Sure, if your point was that you would like to have someone who pursues the policies enacted under Clinton, then that's something I can understand.calbear93 said:When Trump was a liberal in the mid 90s. People change. Biden has changed. I wasn't referring to Clinton as a politician he may have had to become to win an election now. I was referring to the president he was in the mid 90s. That is the type of president I would support and is closer to the establishment Republican who want to solve problems within the establishment and through compromise despite disagreement with the other side. How do you go from me saying I liked Clinton when he was president to Clinton is left of Biden NOW?Unit2Sucks said:Quite simple, that was the mid 90's and it was a completely different environment.calbear93 said:I don't know why your facts differ so much from my recollection of facts. How is a President who agreed to put in a work requirement for welfare, cut benefits, etc. left of Biden?Unit2Sucks said:If Clinton were allowed to be President again, he would probably be to the left of Biden. I think he would be painted as a pinko commy liberal coming for your guns and bringing socialism.calbear93 said:I will say this. I view myself as an establishment Republican with conservative views on economy, budget, rule of law, crime and safety, etc. I don't view myself as a current day Republican where I view their isolationist, nationalistic politics more focused on fighting divisive social wars than governing and building a future for the next generation as more akin to the southern populist Democrats from 5 or 6 decades ago.Unit2Sucks said:I don't know about JFK, that was too long ago, but you are on another planet if you think "establishment" republicans are anything like Clinton.tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.
In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
First - it needs to be said that every politician is a product of their era. We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. The Overton Window has shifted on numerous topics. Clinton is very much aligned with today's democratic party. Disingenuous people like to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell as if it was some sort of deeply held belief by Clinton to limit gay rights. It was a radical notion back then and a pivotal movement in civil rights history. It was opposed by the GOP and even many democrats who weren't ready.
What exactly do you think "establishment" even means for the GOP? Are you ignoring the base and all GOP elected officials to construct some sort of sane utopian version of the party or are you talking about the party as it actually is? If someone like Clinton showed up to the GOP today he would be labeled a RINO. The closest thing to an "establishment" in the GOP is whatever Trump believes at any given time. He's the only person that matters and any attempt to define the GOP that ignores his total influence and control is foolish. The only thing preventing us from passing certain legislation right now (like immigration and Ukraine aid) is Donald Trump stopping it.
And as an establishment Republican, I agreed quite often with Clinton. Not so much Biden anymore. The only reason I will vote for Biden is because of Trump. That's it. If Clinton ran again, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
And I guess maybe it's just semantics but what "establishment" do you represent? Certainly not the mainstream GOP. I guess you could represent a theoretical sane GOP that stands for stuff that the GOP used to stand for in theory but not really in practice. I would argue that in practice the GOP's only consistent policy priorities over the past few decades were lowering taxes on the wealthy and conservative social values. The GOP never made our government smaller or reduced our deficit. It has consistently failed to deliver promised results for the American people apart from lower taxes and expansion of certain individual liberties (mostly guns) while curtailing others (abortion, etc.).
As far as establishment, I don't think it is a term that I came up with. It is commonly understood as the governing, compromising group of Republicans as opposed to disruptive, anti-establishment no-compromise segment like the Tea Party and now the Freedom Caucus. It just happens that the anti-establishment, even when having control of the party, cannot govern because how do you stay anti-establishment when you choose to participate in an organization that is by its nature and core intended to govern? If you are still confused, there is this called Google that may help you understand what is commonly understood when people refer to establishment Republican as opposed to anti-establishment Republicans.
You are generally a smart person, but then when you describe the Republican party, your emotions take over your brain and you present things in a tilted manner no different than someone who argues that Democrats are all about socialism and woke politics. No, neither is correct. For example, I was for lowering corporate taxes, because unlike some who promote it based on rhetoric, I actually practiced M&A and knew of all of the corporate inversions, with countries otherwise known for high taxes like France and Germany and of course Ireland had such lower corporate tax. It was such a disadvantage that we had to use leverage to even have EU agree to a minimal tax that is still lower than our current corporate tax. I know of a few potential inversions even beyond Pfizer before TCJA.
And the whole concept of wealth tax is not even a practical consideration. So, saying that Republicans just want to lower taxes when they are often OK with it when coupled with lower entitlements. Just like it is not accurate to say all Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend, and then spend some more and solve everything through tax and spend and bigger government. That wouldn't describe you, would it? Now if someone said that was what Democrats represented, would you think they were smart?
While I think we need to raise taxes for everyone else, I don't buy into this fallacy that someone richer than me has to pay more. Why them and not me or you? And we should tax to reduce the deficit while also reforming entitlements that use up almost all of our revenues and comprise of most of our budget. WE talk of military or discretionary, but it's entitlements that cause 70-80% of our deficit. And adding more entitlements is not the solution just like cutting taxes is not.
Let me ask you an easy question - was BIden to the left or right of Clinton in the 90's? I think we will both agree that Biden was to the right. One of the consistent points of attack from the right on Biden is that he used to be conservative (lol, they attack him for previously sharing their positions). The difference is that Biden's views have evolved along with the rest of our country. There is no reason to believe that Clinton's "solutions" or policies which he felt were the best for our country in the mid-90's would be the same today.
As to the latter part of your message, saying the GOP is "for" certain things is a bit too glib for me. The GOP had control of both houses of congress under Trump and mad no attempts to reduce the size of the government. They reduced taxes and increased our deficit. They talked about repealing and replacing ACA but never even came close to starting a plan. They talked about infrastructure week but never did anything. They pay lip service to entitlements but have no plans. At some point you have to look at their actions.
And, I think you know this, but you and I aren't that different when it comes to taxing and spending. I think we spend too much. I agree we can't just arbitrarily raise taxes and hope for the best. I agree the wealth tax is problematic for any number of reasons. I just don't think the GOP is in any position to govern responsibly so the democrats are our only chance to move forward responsibly.
I think you are so set in your argument that no matter what I write about what establishment Republicans mean, you will just skip past it and then refer to anti-establishment Republicans as why I am wrong about establishment Republicans. During Obama, there was a small faction of Tea Party (and not Freedom Caucus) that made it impossible for establishment Republicans to govern. And the Republicans couldn't get anything done because of anti-establishment Republicans (other than McCain - an establishment Republican - cratering the attempt to remove ACA without a replacement). I mention that anti-establishment Republicans cannot govern because they are against establishment, and then you refer to the period when anti-establishment Republicans drove the agenda? Not sure why you keep asking about establishment Republicans and then ignore the discussion to address anti-establishment Republicans as establishment Republicans.
I agree on Republicans not being the answer as long as the Republicans cater to Trump and to the anti-establishment sector of the party.
It's like when people try to compare athletes across eras. I think if Michael Jordan were in his prime right now he would be a ridiculous 3 point shooter with a completely different game than he had in the 80's and 90's. I don't think it makes sense when people say that MJ wouldn't be dominant in this era, and they assume that he would play exactly the way he played back then. Just like players adapt to the rules of the game and style of play, politicians are products of their environment, the state of the institutions they serve, and society's general support of and readiness for certain policies.
The reason I harp on "establishment" Republicans is because I think people are using it as a way of handwaving away what has actually happened which is that the "establishment" either no longer exists or has been replaced by the MAGAts. Apart from tax cuts and approving SCOTUS nominations, establishment Mitch got nothing done during the Trump era. I agree with you that the legacy establishment was a thing and that there are reasonable people like you and t4k who still support that type of movement.
