much more abhorrent, especially large corporations.

I'm actually the opposite, myself.  While I largely agree with the Democrats over the Republicans on both economic and social issues, one of the main reasons that I'm so averse to the Republican Party is their proximity to the Religious Right, which is what makes me call them scary.  I can't help but feel extremely unsettled when seeing guys like Sam Brownback, who seem to care more about their religion than about other people.  These people not only are essentially exclusive to the Republican Party (save for a few stubborn Democrats in the South), but also are much closer to positions of real power than the kooks in the Democratic Party (as opposed to positions of fake power that the Republicans love to say people like Michael Moore have).

The kooks don't have power in the Democratic Party? 

Tell me then, why wasn't Bob Casey ever able to speak at one of our conventions?

Good points, Preston.

Actually, I have the inverse opinion that Gabu has.  I am far more fearful of the kooks in the Democratic party.  These people are firmly entrenched in powerful mediums such as academia, the news media, the entertainment industry, etc.  They have much more of an ability to get out their poisonous message, and manipulate it such that it can be presented in a positive light, than any of the 'kooks' on the Republican side.

And while people love to knock the 'religious' on the Republican side, left-wing Democrats have a religion also; they just don't call it that.  And they are more insistent on shoving their religion down people's throats than Republicans are, in my experience.

[minionofmidas]

Because kooks like him don't have power in the democratic party.

[Gabu]

The kooks don't have power in the Democratic Party? 

Tell me then, why wasn't Bob Casey ever able to speak at one of our conventions?

When Michael Moore gets elected to a position of prominence in America, let me know.

I'm talking about positions of real power in the sense of being able to control the direction of America, not in the sense of having sway just within the political party itself.

Plus, if you're going to complain about Bob Casey senior not being able to speak at Democratic conventions, why don't you mention the fact that Bob Casey junior is almost certainly going to be the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania?  It seems to me that having someone as a political candidate is much more important than having someone give a forgettable speech at a convention.

I'll take the Democratic kooks over the Republican kooks any day, anyway.

[phk]

The main reason I am a Democrat is indeed economics. I believe that demand side economics works much better than supply side. I also believe it is morally right to help the poor, though of course too much in the way of government handouts obviously doesn't help people and can actually hurt them despite its good intentions. But I do strongly believe in everyone having equal opportunity to succeed regardless of their background. I just don't see the Republican leadership as really caring about anything other than what's in the interests of the wealthy. Sometimes what's good for the rich is good for the country, and sometimes not. But overall I think demand side (trickle up) economics, focused on raising up the lowest part of the economic spectrum, makes the most sense. I believe the economy is like a chain, only as strong as its weakest link.

I'm also somewhat liberal on social issues, though less so than on economics. I strongly dislike some of the Democrats' special interest groups, but I find the Republican special interests much more abhorrent, especially large corporations.

I'm actually the opposite, myself.  While I largely agree with the Democrats over the Republicans on both economic and social issues, one of the main reasons that I'm so averse to the Republican Party is their proximity to the Religious Right, which is what makes me call them scary.  I can't help but feel extremely unsettled when seeing guys like Sam Brownback, who seem to care more about their religion than about other people.  These people not only are essentially exclusive to the Republican Party (save for a few stubborn Democrats in the South), but also are much closer to positions of real power than the kooks in the Democratic Party (as opposed to positions of fake power that the Republicans love to say people like Michael Moore have).

Tell me then, why wasn't Bob Casey ever able to speak at one of our conventions?

It was largely because he didn't support Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Not because of his abortion view.