Sassenach wrote:So what are the deep ideological principles of the Democratic Party ?

Abortion on demand, paid for by the government, with no age restriction. If you watched the 2012 DNC, it was impossible to miss the central point: abortion.

More taxation. Left to their own devices, they would come up with endless ways to gather more revenue.

More regulation and more unfettered power to the Federal government. They see virtually nothing that the Federal government cannot and should not do with regard to the environment, the economy, and the infrastructure.

That's a decent start.

sass

I guess they must all think it would be a wasted effort and prefer to keep their powder dry for next time

.
She's going to raise, and presumably spend 2.5$billion dollars to make her run. How much will be spent in the primary phase ? if there are contenders she'll be able to out spend them what 10 or 20 to 1?
The effort, and the connections to raise enough money to genuinely compete no one has.
The necessity of raising all that money has limited the number of contenders as much as anyone.

On the republican side, the numbers are greater because they all hope to get through the first couple of primaries, with enough support that the Republican money then coalesces around them...
Only 2 or three will still be around and seriously competing for the nomination after the first three primaries. (And since the first few states are unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, it leads to candidates who are handicapped by the more extreme policies they need to espouse to get through the first few states... Look at Rubio on Gay marriage for instance.)

hacker
[quote]Someone said she deserves kudos: I disagree. She's been a senator as well, so she too has spent a great deal of her time raising money. Believe me, she knows the money game as well as everybody else. In fact, I'd have had more respect for her if she had not said that [about the constitutional amendment]. At least then she would not sound like a total hypocrite[e/quote]
Should she not have raised the money?
Or should she not have said that there's too much money in politics adn that the rules need to change?
She's saying that the rules should change, but until they do she's playing by the rules. That's not hypocritical, its practical.

What might be hypocritical is for any Senators who voted to defeat the Udall Amendment complaining about how much money Hillary is able to raise. I don't see that happening yet.
But if her money ends up swamping the eventual republican nominee maybe the mood for campaign finance reform will become bipartisan.

rickyp wrote:She's saying that the rules should change, but until they do she's playing by the rules. That's not hypocritical, its practical.

1. No, it's hypocritical. If it was a genuine passion of hers, she would have said something about before now. She is pandering to the Warren wing of the party. She also knows that any change in the law won't affect her, so she can say whatever she wants.

2. Hillary never plays by the rules. She plays by her understanding of what the rules could mean.

What might be hypocritical is for any Senators who voted to defeat the Udall Amendment complaining about how much money Hillary is able to raise. I don't see that happening yet.

Nonsense. If one believes that free speech means "free speech," then one cannot support Democratic efforts to limit it. That's not hypocrisy. It's quite the opposite.

Again, who created this crisis? You might say "The Supreme Court," but I would retort with "Obama." He's the first major party candidate to eschew Federal matching money and go his own way. He broke the system.

But if her money ends up swamping the eventual republican nominee maybe the mood for campaign finance reform will become bipartisan.

IF that happens, Hillary will permit no changes until she is reelected.

"Let them eat cake!"

fate

1. No, it's hypocritical. If it was a genuine passion of hers, she would have said something about before now. She is pandering

I believe we have to move, eventually in our country, toward a system of public financing that really works for candidates running for federal office. I will support that as president," she said.

Hillary Clinton, April 2, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 39_pf.html

She might well be pandering....Or she might mean what she says...
But she can't really control the path of a constitutional amendment that much once the process starts.

Fate

IF that happens, Hillary will permit no changes until she is reelected.

I see you're starting to realize the inevitability of her presidency.

rickyp wrote:fate

1. No, it's hypocritical. If it was a genuine passion of hers, she would have said something about before now. She is pandering

I believe we have to move, eventually in our country, toward a system of public financing that really works for candidates running for federal office. I will support that as president," she said.

Hillary Clinton, April 2, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 39_pf.html

She might well be pandering....Or she might mean what she says...

That is nothing like amending the Constitution.

Fate

IF that happens, Hillary will permit no changes until she is reelected.

I see you're starting to realize the inevitability of her presidency.

Like Bill Clinton, you seem to struggle with the meaning of small words beginning with the letter 'i.'

Here, I'll bold it for you:

IF that happens . . .

Well, I for one, think that Sass has it right. Yeah there is hyper-partisanship, but it really is over relatively small differences between dems and repubs. Bernie Sanders is an Independent for a reason.

geojanes wrote:Well, I for one, think that Sass has it right. Yeah there is hyper-partisanship, but it really is over relatively small differences between dems and repubs. Bernie Sanders is an Independent for a reason.

Oh, I think there are some major issues. DWS' inability to answer a question about full-term abortion demonstrated that.

Now, it's true, when it comes to spending and overall governance, there is little difference between mushy Republicans and mainstream Democrats. That's why a radio host suggested Hillary and Jeb should run together--there just isn't much space between them.

What might be hypocritical is for any Senators who voted to defeat the Udall Amendment complaining about how much money Hillary is able to raise. I don't see that happening yet.
But if her money ends up swamping the eventual republican nominee maybe the mood for campaign finance reform will become bipartisan.

Not only shameless "whataboutery" but absurdly unrealistic optimism.

But she can't really control the path of a constitutional amendment that much once the process starts.

Very true. And that's why she said it: it will make her look like a reformer without having to run the risk of actually being one.

I see you're starting to realize the inevitability of her presidency.

Again: no risk in saying it, right?

The senior senator from Vermont is welcome to say he is an "independent"; he caucuses, I do believe, with the Democrats which, at the end of the day, amounts to almost the same thing. He can call himself the New Wafd Party if he likes and it wouldn't be any more than simply a label to make him look independent.

Fate:

Abortion on demand, paid for by the government, with no age restriction. If you watched the 2012 DNC, it was impossible to miss the central point: abortion.

More taxation. Left to their own devices, they would come up with endless ways to gather more revenue.

More regulation and more unfettered power to the Federal government. They see virtually nothing that the Federal government cannot and should not do with regard to the environment, the economy, and the infrastructure.

That's a decent start.

Basically, Sassenach, he's right. He's exactly right. Again, you're looking at the formation and previous condition of the Democrats and Republicans. The Grand Old Party did indeed have different roots, formation process, style (and so forth) than their counterparts across the aisle; while the Democrats were a little more machine politics-oriented, geographically diverse and therefore were less ideological. Again, in the past; not so much now. Whether you're blaming hyper-partisanship or polarization of American politics--whatever you care to call it--the effect has been that it has made both parties ideological. Pundits and political science professors alike have commented on this. That was a very good observation of you, but the situation has changed.

Fate its interesting you point to abortion as a a major policy difference . And i think you are right that is an area of some difference.
But it isn't an issue that resonates with most of the voting public when they go to the polls. Yes there is a fanatical group opposed to any abortion and they are very active. But as an issue, it really isn't that important to most. According to RAsmussen in the last US election.

Rasmussen National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
June 4-5, 8-9 and 10-11, 2014

Issue
Very Important
Economy
72%
Job creation
62%
Health care
67%
Gov. spending
63%
Education
58%
Social Security
61%
Gov. ethics and corruption
58%
Taxes
51%
Small business
46%
Gun control
52%
Energy
48%
National Security
44%
Immigration
42%
Environment
37%
War in Afghanistan
26%

And the positions of the parties does reflect the ambivalence that most Americans feel on the issue.

http://www.republicanviews.org/democrat ... -abortion/
http://www.republicanviews.org/republic ... -abortion/

This kind of position is probably acceptable to most, no?

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.” She sees abortion as such a complex issue that it must be decided by personal choice, stating, “for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

”

I do have a question. (The quotes and caps are there for emphasis, not to cast aspersions)

"IF" the allegations about Mrs. Clinton are true concerning the uranium company, and her use of the position as Sec. of State as a money gathering device; does that prohibit her as a nominee that can be voted for?

Personally, she has done enough to preclude my voting for her prior to these allegations, but I am curious as to what it would take to make someone vote for Sanders, Biden or Warren.

Enlighten me, please.

rickyp wrote:Fate its interesting you point to abortion as a a major policy difference . And i think you are right that is an area of some difference.
But it isn't an issue that resonates with most of the voting public when they go to the polls. Yes there is a fanatical group opposed to any abortion and they are very active.

Thanks for trying to flip my statement upside down. Did you watch the DNC 2012 Presidential Convention? It was an amazing event for abortion activists--speeches by many of them.

So, how about limits on abortion? Should a woman be able to abort a full-term baby minutes before he/she is born? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the DNC and a Congresswoman, answers:

KELLY: But what is recognized is that it's not just between a woman and her doctor, that the state has a right to step in on behalf of the fetus and say at some point that fetus does obtain rights. You know, you would admit that you can't have women aborting third trimester babies just on a whim. Right? I mean, so you agreed on certain limits.

SCHULTZ: Certainly not on a whim, but when a doctor --

KELLY: That's what he's trying to get at. You know, where do the democrats stand on, you know, should --

SCHULTZ: We've been very clear. There's no ambivalence here, we've been very clear. We believe that that decision is best left not to government but between a woman and her doctor. So, there isn't -- I can't tell you a specific date and time past which we on all --in all cases are certain that that choice shouldn't be made. Because that decision is very unique and individual to the woman, and should be in consultation with her conscience and her God and her doctor, that is a decision left to her. Now, there are -- there's an overlay of restrictions that the Supreme Court has imposed through Roe versus Wade and subsequent decisions and states have gone and implemented their own laws to put their restrictions in place. That's how the law -- now I don't agree with all of those restrictions, but the law should be followed and that's our view.

This kind of position is probably acceptable to most, no?

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.” She sees abortion as such a complex issue that it must be decided by personal choice, stating, “for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

”

It doesn't answer fundamental questions: when does life begin? When is "too late" to have an abortion that is not to save a mother's life?

And, we also live in a society where a woman puts a video of her commenting during her abortion--essentially bragging about how easy it is to end a life--and she's celebrated in some circles for it.

bbauska wrote:I do have a question. (The quotes and caps are there for emphasis, not to cast aspersions)

"IF" the allegations about Mrs. Clinton are true concerning the uranium company, and her use of the position as Sec. of State as a money gathering device; does that prohibit her as a nominee that can be voted for?

Personally, she has done enough to preclude my voting for her prior to these allegations, but I am curious as to what it would take to make someone vote for Sanders, Biden or Warren.

Enlighten me, please.

It should.

Let's say we "have" to have a Democratic President. I would prefer it not be someone who is so obviously for sale. The Clintons are the very definition of sleazy.

Even if what she is accused of doing turns out to be technically legal (or Obama's AG won't go after her), there is a long trail of sleaze--Marc Rich, White Water, the Lincoln bedroom. There is nothing they won't do for money.

Sas:

So what are the deep ideological principles of the Democratic Party ?

Progressive economic policies aren't working. We need more progressive economic policies to fix it.