Support NeoGAF

[Agnostic]

Is there a liberal / progressive equivalent of CPAC?

Netroots?

http://www.netrootsnation.org/

 

[Link]

Then there is no way in hell he'd ever win a national election. Or any election.

But he publicly slammed Obama's policies! And he's a minority!

(This is literally how the GOP is picking their candidates now.)

 

[CharlieDigital]

That Rand Paul won the straw poll should be telling of how these guys still haven't seen the light.

 

[gcubed]

That Rand Paul won the straw poll should be telling of how these guys still haven't seen the light.

The Paul family legacy. Win the regular season but choke in crunch time

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I've always loved reading the CPC's budget. It's mildly arousing.

It's ridiculous that it gets absolutely zero media coverage.

 

[The Librarian]

I've mentioned the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget before, but I think people need to have a glance at what it contains.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The_CPC_FY2012_Budget.pdf


Stimulus, infrastructure bank, public option, negotiation for bulk prices on pharmaceuticals, taxing capital gains as ordinary income, reduced defence operations and spending. Sign me up. Pity that this get to attention in the media because it doesn't compare to the seriousness of the Ryan budget.

That budget is kind of old news. They recently released a new budget called the "Back to Work" budget (which I've posted about twice before). Yglesias wrote a summary about it.

There's an unfortunate tendency in the media to define the poles of the debate as being between the median member of the high-discipline Republican caucus and the right-most members of the low-discipline Democratic caucus. But that's an observation about the structure of internal caucus dynamics, not the real ideological landscape. So if you want a taste of what a liberal alternative to conservative budgeting really looks like, I'd skip past the Senate Budget Committee Democrats' plan and take a gander at the "Back to Work" (PDF) budget from the progressive caucus in the House.

This one really takes a hammer to the budget deficit.

It restores Clinton-era marginal income tax rates starting at the $250,000 threshold. It establishes new income tax brackets—45 percent at $1 million, 46 percent at $10 million, 47 percent at $20 million, 48 percent at $100 million, and 49 percent at $1 billion. Capital gains and dividends will be taxed as ordinary income. The deductibility of all itemized deductions will be capped at the 28 percent rate. The estate tax will have a $2.5 million exemption and then a series of progressive marginal rates from 55 to 65 percent. The mortgage-interest tax deduction for second homes is eliminated. There's a financial transactions tax. A couple of corporate income tax deductions are eliminated. There's a kind of too-big-too-fail tax on banks more than $50 billion in assets. There's a $25 per-ton carbon tax.

More at both links.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

The Paul family legacy. Win the regular season but choke in crunch time

2010 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Ron Paul
2011 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Ron Paul
2012 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Mitt Romney
2013 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Rand Paul

Extrapolating from previous data:
2014 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Rand Paul
2015 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Rand Paul
2016 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Actual GOP candidate
2017 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Rand Paul

 

[Link]

Going by that pattern, 2017's winner should be Rand's son.

 

[Oblivion]

2012 CPAC Straw Poll Winner: Mitt Romney

Eh? You sure Mittens won the straw poll?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

That budget is kind of old news. They recently released a new budget called the "Back to Work" budget (which I've posted about twice before). Yglesias wrote a summary about it.

There's an unfortunate tendency in the media to define the poles of the debate as being between the median member of the high-discipline Republican caucus and the right-most members of the low-discipline Democratic caucus.

More at both links.

That quote sums up the single biggest problem with any of the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans.

How many members does the CPC have? They really need to push their own agenda more. It could capture a big part of the people who are sick and tired of mainstream dems and their almost center-right bullshit. Are they intentionally staying in the background because they're afraid they're going to make negotiations/elections even more difficult or is it just a media black out (either voluntarily or influenced by mainstream dems)?

Eh? You sure Mittens won the straw poll?

Looks like it, if this is the same thing:

Front-runner Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, was the choice of 38 percent of the conservative activists surveyed. Rick Santorum, fresh off victories in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, came in second with 31 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich came in third with 15 percent of the vote. U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who won the group’s 2010 and 2011 straw polls, received 12 percent of the vote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-11/romney-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll.html

 

[Tamanon]

Eh? You sure Mittens won the straw poll?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/cpac-straw-poll-results-2012_n_1270466.html

WASHINGTON -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, a major symbolic victory as he tries to convince Republicans that he is sufficiently conservative to win the GOP nomination.

Romney won 38 percent of the CPAC straw poll votes, with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum coming in second at 31 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) picked up 15 percent of the votes and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who won the straw polls in 2010 and 2011, received only 12 percent of the vote.

The result came despite what has been a weaker conservative response to Romney than Santorum, who has little to prove as a conservative and Catholic who has strong evangelical support. Romney needed to fight against accusations that he is a "Massachusetts moderate" -- hardly a winning concept among staunch conservatives here -- and weak on pro-life issues.

I assume it was rigged for the election.

Especially considering apparently 44% of the polled that year were students. I'd say probably 90% of conservative students are Paulies.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Romney bussed people in to win the poll. For some reason the libertarians dominate the polls under normal circumstances despite most of the attendees seeming to be older. I'm guessing they simply don't participate in the poll which is weird.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Eh? You sure Mittens won the straw poll?

He's won the straw poll four times, believe it or not.

 

[Oblivion]

Looks like it, if this is the same thing:


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-11/romney-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/cpac-straw-poll-results-2012_n_1270466.html



I assume it was rigged for the election.

Especially considering apparently 44% of the polled that year were students. I'd say probably 90% of conservative students are Paulies.

Huh, strange. I wonder what I'm confusing that with then. Cause I remember Ron Paul or Santorum or Bachmann winning one of those useless polls that the media made a big deal about for a while.

 

[Tamanon]

Are you thinking of the Iowa caucus?

 

[televator]

PD is talking about The Hitch, and I agree with him (PD) that its is the most frustrating thing about Hitchens and his legacy.

Reading / watching Hitchens helped me greatly in helping me shed by Catholic upbringing. Getting to hear him speak for a good two hours at the Sydney Opera House a few years back was something special.

However, having to hear him defend his advocacy for the Iraq War was always frustrating. Yes, Saddam was a monster and his people now have the opportunity to build a more cohesive country. But that doesn't make the cost of admission worth it, in terms of the lives lost (both American/Coalition and Iraqi) and the treasury drained. And the process in which the war was sold should never be repeated again. The lies, the cheerleading, the "us vs. them" mentality, the morphing of Bid Laden to Saddam as the culprit of 9/11, the false definition of what patriotism meant ... all of these should never be repeated again in American history.

Yeah, exactly. My thought is that, sure war is brutal, but that doesn't give us license to proceed with the most blatantly unethical practices at every opportunity. The torture, indefinite detention, indiscriminant killing, ravenous war profiteering, and the regression of civil liberties... For all our unmatched military might, look at how much we've compromised.

What's the point of dragging one country out of the turmoil if we're going to put ourselves in an increasingly similar hell indefinitely (even after the supposed "war on terror" is over) and drag much of the world along with us? What's really been the total gain on a macroscopic level?

A war to liberate a country CAN be justified, but not inherently. The means do matter greatly.

 

[Oblivion]

Are you thinking of the Iowa caucus?

Yes! Grazie.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

It's amazing how one picture can say so much.

And in one fell swoop, she attacks both Bloomberg ("Freedom is drinking large containers of sugary drinks, commie!") and Rubio ("Real Republicans don't guzzle puny bottles of water!").

 

[Amir0x]

The 60 Plus Association, a conservative advocacy group for senior citizens, hosted a zombie-themed party that brought in professional makeup artists who created a horde of CPAC's very own "Obama zombies" (aka college students in search of free booze).

Zombies holding glasses full of scotch and bourbon traipsed the darkened ballroom. A woman with a fake human brain in her hand posed for pictures with newcomers, which were immediately posted on Facebook.

While a deejay blasted tunes near a dance floor, makeup artists perfected new zombies in the corner. Near the bar, zombie CPAC'ers grooved in front of a television screen to a Dance Dance Revolution-style game in exchange for free drink tickets.

Obama Zombies, CPAC. Uh...huh

 

[Tamanon]

I don't quite get the message they were trying to push with the "college students in search of free drinks", especially when they were giving people free drinks.....

Also, seems rather young for a 60+ advocacy group.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't quite get the message they were trying to push with the "college students in search of free drinks", especially when they were giving people free drinks.....

Also, seems rather young for a 60+ advocacy group.

IE 60+ conservatives have money to waste on dead end "advocacy" groups and college students don't.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's amazing how one picture can say so much.

Damn liberals taking yo' cookies and yo' Big Gulps! Tell them to stay away from your FREEDOMSZ!

By the way, we don't want you to be able to sleep with another man in your bed at night.

It's like trying to talk to a 5 year old. The GOPop.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think that Palin with a Big Gulp is actually a message that sells.

There's a large contingent of voters out there that view the soda ban as overreach (whether a good idea or not, justifiable or not) and it becomes a symbol of overwhelming government in general.

For all the Clown Shoes going on with race, gender, and policy which are going to lose the GOP votes, this pic will gain them votes.

Also, making fun of her looks seems pretty juvenile.

Obligatory disclosure: Hate Palin, hate what she represents, understand (if disagree) with the Soda ban, think we should attack the subsidy side of things.

 

[FyreWulff]

Well, there's the fact that it was decided at the city level.

Or as I've pointed out, "We're all about States and local rights.. until they do something we don't like. Then yay federalism!"

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Well, there's the fact that it was decided at the city level.

Or as I've pointed out, "We're all about States and local rights.. until they do something we don't like. Then yay federalism!"

You are completely missing the point. Regardless of the contradictions, that shit sells.

 

[Lucky Forward]

So CPAC's Saturday afternoon speaker called CPAC's Friday afternoon speaker a loser:

Phyllis Schlafly CPAC: Mitt Romney, John McCain A 'Bunch Of Losers'

"We've had the establishment pick another loser for us," she said of Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee, at CPAC. "The fight we have, and the fight I want you to engage in, is the establishment against the grassroots. The establishment has given us a whole series of losers. Bob Dole and John McCain. Mitt Romney."

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So CPAC's Saturday afternoon speaker called CPAC's Friday afternoon speaker a loser:

Phyllis Schlafly CPAC: Mitt Romney, John McCain A 'Bunch Of Losers'

It is highly entertaining to see them flail about so.

 

[FyreWulff]

You are completely missing the point.

I'm not missing the point. The GOP constantly parrot people deciding things for themselves, starting at the state level (states rights) and all the way down to the individual level (homeschooling,etc).

However, the party has shown a consistent failure to even follow this core tenet of their platform. If a state or city passes something they don't like, then they'll throw out "this should have been decided by the people" chestnut, even though those officials were elected by the public already. If it passes by a direct vote, oh, that's just a wrong result. Clearly there was voter fraud and graveyard voting, because how else would anyone sensible not vote the way they want?

If you're still in the Republican party like I was at one point, this is your champion. The 7-11 Big Gulp. Actually, it fits pretty well - the reason it sells so well and 7-11 can make huge margin off it is that drink contains HFCS, a highly government subsidized ingredient. Then at the next level, it's subsidized by the government not taxing it.

The battle flag of the anti-government GOP is a heavily government subsidized drink.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I guess in all this context of "let's watch the GOP miss the point" this is the one thing I've seen that is actually going to expand rather than decrease their base.

And I have never bought into the state's/local rights thing, it's always been transparently a means to push whatever their agenda is, usually the erosion of civil rights and protection of bigotry. So, choir over here, preacher.

Back to the Soda thing-- on another forum I was discussing gun control with a gun nut and when pushed to explain the need for guns, he brought up the incandescent bulb ban. Seriously. There are large swathes of people out there that latch onto symbolic shit like this as examples of the government keeping them down. Not everyone takes it to the point of imagining armed revolution, but it will motivate plenty to vote.

It may be contradictory, it may or may not be on the correct side of the policy, but it's really good politics.

 

[el retorno]

So CPAC's Saturday afternoon speaker called CPAC's Friday afternoon speaker a loser:

Phyllis Schlafly CPAC: Mitt Romney, John McCain A 'Bunch Of Losers'

Why is this women still relevant? Didn't see fight against the ERA?

 

[PhoenixDark]

So CPAC's Saturday afternoon speaker called CPAC's Friday afternoon speaker a loser:

Phyllis Schlafly CPAC: Mitt Romney, John McCain A 'Bunch Of Losers'

And if Santorum, Bachman, Paul, Palin lost the excuse would be "the media destroyed him/her, they never had a chance!" Such a lack of personal responsibility from the personal responsibility crowd.

And let's not forget most of them thought Romney would legit crush Obama, or pull off a narrow win, and the media was covering up his Reagan-esque lead. So while I do want to see a Rand Paul ticket I realize even if he lost big it "wouldn't count" to most conservatives, who would then move the goalposts. IMO they don't need a Reagan because that's outdated, they need Nixon. IE the smartest guy in the room, the most prepared, and a complete meglomaniac who can convince people through sheer will and charisma. And fear.

 

[el retorno]

It may be contradictory, it may or may not be on the correct side of the policy, but it's really good politics.

No its not. The people you are talking about are a dying breed.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I really loved seeing all the commotion over light bulbs. In other countries resistance symbols are often people who died for freedom and civil rights, in the west it's buying a craploaf of light bulbs.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

No its not. The people you are talking about are a dying breed.

Racism's waning, support for same-sex marriage is on the rise, more and more people see the benefits of progressive policy in general-- but in no way are particular bans like this gaining in popularity. When Jon Stewart is vocally against the issue, you can't really say that people complaining about government overreach on a dying breed.

Again on other forums, with a wider piece of the political spectrum well-represented, I hear people who are pretty liberal on social issues who jump on this stuff like it's the end of the world, and then say "both parties are bad but I prefer Republicans because of stuff like this."

The GOP loses on economic policy, loses on social policy, but wins on small items like this that they can push into a message to sell their "government is too big" meme.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The soda ban certainly is stupid and riled up voters, but it riled up voters on both sides; that's not a partisan issue. And Sara Palin sure as hell isn't going to appeal to even half of the people who agree with her on it.

There's a bipartisan common sense causes of people who think Bloomberg is an idiot. And while there are people who don't want to be told what light bulbs to buy, there are more who pay high electricity bills and decide to save money with the better product.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm just saying: when you're losing on real issues, a distracting photo like that is good politics.

 

[Oblivion]

This is the only time I'll give Karl Rove a terrorist fist bump:

On "Fox News Sunday," Karl Rove responded to Sarah Palin's declaration at CPAC that Republican consultants who "keep losing elections" need to either "buck up" and run for office or "stay in the truck."

Rove said that as a "balding white guy" he wouldn't be a particularly good candidate for office. But "if I did run for office and win, I'd serve out my term," he said. "I wouldn't leave office mid-term."

 

[RustyNails]

Why is Palin turning into a turtle?

 

[The Technomancer]

The soda ban is bizarre to me. I think it opened my eyes to how many people (including myself to some extent) externalize the government but internalize large private interests.

 

[adamsappel]

Am I the only one who thinks Portman is kind of a dirtbag in all of this? It's like he finally realized "wow, gay people are someone's family members. Shit they have like feelings and stuff too. Who knew?" What else is he ignorant about? Does he realize that poor people actually exist and are someone's child? What about black people? Does he realize they are more than just a statistical presence in the country? God forbid he considers if people we bomb in *other* countries have families or feelings...

Maybe I'm overreacting but that's how it made me feel when I heard him.

I think you're giving Portman too much credit here. I think his conversion is simply, "My son said he's gay and he wants to get married someday." I could very well be wrong, but I'm waiting to see if Portman turns into someone who fights for gay rights, or just won't vote against them.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The soda ban is bizarre to me. I think it opened my eyes to how many people (including myself to some extent) externalize the government but internalize large private interests.

Government power is better understood than corporate power.

 

[KtSlime]

I think that Palin with a Big Gulp is actually a message that sells.

There's a large contingent of voters out there that view the soda ban as overreach (whether a good idea or not, justifiable or not) and it becomes a symbol of overwhelming government in general.

For all the Clown Shoes going on with race, gender, and policy which are going to lose the GOP votes, this pic will gain them votes.

Also, making fun of her looks seems pretty juvenile.

Obligatory disclosure: Hate Palin, hate what she represents, understand (if disagree) with the Soda ban, think we should attack the subsidy side of things.

What if it was that GOPs intended goal to keep the subsidies, and just use FREEDOM to save us from COMMIES who want to BAN (i.e: put a reasonable size limit) soda as a distraction. - Package everything into quick soundbites and doublespeak, like they always do.

Getting rid of corn subsidies (while 100% the correct way to do it) is probably way harder than restricting the size of a fountain soda.

 

[Y2Kev]

On one hand, the soda ban is so completely ridiculous. On top of the image issue it creates, it doesn't even really get at "big soda" where it is most effective (more people probably buy big sodas at supermarkets than at restaurants, but that's just a guess). But, on the other hand, it doesn't actually ban people drinking large quantities of soda. It just makes it more inconvenient to do so. I'm all for making unhealthy behaviors more inconvenient. People have shown they are either unwilling or unable to make the right choice (poverty, etc.), so the government having to play nanny in this case doesn't strike me as over the line.

The popular alternative ("sin tax") just seems so regressive to me.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

On one hand, the soda ban is so completely ridiculous. On top of the image issue it creates, it doesn't even really get at "big soda" where it is most effective (more people probably buy big sodas at supermarkets than at restaurants, but that's just a guess). But, on the other hand, it doesn't actually ban people drinking large quantities of soda. It just makes it more inconvenient to do so. I'm all for making unhealthy behaviors more inconvenient. People have shown they are either unwilling or unable to make the right choice (poverty, etc.), so the government having to play nanny in this case doesn't strike me as over the line.

The popular alternative ("sin tax") just seems so regressive to me.

Agreed. If we really want to change things, we need to get the big 7 or 8 food companies to alter their products. I don't have the details, but I believe on a recent Planet Money they went into this somewhat where the food companies were trying to enact self-imposed improvements ahead of government regulation, and it fell apart. Sorry for the shoddy details, this is secondhand via Mrs Mouse.

 

[Giant Panda]

I've mentioned the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget before, but I think people need to have a glance at what it contains.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The_CPC_FY2012_Budget.pdf





Stimulus, infrastructure bank, public option, negotiation for bulk prices on pharmaceuticals, taxing capital gains as ordinary income, reduced defence operations and spending. Sign me up. Pity that this get to attention in the media because it doesn't compare to the seriousness of the Ryan budget.

This sounds pretty good except for their ridiculous tax scheme. The tax code needs to be simplified, and made more complicated!

 

[pigeon]

I think that Palin with a Big Gulp is actually a message that sells.

There's a large contingent of voters out there that view the soda ban as overreach (whether a good idea or not, justifiable or not) and it becomes a symbol of overwhelming government in general.

For all the Clown Shoes going on with race, gender, and policy which are going to lose the GOP votes, this pic will gain them votes.

Not really. Those votes were already going to the GOP because those votes are pro-clown shoes. The thing you're forgetting is that Palin is totally clown shoes. She's still an incredibly unpopular figure! Just not with the GOP base. People who see this picture and think anything other than "oh God, Sarah Palin" were already voting Republican.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's not conversions, it's motivations. People who are lukewarm on politics "because they're all stupid" get riled up over this kind of thing and vote.

It's not for Palin (she's not running for anything ever again) it's for the party.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Why is this women still relevant? Didn't see fight against the ERA?

Go check out the "Should feminism be renamed?" thread, and you'll realize this woman's relevance.

 

[gcubed]

It's not conversions, it's motivations. People who are lukewarm on politics "because they're all stupid" get riled up over this kind of thing and vote.

It's not for Palin (she's not running for anything ever again) it's for the party.

The people who get riled up over a city ban don't need motivation, and if they said otherwise it was a lie of embarrassment

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

You guys need to talk to more people with different opinions.

The Big Gulp is excellent branding.