<p>More on economic-royalist wing of the G.O.P.</p>
<p>Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) – Wealthy Republicans have a new political nightmare that may be scarier than Hillary Clinton: Mike Huckabee.
The former Arkansas governor has surged in Republican presidential-preference polls, winning the support of Christian fundamentalists while peppering his campaign rhetoric with jabs at the financial industry. He calls himself the candidate who isn’t a ``wholly owned subsidiary’’ of investment banks, decries large executive-pay packages and says the party needs to shift its focus from Wall Street to Main Street.
In doing so, he threatens the uneasy if effective coalition Republicans have counted on for three decades: abortion opponents and other social-issue activists supplying foot soldiers, proponents of tax cuts and business-friendly regulatory policies putting up the money and getting the biggest economic benefits.
Read More: Bloomberg.com: Politics</p>
<p>The Christian Right that wants to enforce theocracy, end a woman’s right to choose, put the Bible in public schools, and attack basic science now officially owns the GOP.</p>
<p>And in the cross-fire between the Ayahtollah faction and the Wall Street faction, the jingoistic Bushevik Neo-con faction is saying, “Stop! Stop! We need both of you!!!” While the Nativist faction looks at everyone suspiciously and scribbles “illegal immigrants” down as the answer to every policy question.</p>
<p>Not really much different than the welfare industrial complex faction, the tree huggers, and the pseudo socialists that make up the Democrat base.</p>
I would absolutely love to see a coherent definition of any of those three alleged “factions.” Hmmmm. “Welfare industrialist complex.” Sounds so cool - means so little.</p>
<p>I have no justification to support what I am about to say, But…</p>
<p>I have the feeling that the critical thinking, Republicans, who have the wealth are beginning to come around to believe: They will lose wealth, if they can not make, extract, sell, advertise, insure, offer knowledge, or wholesale; When the majority of the purchasers are broke and already owe too much to the wealthy. It would be in their best interest to reexamine their positions, before someone else examines it for them.</p>
<p>Welfare industrial complex–AKA the poor, and the people who live off them–poor people, government workers, multiple NGO’s “serving” the poor, some politicians and their friends and families (see government workers), many public school teachers, and some churches and their flocks.</p>
<p>Tree Huggers–those worried about the latest alleged threats to the environment including the anti-development NIMBY crowd.</p>
<p>Although I would argue with barrons about his description of the Democratic party, I agree with the general notion that the party was clearly made up of various constiuencies (sp?). Same is true of the GOP. The difference being that, hsitorically, the Democrats have had more in-fighting while the GOP has done better in keeping its different groups together.</p>
<p>That’s less true now and some rifts have developed, especially with regard to illegal immigration/amnesty and reproductive rights. </p>
<p>Plus the current state of the housing market is likely to rock the boat.</p>
<p>Yes, both parties have multiple factions that might not even like each other but they have a major issue that keeps them under the party tent.
I have nearly zero in common with the religious right but I’m still in the R tent most of the time for other reasons.</p>
<p>So “welfare industrial complex” = churches, school teachers, government workers and poor people. No industry, no complex, not much welfare. Like I said, “sounds so cool, means so little” - like most right wing claptrap.</p>
<p>If you don’t like “tree huggers” try breathing out of your tailpipe for a while. If it weren’t for the “huggers” dragging the “witty” name-callers into the 21st century that’s what your air would taste like. And most opposition to development has nothing to do with environmentalism - the issue is usually property values. I know more “NIMBYs” who are Republicans than Democrats - it’s all about where your backyard is.</p>
<p>“Pseudo socialist” = two bad sounding words strung together with no coherent thought process guiding the effort.</p>
<p>Making up cool-sounding pejorative names to belittle opposing viewpoints = standard right wing approach to public discourse.</p>
<p>Yes and the “christian right” is a uniform group of people who all think the same.
In my experience which is pretty vast, the heart of the anti-growth/development group is the extreme environmental groups who want to use whatever normal planning/operating controls there are on development to further their agenda of forcing everyone into dense urban style developments. They are anti-car, anti-road, and anti single-family home. They use environmental impact statements as a club to roadblock growth.</p>
<p>Well, there’s “spending a fortune” and there’s “consuming a fortune at others’ expense.” The fact is that we’ve come up against the reality that the suburban, road-dominated zoning ordinances put into effect in the 1950’s and still in effect today have a cost to society which the homeowners don’t pay themselves. And what’s more, we’ve effectively made it difficult if not impossible to live a normal lifestyle without driving a car every day. </p>
<p>I’d love to be able to move from my large suburban home into something more compact, which wouldn’t require me to drive a million miles a year. In my community I can’t - there is no such place to live. Maybe if the “tree huggers” have the same success with municipal planning in the coming years as they had with air and water pollution in decades past we may survive the short-sighted policies of the name-callers.</p>
<p>All an environmental impact statement does is require the government body considering a development request to actually consider the environmental consequences of approving (or denying) the application. It doesn’t require a decision one way or the other. it’s just that when you stop ignoring the environmental consequences of your decisions the answer isn’t always going to be “yes.” Yeah - facts - really inconvenient, aren’t they?</p>
<p>It’s not just the facts. It’s the appeals that drag out the process for up to a decade or more until the developer gives up and moves on. </p>
<p>I know of few places in Cal that do not have condos and townhomes within a reasonable if not closer distance to most places of work. You must live in a really unique area with an employer located in a very odd remote location. That would not be true of about 98% of the jobs and cities in urban California. What is the strange place? BTW I myself live in a townhome community because I hate yardwork and don’t have kids or a dog–not for political reasons. It’s about 30 miles from work and I like that.</p>