Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
April 19, 2014

How Bad Is the GOP Rift? Worse Than Democrats in the 1980s

cruz 019 090413 445x296 How Bad Is the GOP Rift? Worse Than Democrats in the 1980s

Cruz hails from the GOP wing more closely aligned with the tea party. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Political parties seem to suffer through internal battles periodically, but the current state of the GOP is much worse than what Democrats went through some 25 years ago, when organized labor and old-style liberals fought against the Democratic Leadership Council for the soul of the party.

I still remember going to post-election events during the 1980s and watching Al From, then president of the DLC, blame his party’s presidential defeats on liberals and organized labor, only to have someone from the party’s liberal wing whale on From or Will Marshall, the DLC’s first policy director, as Republicans impersonating Democrats.

Now, libertarian and tea party elements of the GOP are in open warfare with pragmatists and institutionalists. Republicans in the House and Senate taunt each other on a daily basis in newspapers or on cable television, which is only too happy to provide a platform.

The structure of today’s parties and the way we consume news make it more difficult for the GOP to resolve its differences successfully.

Both Marshall and From agree that the biggest difference between the 1980s and now is that while the Democratic Party machine of the 1980s was controlled by liberals, the party’s grass roots were more politically diverse. Moderate and conservative Democrats in the South and in rural America knew that their survival depended on changing their party’s ultra-liberal reputation.

“People like Bill Clinton, Bruce Babbitt and Al Gore realized that if they wanted to be president, they needed to change the party. Otherwise, it would be an albatross around our presidential nominee’s neck,” From told me in a recent interview.

“We had some guys who were willing to take some heat [from party liberals]. Chuck Robb was not afraid to take on anyone in the Democratic Party,” continued From, who added that Democrats such as North Carolina’s Jim Hunt and Florida’s Lawton Chiles also “carried some weight in the party.”

“We could rally moderate leaders in the party because we had so many grass-roots moderates,” agreed Marshall, who quite rightly believes that the ideological sorting of the two major parties over the past two decades has created a very different situation now.

Instead of the broad-based, big-tent parties we once had, the parties are now more narrowly ideological and are producing fewer pragmatic officeholders. This is particularly true in the GOP, where fiercely conservative primary voters are selecting more and more candidates who are uncompromisingly ideological.

Without many federal officeholders from the Northeast or other places where taking on the tea party and libertarians might actually be popular, there are relatively few voices — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Arizona Sen. John McCain and New York Rep. Peter T. King are the exceptions — who even attempt to change the party’s tone and direction.

The shrinking number of pragmatists in the party has also intimidated those who remain, making it difficult for the party to have a serious discussion about its direction and how it can broaden its appeal. (A report produced only six months ago by the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project, which addressed the party’s problems, now seems quaint.) 

Even the party’s more veteran officeholders, many of whom prefer a more pragmatic approach, seem paralyzed, wanting to change the discussion but unable to dictate to the rank and file how to resolve internal differences and make the party more appealing.

So instead of leading the counterattack, Speaker John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell try to stay out of the crossfire. And when someone like Karl Rove tries to restore some semblance of order, he becomes the poster child of the status quo.

Changes in the media have combined to make it more difficult to stop the internecine snipping. Twitter, the Internet, and cable television and talk radio encourage snarky, impolitic comments from less-than-responsible individuals who see how to generate media attention and celebrity status, whether for fundraising or merely to boost their egos.

Finally, both Marshall and From argue, by the end of the 1980s, Democrats were so obviously beaten that the party had no choice but to look for a different approach.

“When you lose five out of six presidential elections and you lose 49 states twice (1972 and 1984), you get the message,” said Marshall, whose March 2013 piece in The Daily Beast is a must-read for anyone interested in comparisons between the 1980s and now.

But while the GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential contests, the races have been close enough that party ideologues have ready excuses – bad candidates, a long war in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unfair media, etc. As a result, they have not yet confronted their political problems the way Democrats did, particularly after Michael Dukakis’ defeat in 1988.

But Republican control of the House, which could well extend at least through the rest of the decade, particularly if another Democrat wins the White House in 2016, should not obscure what is happening. Party infighting and the weakening of the party’s pragmatic impulses will continue to erode support for the party until the obvious happens.

“The only remedy for a party that is deluding itself is a major defeat,” says Marshall, thinking back to the 1980s.

That is already making 2016 look like a potentially dangerous election for the GOP.

  • umreb78

    Unless and until the GOP returns to its basic core principles, i.e. smaller limited government, free market policies, etc., the Conservatives who have always voted Republicans couldn’t care less whether the Congress is controlled by the Ds or the Rs. From a principled perspective, there’s not enough of a difference between the two for us to give a damn. Problem is, the RINOs, the RNC, and the elected Republicans or “pragmatists” as the article refers to them as, are far more concerned with the well being of (in order) i) their own political careers, ii) the power of their parties, iii) the well-being of their influence buying special interests than with the well-being of the Country or their constituents. If our choice consists of the openly far left Democrats or the RINOs (French Republicans) that are hand picked by the GOP establishment elites, most true Conservatives have learned (through experience) that there’s not enough difference between the two to even participate in the process. This “debate” will be settled in the every near future…Either we Conservatives will take over the Republican Party or the GOP will have to seek any political wins it might achieve from what is essentially now the moderately left segment of the Democrat Party. Few believe that we will be able to accomplish this, but all the Conservatives who are awake to the events unfolding in American politics, remain convinced that WE will move the Party toward Conservatism. Even if this doesn’t happen, we are positive that the establishment GOP will NEVER move us to the Left. Unlike them, we are dedicated to standing for American principles and we are primarily motivated by doing what’s best for the United States of America…and that is the preservation of individual liberties, a system based on personal responsibility, and one in which the government exists to serve the People…NEVER the opposite!

    • John Herling

      How much farther right can the GOP be moved? It’s already as obstructionist as it can be. It’s willing to shut down the government and force the nation into default to reverse, very likely unsuccessfully, a defeat (Obamacare) it suffered years ago. Isn’t that “conservative” (i.e., reactionary) enough for you?

    • Robbissimo

      The problem you have is there are less and less of your “conservative” peers every year. Fewer people are calling themselves Republicans and that’s not because your party isn’t conservative enough but because people are not interested in the extreme positions you’ve taken. You are quickly running out of enough “conservatives” to have a viable party. I hope you’re happy being a squeaky wheel since, at the rate the Republican Party is shrinking, you’ll never be in control of the keys to the car.

      • Gentil Aquitaine

        I don’t understand the prevailing definition of ‘conservative’ if we are to classify today’s libertarian wing-nuts as ‘conservatives’. These folks have floated on a sea of Randian lunacy for so long, they are flirting with anarchism.

        Thinker like Russell Kirk… pundits like William F. Buckley (insufferable as the latter was at times)… these types I associate with conservatism. I disagree with much of their thinking and consider the whole red scare to have been a fraud perpetrated on the American public at their behest, but even I recognize that they had a defensible political position.

        Almost all of what the present day GOP stands for is not defensible. In fact their only defense of it is propaganda and outright deception.

    • Gentil Aquitaine

      The kind of Republican you describe has had his way with the country since 1980. We are living the legacy of ‘Starve the Beast’ and ‘Trickle Down’.

      If this pattern continues–it’s simple physics–eventually the lower and middle classes will begin to cast off their passivity and do something about the sale of their government to corporate interests .

      • roastytoasty

        The ONLY reason USFEDGOV continues to function is because Ben Bernake is buying up trillions in U.S. debt with worthless Federal Reserve “money”. The pragmatic D’s & R’s in Congress never mention the runaway influence of Central Banking in U.S. politics. Obama thought he could hand Larry Summers the Federal Reserve time-bomb but even that grizzled ol’ Lefty can see the handwriting on the wall. When the full faith and credit of the fully corrupt and altogether incompetent U.S. government bureaucracy ceases to be enough credit to feed the EBT Army the bottom of this present scam will drop out and political parties won’t matter for a while. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-23/credit-bubble-not-only-back-it-94-bigger-2007

        • Gentil Aquitaine

          The ONLY reason the US govt has financial difficulties at all is ‘Starve the Beast’/'Trickle Down’ policy (which is the result of political corruption).

          United States in 1980: World’s leading creditor
          United States in 1987: World leading debtor

          A government that would cut Food Stamp benefits while allowing for massive public subsidies of the most profitable of the world’s multinationals is fundamentally corrupt. 30+ years of bought politicians (GOP and DEMs alike) allow for this.

          But, again, corruption is endemic to the capitalist system. Keynesian measures (New Deal Era financial regulations, progressive taxation, etc.) can keep corruption in check for a while. They did so during the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of American Capitalism (1945-80). But these measure don’t address the heart of the problem. Thus, it returns.

          It returned in 1980 in the form a wholly corrupt Republican Party that proceeded to circumvent all of the Keynesian band-aids of the Post-War Era and effectively transferred the nation’s wealth to the business sector.

    • Pragmatic Conservative

      You’ve summed it up exactly. Tea Partiers are so far to the extreme right that they view everyone to their left as being insufficiently “conservative.” The real RINOs are the libertarian anarchists who hate the Republican Party and are set on destroying it so they can remake it into a club for the radical right fringe which will exist as a permanent political minority. They are led by the likes of Paul, Cruz and Lee, who have repeatedly proven that they have no interest in governing or in solving problems – they simply want to object every time they don’t get what they want. And they completely reject the idea of democratic republic, instead believing that their views should always win out, no matter what the majority of American think. They say they oppose Obama’s “tyranny” but simply want to replace it with their own tyranny (i.e. Cruz insisting on a 60 vote majority for everything – is he going to say he believes that if/when the Senate is in GOP hands?). How many elections do Tea Partiers have to lose for the GOP, before you realize the public does not support your extremist views? Angle, O’Donnell, Mourdock, Akin, etc., etc. The winnable Senate races you’ve cost us alone would have been enough to give us control of the Senate, but instead we have to have Harry Reid rubber stamp the Obama agenda – thanks to the Tea Party.

      • Disgruntled2012

        I don’t think you got umreb’s point. If the GOP refuses to support what are supposed to be its core principles, then what difference to us does it make which party controls DC?

        It’s funny, you seem to be worried about the idea of Harry Reid rubber stamping the Obama agenda, but you don’t care in the least if its the republican party rubber stamping it. What a joke.

        BTW the winnable races you mentioned, you blame the Tea Party (even though it was the Tea Party who gave republicans control ovf congress). Me, I blame Karl Rove, the party establishment, and people like you.

        • Pragmatic Conservative

          This is the problem with the Tea Party. You are so extreme in your thinking that you can’t see any difference between those with whom you mostly agree (Republicans) and those with whom you completely disagree (Democrats). In your minds, everyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% of the time is the enemy, end of discussion. Did you not notice that it was Republcans who voted against Obamacare originally, and continue to vote against it today? Was it not the Republicans who voted against the stimulus package? Was it not the Republicans who passed numerous conservative budgets while Senate Democrats did nothing? And yet you still can’t tell the difference…
          As for elections, the Tea Party didn’t win Congress for the GOP. The seats they won were mostly held by conservative Dems who lost because they supported Obama over their constituents. Just about any Republican could have won most of those seats. It was, however, the Tea Party that lost numerous Senate seats for the GOP. No one can rationally claim that the “establishment” caused O’Donnell, Akin, Angle, Mourdock, etc. to lose their races. They lost because they were extremists who turned off all but the most right wing of voters.

          • Disgruntled2012

            There is a big difference between those who TELL ME they mostly agree with me, and those who ACT LIKE they agree with me! Be serious!

            The probglem here is not me. The problem here is that the republican party’s “strategy” to oppose Obama and the left has been to give them everything they want, and hope to reap the benefit in the next election when things get bad. That is unacceptable! People are hurting, now, and just lip service from elected republicans means nothing at all to me.

            I most certainly can claim that some tea party candidates were hurt very badly by the “establishment”. Candidates that were polling even or ahead of ther democrat counterparts, after winning their primaries and getting nuked by Karl Rove (whom I’ve NEVER hear go after democrats like he goes after conservatives), their numbers plummeted. But despite that, the Tea Party was the reason for big gains for the republican party, all across the country. Don’t waste your time revising history for me; I know darn well what happened!

          • Pragmatic Conservative

            And how does voting against Obamacare time and time again, voting against the stimulus package, voting against Obama’s budget, voting against Obama’s energy proposals, etc., etc. amount to “giving them everything they want?” The problem is that you, and those like you, insist on getting everything you want, and anyone who won’t give it to you is immediately labeled as a RINO. If you want the GOP to stop Obama, then stop supporting unelectable Tea Partiests (who are the real RINOs, since they oppose the GOP more often than they support it), and start backing Republican candidates who can win. Then we’ll have a majority and can vote against Obama even more. But when you hand numerous elections to Democrats, and then whine about how the GOP isn’t doing enough to stop Obama, you are being illogical.

            As for the elections, you can’t name a single candidate who won a GOP primary/caucus that the “establishment” blocked from getting elected in the general. Establishment Republicans dumped tons of money and logistical support into Tea Party Senate candidates after they beat more mainstream Republicans, and except in a couple of examples, the Tea Partiers lost big because they were unacceptable to the general electorate. Democrats have even taking to running ads in support of Tea Party candidates in the primaries, because they know they are so easily beatable in general elections. In all the races I mentioned previously, the GOP nominees lost because of their own failings, not because Karl Rove said they were extremists (you give Rove far too much credit for being able to influence elections). That’s not revisionist history, it is a fact.

            And if you can’t believe those truths, how about this. The one election where an establishment Republican was able to take on a Tea Partier in the general was in Alaska, where Lisa Murkowski kept her Senate seat after losing in the primary. When the entire electorate gets to speak, they don’t vote for the extremists.

            The only Tea Party gains were in governors seats (many of whom were fluke candidates – not unlike Jesse Ventura in MN years ago – who will have a hard time getting re-elected), and in Congress where they primarily defeated moderate Democrats in conservative districts that would have voted against the Democrat regardless. The Tea Party may have served a purpose in rallying people against the extremism of the Obama/Pelosi/Ried triumvirate, but by going so far to the extreme right, and alienating all those who they define as note “pure” enough, they are no doing more harm to the conservative cause than good.

  • John Rivas

    In this article, communistic liberal democrat Peter Orszag openly wages ideological warfare against the ideas and institutions of the United States Constitution: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html

    • John Herling

      Communists are not liberals, or vice versa. The two ideologies are directly opposed. If you went to a school where they taught that, you ought to know it.

      • Gentil Aquitaine

        Communism is already on the ash heap of history. Both free market capitalism and the so called ‘liberal democratic’ defense of it are about to follow it.

        The preponderance of corruption and wildly unpopular (but prevailing) ideologies in American politics betoken some kind of crash of the whole system in the near future.

      • John Rivas

        The intellectual vanguard of today’s liberalism – Sunstein, Orszag, Seidman, etc. – is 100% pure marxist progressive.

        • rozlee

          You have to get out of the 1950′s and realize that it’s 2013. The Red Scare went out with Slinkys and poodle skirts. You need to go out looking for flying saucers with all the other old guys.

          • John Rivas

            Like marxism, the “big idea” of today’s liberalism is the notion that a small group of academics and intellectuals are somehow magically entitled to consciously direct the future of mankind.

          • Swami_Binkinanda

            That’s not Marxism, that’s technocracy. Marx, like Jesus, said we all deserve basic necessities and once the workers take over the means of production-factories, offices, docks, railroads-that the parasitic non-working capitalists would whither away and things would be swell.
            Technocracy and meritocracy are part of the cult of capitalism: that the best trained and educated will naturally rise to their appropriate levels of responsibility and wealth through honest competition.

            Reality has shown neither; we are East African plains apes who lie, cheat and steal compulsively, and none of the utopian mythologies can work-free markets can’t exist, socialism can only work as long as people demand it, and capitalism is self-corrupting and periodically destroys itself to be reborn anew.

          • John Rivas

            Technocracy is the “big idea” of communism.

            The notion that a chosen group of academics and intellectuals are somehow magically entitled to consciously direct the future of mankind.

            The very same “big idea” of socialism and today’s liberalism.

            Cass Sunstein, for example, covers it at length in his neo-marxist tome Nudge.

          • rozlee

            Today’s conservatism believes in the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.

          • John Rivas

            I don’t think anyone takes Genesis literally.

          • rozlee

            You don’t know much about the Creationists in the evangelical wing of the GOP, do you? They’re even trying to ban certain types of math and chemistry courses in schools because they can’t have any science that teaches that some radioactive isotopes might have a half life that is over 6,000 years, ergo that might dispute the theory of a young earth.

          • John Rivas

            No, I just don’t buy your assertions.

            Obviously, no one really knows the explanations for the forces of good and evil. They can’t be scientifically explained, unlike forces such as gravity and electricity.

            There’s no conflict between science and Christianity that I’m aware of.

          • rozlee

            You must live in a cocoon if you’re not aware of the battles going on in many Southern states right now to try to keep evolution and cosmology from being taught in schools by religious conservatives. Republican Representative from Georgia Paul Broun said that “evolution, embryology and the Big Bang are lies straight from the pits of hell.” It wouldn’t have been so bad if it wasn’t for the fact that Broun is a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee.

          • John Rivas

            Legitimate science is based on empirical observation and experimentation.

            Who observed evolution? Who observed the “big bang”?

            Certainly, there is some evidence for both but it’s not anywhere near the empirical evidence associated legitimate physics.

          • rozlee

            Who observed Adam and Eve? Who can prove that God exists? Who can walk on water?

  • oldhandatthis

    Actually there is another remedy if the Republican civil war goes on too long, a new center right party can be formed and the GOP could go the way of the Whigs.

    • Gentil Aquitaine

      The Democrats of today ARE the center-right party the Whigs used to be. That is the crux of the issue. They abandoned their (quasi)leftist roots in the 80s, as this author has pointed out.

      The corruption of the GOP in 80s was the start of all of this.

      • Swami_Binkinanda

        Nope, it was Nixon’s treason in 1968 that started this, coupled with the Powell memo and a resurgent right embittered by the defeat of Goldwater and resentment against the “cloth coat” east coast Republican establishment a la Rockefeller.
        Recapitulating the endless cycle in America of wealth overreaching and overextending itself until the situation becomes untenable followed by armed violence or reform.

        • shonangreg

          I think you’re right. After Nixon, the Republicans were an opposition party keeping the spending and corruption in check on the part of the Democrats. With their rise under Reagan, though, and ever since, they have failed to make the transition to a governing party.

          The GOP has never gotten over its obsession with demonizing liberalism as the fundamental problem in American politics. They have yet to formulate a coherent vision on who they are. A party of the rich just won’t cut it in a democracy.

  • John Herling

    2014 would be a very convenient time for a major defeat of the GOP.

    • rozlee

      Dream on. With all their gerrymandering, Democrats are practically 3/5th’s of a person in many states. Here in Texas, it takes 2 1/4 Democrat votes to equal one Republican vote. Demographics will eventually turn Texas blue and with California, Texas and Florida all becoming blue states, they won’t elect another Rethug president for a generation or more. But, on a state level, they’ll still pack the lege with right-wing extremists.

    • rozlee

      Dream on. With all their gerrymandering, Democrats are practically 3/5th’s of a person in many states. Here in Texas, it takes 2 1/4 Democrat votes to equal one Republican vote. Demographics will eventually turn Texas blue and with California, Texas and Florida all becoming blue states, they won’t elect another Rethug president for a generation or more. But, on a state level, they’ll still pack the lege with right-wing extremists.

      • Disgruntled2012

        I don’t know about that. Let’s see what happens if/when they cave on the Obamacare fight, and then pass comprehensive immigration “reform”.

  • ggetaclue

    The Democratic party today is like the GOP of 1968, not really liberal, not really progressive, but moderate-left-ish. The GOP today is mostly crazy, with some light moderates who are getting crushed by the crazies.

    Bottom line: there are few, if any liberals, much less, progressives, remaining now, in the USA. What passes for liberalism today is what a 60s liberal would have rejected as “too far right.” It’s both sad and interesting to me, who has witnessed this metamorphosis of the political spectrum from what once was a fairly diverse range of political ideas to this ongoing battle to retain some semblance of reason and sanity front and center. It’s a shame, really…some truly wonderful ideas will never see the light of day while Americans are treated to daily doses of “B” kabuki by these morons in Congress.

  • Eisenhower

    “New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Arizona Sen. John McCain
    and New York Rep. Peter T. King are the exceptions — who even attempt to change the party’s tone and direction.”

    Um, okay…….John “Bomb, bomb, Iran, Syria, and everyone else” McCain lost the 2008 Presidential election 365 evs to 173 evs, with Barack Obama and his party grabbing the advantage on foreign policy, and economics together in the polls for the first time in decades. The Dems have only just begun to lose these advantages due to a continuing slag in the economy and a near intervention in Syria (which the public overwhelmingly opposed, but the Pres. supported). And Peter King, whose investigations of Muslim Americans, and push for a prolonged stay in Afghanistan(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hE2-DB19eM), have done nothing to improved his state Party’s standing, or his national party’s standing among the public.

    Forgive me if I’m wrong, I’m not entirely sure how two old Republican
    hawks who would likely remind the public of the same President whose
    party and policies they rejected in 2006 and 2008, can benefit
    conservatives/Republican in winning elections in the future.

    As for Chris Christie his appeal is duly noted, but the Giuliani impression, about the “families and orphans of 9/11″, he gave during the debate over reforming the National Security state while appealing to Republican donors and hawks is unlikely to do much for war weary voters.

    I think Ross Douthat sums up the problem quite well here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/douthat-good-populism-bad-populism.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

    The problem isn’t that the “extremists” are making their voices heard, the problem is they seem to be the only ones in the room with fresh ideas for the GOP. I mean it would be one thing if the choice were between Jon Huntsman and Mitch Daniels, (former Governors), who advocated a more cautious foreign policy, moderation on social issues, and focus on fiscal policy, vs. Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin. But the choices aren’t that clear.

    “have ready excuses – bad candidates, a long war in Iraq and Afghanistan”

    Um, well.,…McCain 2008, Romney 2012, weren’t good candidates, and unless where forgetting the reason why the GOP lost both the Senate and House in 06, and Obama won the nomination in 08, then I think their analysis of “long” wars is correct.

  • Eisenhower

    Something else Centrist Democrats could make a credible argument that the party’s “ultra liberal” reputation had damaged the party in Presidential elections due to “McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis” losses, but considering the fact that McGovern and Mondale had actual liberal reputations, and Dukakis was MA Democrat that’s an easy case to make.

    If the Republican nominees in the past cycles had been Rick Santorum, Jim DeMint or Michelle Bachmann, then the comparison would hold true. But, since it’s McCain and Romney where talking and before them the Establishment/Compassionate Conservative/Medicare Part D/NCLB/TARP/”War on Terror”/ President Bush, then the argument that it’s really the “libertarians and tea partiers” who have left the party in such a bad electoral state seems a little hollow.

  • ben chifley

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman's_k-percent_rule

    When did any party of any political ideology or belief pattern believe giving banks the right and laws to create money out of thin by a total of 3% of the total amount of dollars in circulation every year.

    Wall St has smaller government

    Strongest California Economy Drives University Bond

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-24/california-sells-2-6-billion-debt-as-napolitano-arrives.html

    Not a single industry left that bloomberg doesn’t report daily that has to issue bonds or borrow money from the Federal Reserve Bank. That is what libertarianism is!!!!!!!!

    http://www.lp.org/platform

    Making sure the banks are in control and no single individual or business libertarians call fascists and no set of agreed values libertarians call communists like a universal education system or healthcare system. Working for the State they call Nazism or National Socialism!!!!!!

    Until Americans corporations and individuals stop living on debt and move away from a debt based economy or libertarian fantasy land sold by democrats and republicans keep worshiping the unelected boys at the Printing Presses formerly known as Communism but Reuters reports it:

    Taperless Fed sets off share and bond market surge‏

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-markets-global-idUSBRE96S00E20130919

    When you create an economic system that doesn’t need customers just borrowers you can create as much money out of thin air as you like.

    Funny how smaller government has created all this!!!

    Draghi gets ECB backing for unlimited bond-buying

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/06/uk-ecb-rates-idUKBRE88500520120906

    Goldman Sachs Said to Expand Electronic Bond-Trading Sessions

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/goldman-sachs-said-to-expand-electronic-bond-trading-sessions.html

    David Cameron: The next age of government

    Gees I wonder if Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are behind TedTalk?
    The Age of Artificial Intelligence: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013

    A country run by computers creating money out of thin!!!!!!

    Where in the constitution does it say this is what it means to be an American? What caused the boston tea party? Now the English don’t need an army just a computer!!!!!!

  • Disgruntled2012

    “That is already making 2016 look like a potentially dangerous election for the GOP.”

    2016? Why wait that long? Perhaps the conservative voters will demonstrate to the party “leaders” what happens when you continually infuriate your base in 2014.

  • Kschluter

    There are very few, so call liberal Democrates to start with…
    I don’t think anyone out there thinks they’re not being patriotic, but few understand the nature of our current situation.
    As long as corporations control a large majority of our media, and can shovel
    loads of money into politics, we will all lose.
    Corporations like (Newscorp) or more commonly known as FOX, likes to play it both ways. The originator of the so called “moral majority” also controls more porn on the internet than any other entity.
    Do you really think they care about you? It’s about money, that’s what corporations do, wether it be healthcare, media, oil, you name it……
    So, is it liberal or conservative?
    It’s just a way to divide all of us….

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...