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.

Sassenach wrote:I don't buy this. You're too close to the situation to see it for what it really is. Anybody who isn't American and who's halfway clued up on American politics doesn't recognise any kind of definable ideology that they could readily associate with the Democrats.

freeman3 wrote:. . . reining in police brutality,

I don't buy this. You're too close to the situation to see it for what it really is. Anybody who isn't American and who's halfway clued up on American politics doesn't recognise any kind of definable ideology that they could readily associate with the Democrats.

Interesting. So, how would you explain so many Republicans running for President, ranging from Jeb ("I'm running against the base") to Ted Cruz (small government, big defense) to Rand Paul (small everything) to Lindsey Graham (mushy neocon)? Meanwhile, the non-ideological party only has one serious candidate.

Certainly they don't practice anything that could be described as 'progressive' by any definition that makes sense (sorry RJ, but you're flat out wrong on this one).

Sassenach wrote:

Interesting. So, how would you explain so many Republicans running for President, ranging from Jeb ("I'm running against the base") to Ted Cruz (small government, big defense) to Rand Paul (small everything) to Lindsey Graham (mushy neocon)? Meanwhile, the non-ideological party only has one serious candidate.

What I said was that the Republicans are more ideological than the Democrats. There's intellectual battle going on for the soul of the Republican party which is reflected in the plethora of candidates all pushing their own agenda. The Dems seem to me like they're mostly concerned with who stands the best chance of winning the election, not where they want to take the party and country afterwards.

freeman3 wrote:Sass, you really think that ideology is driving the intensity of Republican politics? In my view, the Republican Party is being primarily driven by fear of some whites (many from the south)that minorities with white liberal allies will take political control and transfer wealth through higher taxes to perceived undeserving social welfare minority recipients and imposing their values on them with regard to guns, gay marriage,abortion, etc.
This is why is Obama is so hated because he is the perceived symbol of that threat to white male power, status and wealth. That is why immigration is such a heated issue for many Republicans , because more immigrants means more brown voters (and they are not going to vote for the establishment Republican Party). It does not really matter that minority voters are not seeking to do what the Tea Party members fear they will do. I guess you can call that an ideology... I call it fear- driven politics.

bbauska wrote:Nobody has answered if they would not support Mrs. Clinton if it were true that she was gaining money from others while Secretary of State in exchange for favorable State decisions. I truly am curious...

What do those on the left have to say about Mrs. Clinton. Is it a disqualifying act if she did indeed have a "pay for benefit" scheme running as the book "Clinton Cash" claims?

. . . in political corruption cases the government wouldn’t even need to prove a quid pro quo relationship between Giustra’s donations and Clinton’s decisions to support a free trade deal (or to sign off on a uranium deal). It is enough, the government argued successfully in the case of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell, if a public official is inclined to look more favorably on a donor’s interests because of a financial contribution.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of Mrs. Clinton’s agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation’s top diplomat.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign individuals and businesses whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.