Blogs and Stories
The GOP's Blacklist
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
The Republicans’ new so-called purity test is worthy of Joe McCarthy. Mark McKinnon on why it will doom their comeback.
Just as the opportunity to expand seems to have sprung magically from the political mists, the Republican Party seems determined to shrink its ranks.
Six months ago, the notion of a Republican resurgence was laughable. The GOP was foundering so badly, pundits talked in terms of “decades” of Democratic dominance. Today some recent polls find more voters supporting a generic Republican candidate for Congress than a Democrat. Obama’s favorable ratings have sunk to 49 percent. No president has been re-elected with a favorable rating of 47 percent or less.
If the Republican Party is serious about becoming competitive again, the last thing it needs to do is send messages of intolerance.
And so just as the wind begins to blow back toward the GOP, it decides we need a “purity test” to determine if Republican candidates are sufficiently conservative. I don’t care what’s on the list, the idea of a “purity test” sends chills down my spine. It sounds like a McCarthyite “loyalty test.”
Integrity and character aren’t mentioned. So, presumably, if two candidates were running for office and one met the purity test but cheated on his wife, gave no money to charity, and treated his staff like chattel, he would get funding against a candidate who, let’s say, was an Iraq vet, outstanding father and husband, head of the local YMCA, but disagrees with three of the Republican National Committee public-policy positions.
• Mark McKinnon: How Palin Helps Bloomberg
• Mark McKinnon: Huckabee’s Power SurgeThe positions laid out by the committee aren’t problematic. They sound as a whole fairly reasonable:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public-policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health-care reform and oppose Obama-style government-run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health-care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public-policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Myra Adams is a media producer, writer and political observer. Her media clients have included national associations, political interest groups and corporations. She was on the creative team with Mark McKinnon that created the now infamous John Kerry "Windsurfing" ad for the Bush 2004 presidential campaign and served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign. Myra's web site www.TheJesusStore.com contributes all profits to Christian charity.
Grill Him Again!
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Not a Game-Changer
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
zsingerb
Each party needs to have a reason for their existence besides "because". The reason needs to be what they have in common. I see nothing wrong in excising those who do not believe in the reasonable planks of the party. The party doesn't need to open itself to those who believe differently to grow itself. That's like saying you need to tolerate and accept a cancer because it helps you grow. If there are those who wish to follow their own ideals, they can found their own party. And, on a slight tangent, the opening of KGB files several years ago showed that McCarthy was right and the government WAS riddled with communist spies.
nickels1
your head is riddled with something...
johnwr3
The McCarthy analogy is wrong headed and a cheap shot. There is nothing wrong with either party having specific principles and goals. It's hardly a purity test. Having vales and professing them is very normal and important. Both parties need to differenciate themselves. Moderate republicans like Snow are a dying breed for a good reason...their closet Dems. I know Dems want the GOP to be a Dem light party so voters will vote for the real Dems but that can't work for the GOP. The country needs two choices not one.
tblunt
History shows McCarthy's tactics to be stain on American politics...Just what are you protecting US citizens from by putting people like Dashiell Hammett in jail?...Seems totally un-American to me...If the government was truly "riddled" with "reds", McCarthy sure didn't find any...He was a slug and a drug addict and the deeper he got into his morphine the deeper he pressed his communist witch hunt...So often in politics and religion, the people who call loudest for purity have the darkest secrets to hide.
cesspool
Always amazes me, laughable too, how liberals offer so much political advice to conservatives. RINOs have been listening that's for sure, which is why the GOP got its butt kicked.. oh the drive-by, state-run media added to the equation but media doesn't carry the weight it once did. 2010 is gonna shake things up dramatically. Stay tuned.
Monk66
What happens when the Cancer is the one conducting the purity tests?
I would say the far right of the party is what is hurting the Republican Party in the long-run. I think they should take your advice and move into the Tea-Party instead of ousting middle Repubs.
gak001
They should really break off and form a Tea Party Party or build up the Conservative Party USA.
Johnnyappleseed
As a conservative independent, I can speak to the idea of purge, and give you an anology that is current, Joe Libierman, fell to the hard core left wing of the democratic party, terrible shame a good man doing a good job, that's when the democrats went too far, the repulican hiearchy decided who should become the candidate for the repulicans, and picked McCain, the conservatives stayed home.
So both parties have their own set of problems, and again from an independent point of view and as a conservative, I will vote against the incumbent in the coming election, enough debt to last a life time, congress is broke and now so is the USA
I doubt it's the middle Repubs they want to jetison, more on the order of people like Arlen Specter, Senator Snow,and those who pretend to be something they are not just to get elected.
What a sad country this would be if we were all left wing democrats.
The press has opted to use the word McCarthy era, it fits the current administration more closely than it does the tea baggers or town hallers
gak001
It's a tragedy that we're polarizing and moderates are getting left in the dust, but the assertion that President Obama is using McCarthy tactics seems to me to be more than a little ridiculous. He's not questioning anyone's patriotism, he's not questioning anyone's loyalties; the worst that's happened is someone in his administration called out Fox News for partisan hackery. MSNBC is partisan and the Bush Administration called them on it as well. I don't see a problem.
freshhell
Tea Party 2012 - Alice for President, Mad Hatter for VP and the White Rabbit as Drug Czar.
pulmanomancer
The thing is, plank #1 is really the core of the party platform - the rest of it is fashion. If you believe in #1, you're conservative. Conservatives could reasonably disagree with everything else on there.
fleetw1978
pulman...... your premise is false. Saying you are for smaller govt. and then engaging in massive spending including ill conceived and ill managed wars is called foolish and hypocricy. The GOP had congress and the executive branch for 6 yrs and took a surplus and turned it into a defiecit. This "test" is the RIGHT WINGS talking points and sounds like Fox news opinion leaders that run the party. I say go for it, Teabag away. If the voting public buys this crap they get what they deserve. One would think that our collective memories were better, but then again......Palin, Prejean, Joe the plumber. These are the idols of the political right. God help us.
BeeClone
Republicans talk small government when the Dems are in power but the sky is the limit when they are in power. Unfunded tax cuts and remember medicaid part D just to name two Repub programs.
newswoman
the Reps will 'cut off their nose to spite their face' as my mother would say, and limit participation in their party by moderates and pro-choice conservatives. Good. Let them have all the Tea Baggers and Wing Nuts and then they will see how shortsided they will have been.
camfield
The "purity" thing goes back further than Joe McCarthy. Little Adolf was espousing his "master race" back in the mid-1920s.
JTS1021
You know what, that's fine. But if you don't want anyone who disagrees you with on anything in the party, that will make you the permanent minority. And if that's your case, then STOP COMPLAINING. Stop talking about how the country is going in a different direction than you want it to and how no one is listening to you because you did this to yourself.
This is what Republicans have done for years. You believe in free-market economics, you believe in small government and lower taxes? Ok, well, sure come on...wait a minute you have a friend that's gay? GET OUT. Vote for the Democrat, you commie. So they have.
And now you have all these pundits screaming. No, not higher taxes! Not bigger government! If so many people don't want these things in America, why are having them?! Well, that's because you kicked out so many free-market advocators because they didn't agree with you on a social issue or two.
You say they should create your own party. They did. It's called Libertarianism and it's stealing more and more of your voters with each election. If you want the Republican Party to be a small party that only welcomes the "true" ideologues, that's great. Just don't complain when that's exactly what you get.
floridabob
Oh please do this! The GOP needs this cleansing. I fully support the pledge. I think is is a GREAT idea! It may get the public support of at least 10-12%. But they would be "pure" supporters, hey, maybe even ALL of them would be blond haired and blue eyed. Could be the beginning of a "master race".
crypto
I'm willing to bet everthing I have made in my entire life that if every one of the "commenters" on this subject could have all their qualifications pushed together there wouldn't be one whole body that could fill a political office .
armyof14USA
Our world gets smaller by a minute, technological advances and scientific discoveries has brought us more closer than ever, therefore, there will be no such thing as "Master Race" on this planet earth purity is dead the resurrection will be impossible no matter how they spin it, Days of Jim Crow Laws are long gone, and gone with it the ideals of purity and the philosophies master race.
gak001
I support you in your efforts to pare down the Republican party.
As a side note, Truman was reelected with only a 39% approval rating... The approval rating "rule" isn't a particularly good one and there isn't a lot of solid data to back it.
BeeClone
"government WAS riddled with communist spies" WOW, did they get them all?
Matt572
They got every single one they found...
Sundiszno
Problem with purity in politics is that issues/views/people change. Inevitably a party has to adapt or die. Good luck with this. The Tea Party will split the Republicans. If that happens, it is quite possible Obama will win in 2012 with less than majority, say, 48-38-14. That would be delicious.
BeeClone
So you think the wingnuts get more then 50% of the vote, I say not in the real world.
tomgnh
But the true purpose of a party is to elect its members. Even without principles, a party makes sense. Without a set of principles, winning makes sense; but without the purpose of winning, a party makes no sense.
armyof14USA
Your comparison is utterly obtuse and preposterous for one, in democracy, incase you haven't heard, you need to win majority of votes inorder to governt and within that majority two third or even three third of it may not pure as you wish them to be, therefore, you are no longer a attain that majority, however, if you resort to tactics of fear and exnophobia as Nixson has and his proteges thereafter and as its become an endemic within the republican party, your leaders will be forever branded as worst in the history of this country. Purity brought shame and disgrace to distruction to Nazi Germany during WWII, think about it.
Kieres
Of course the problem, John and Zsinger, is that "purity test" would mean Ronald Reagan wasn't really a republican or a conservative.
After all...he supported amnesty for illegal aliens, he supported the Brady bill, he played host for the first gay couple sleeping over at the White House, he bloated the government the deficit to the largest amount until Shrub passed him, he didn't listen to the military when it was telling him to get our troops out of Lebanon, and lets not also forget he sold weapons to Iran. By that purity test, Reagan only passes on four of them.
If your party, presuming you're both Republicans, wants to doom itself into obscurity by kicking out any moderates or anyone who dares disagree with some mythical idealogy then your party is going to die. Your party, for some fool reason, seems to think that it can win elections by representing a smaller and smaller share of the country's citizens.
nickels1
Thanks again Mark for a view that, as a democrat, i hope your party doesn't realize. We the middle still live in middle America.
Zhubajie
Unfortunately, un-democratic laws around the US discriminate strongly against all parties save the Dems and Reps. So if I want to found a party that supports balanced budgets but which is against foreign military adventures. I would not be able to do so. That's why the Libertarians and the Greens never get anywhere. Both Dems and Reps are afraid of genuine competition. That's why about half of us never vote. Why choose between Satan and Beelzebub? Godzilla and Mechagodzilla?
SensiStar
Because you might get Bush. How the last 8 years work out.
redstatebluedude
About the same as the next 4 are looking at this point. Is false hope better than no hope?
KofTX1
I agree. Its sad to see that some people can't tell the difference between making a mess (Bush) and cleaning it up (Obama).
thekingofcheap
If this were Slashdot, I'd say mod parent up.
This country's problems stem largely from duopolistic election laws and lack of public campaign financing.
Everyone likes to make fun of Ralph Nader, but at least he tries to call it out and get it changed
Aslanleon
I respect and admire Ralph Nader. His candidacy in Florida cost the Dems enough votes to swing the election to GWB. He's my favorite liberal.
Monk66
Minus the fact that Bush didn't win the general voted in Florida. The Supreme Court elected Bush by jumping into a conflict that in no way was theirs to jump into. Because they stepped in, they cost the recount process valuable time to the point where the recount was called off.
So thank the SC, not Nader
Aslanleon
Monk - You're a real treasury of misinformation, aren't you? Every recount showed that Bush won. None showed that Gore won. Zero. Both State and Federal law clearly said that the regulations in effect at the time of the election were definitive and couldn't be changed. The Florida Supreme Court (All Democratic) said otherwise. The Supreme Court said that the law was exactly as it is written. Now that you know this, I trust you won't make the same mistake again.
dcbooknurse
What laws are you talking about? Most states have minimum requirements to get on the ballot, but there aren't any laws fobiding the establishment of a new political party. I see 3rd-party candidates for president on the ballot all the time. Ross Peroit did pretty good a while back getting his new party on the ballot in every state. He wasn't seriously trying to start a new party so it died after the election. If you want to start a new party and you can get enough followers, go for it.
mbgillil
In North Carolina, for a 3rd party to get on the ballot for governor or senator it must get ~146,000 signatures. That's impossible for a 3rd party candidate who doesn't have the existing power/money structure available to the two major parties. Best part is, even if they get on the ballot one year, they have to repeat the signature count the next time as well. It's prohibitive to choice and competition.
gdeans
The problem isn't that third parties (or more) can't get on the ballot, it is that they distort the election results because you don't need a majority to win. Voting for your favorite candidate may cause your least favorite candidate to win, which is a big incentive to vote for the candidate that you like the most (or hate the least) who has a chance of winning. We need a runoff system so that people can vote for whoever they like the most and send a clear message about their true views, but not be penalized by throwing the election to the worst candidate. And it doesn't have to be a drawn out process with a runoff election at a later date. There are instant runoff methods, essentially voting preferences on the first ballot, that would serve the purpose and encourage a more democratic process.
freshhell
Your definition of "un-democratic laws" would appear to mean the U.S. Constitution. We don't have a parlimentary system; therefore the odds are stacked against the rise of legitimate third parties, at least on a national scale.
You can found any party you like, but unless you have more money than all the gazillionaires in the world plus a magic wand, you won't get far. Them's the breaks.
Perhaps you'd be happier in Europe or Japan.
Zhubajie
"If there are those who wish to follow their own ideals, they can found their own party. " --
zsingerb
Not allowed, unfortunately. Why does Israel have a dozen parties and the US only two (nearly identical)? Dishonest laws preventing competition.
Johnnyappleseed
Maybe the Justice Department (oxy moron) could investigate for monopoly violations.
Fat chance of that happening.
SensiStar
I(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
Smaller Govt. Balanced budget.
One of the biggest Republican myths.
Can anyone name one Republican President that made the govt smaller and balanced the budget.
They don't exist.
P.S. No you can not take responsibility for the Clinton Surplus.
The GOP were against the Clinton Budget which produced a record deficit.
pennsykid2000
Right. Repubs love to talk about fiscal responsibility but they've never actually displayed it. Clinton is the only president who had a balanced budget in the last 40 years, while the 5 Repub presidents each made the deficit worse and worse during their terms.The budget deficit for fiscal 2009 was $1.4 trillion. That was BUSH's last budget. Obama's first started this past Oct 1. Bush inherited budget surpluses from Clinton and turned them into record deficits before the end of his first term. He then campaigned on a promise to cut them in half by the end of his second term (how nice of him to promise to partly undo his own recklessness), but ended up tripling them instead. And what have so-called conservatives had to say about this the last 8 years? They renominated and re-elected him. So much for their principles. Nothing matters to them but party affiliation.
Dencal26
Clinton did balance a budget with the help of the GOP Congress but he failed to build levees in New Orleans which take 10 yrs to build.
Aslanleon
The Congress approves of all spending. Clinton kept writing large budgets while the Republican Congress wrote smaller ones, which Clinton then vetoed, claiming Republicans were starving poor children and throwing Grandma out in the street. Finally, he caved in and began passing them, producing a projected budget surplus, which he then took credit for. When Republicans acted like Republicans, we had a projected budget surplus. When we had a war and a recession and 9/11 all at the same time, we didn't.
Monk66
Great leaders lead with the same morals during the good and bad times.
Shows the heart of a party when the going gets tough.
BeeClone
And one war of choice that they didn't pay for.
Dencal26
Newt even closed down Washington in order to force Clinton to spend less. Look it up
dmloor
Isn't Newt the one who cheated on every wife with a "new" wife. Is he on his 3rd or 4th wife? If your party is going to espouse moral values, kinda helps if you have them in the first place. Clinton=Balance Budget, Bush Lite=Deficit. It really is that simple. Purity=Hitler 1938. Look it up.
BeeClone
But they do say small government a lot, that should count for something.
armyof14USA
I do I hear a conradiction over here?
ReyesHawk
Eisenhower
SensiStar
Oops. Record Surplus.
eurydice9276
Overall, it's a pretty stupid idea. A party which can't handle diversity in its own ranks won't be able to handle it in the entire country, and somehow "Vote for us, we hate you" doesn't make for an effectove slogan.
Setting that aside, it isn't even a logically written set of requirements. A lot of it is framed as opposition to particular proposals which exist at the moment rather than offering positive, long-term goals - more "We hate Obama" than this is the good we'll do for the country.
And the idea that one can be a pure Republican by choosing one's favorite 8 out 10 doesn't seem all that workable or plausible. Suppose a candidate signs on to everything else but decides to remain pro-choice and pro-gay marriage? Will he/she be considered pure?
Dencal26
Sort of reminds me of Joe Lieberman. A Loyal Liberal Dem and former Vice Pres candidate for Dems in 2000. He supports the Iraq War and suddenly he is banished.
Monk66
yeah because that is why we don't want him in the party..
Aslanleon
Too true. They have it down to one point of difference and you're out. We apparently want three or more.
troublemonkey
Typical revisionist crap. Lieberman has opposed nearly everything the Dems stand for, over and over again. Every time his name comes up in the news, it's him once again backstabbing his putative party.
MajorRevisions
I thought they purged the party of anyone who is pro-life, pro-gay marriage or believes in some type of gun control. I guess personal freedom is just too liberal an idea and they need to be our moral compass.
theonetruman
Mark's basically on the right track here... keep shinging the light on BS like this. The problem is that moderates tend to be giant wussies (GHWB, Simpson, Romney), and conservatives tough as nails (Thatcher, Reagan, Buckley). If you want a big tent you have to fight for it. Not whine like a baby. We need a broad victory in 2010.
mbgillil
GHWB wasn't a moderate. He wasn't a traditional Republican conservative either, but he definitely wasn't a moderate. His father was far more of a moderate than he.
troublemonkey
Do you even know which Bush is being talked about, here? Or are you REALLY talking about the most recent President Bush's GRANDfather?
Mauiboy
It's nice to see a nice discussion here for a change. This "Purity Test" is like a "Virginity Oath." Due to the forces of nature, they are both doomed to fail.
topdocjim
Well, this kind of nonsense drove ME out. When the Repuglican Rebiblicans become Republicans again, call me.
I'm in the book.
mikefromArlington
They forgot a few:
11) We will continue to try and drive white voters away from Obama by using loudmouths such as Beck and Limbaugh who answer to nobody but we will never condone their race baiting.
12) No matter how bad your sexual deviant actions are, pretend they never happened, and hopefully they will go away.
13) Just keep saying balanced budget but continue to ask for earmarks that are borrowed monies from China and ignore all claims of hypocrisy.
I could go on but you get the idea.
Dencal26
Race Baiting? Anyone who opposes Obama will be called a racist. Just ask Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro who experienced this 1st hand
newswoman
There you go again, Dencal. Anyone who DISAGREES with Obama's policies in not racist. Bur when someone shows Obama as a native witha bone through his nose or 'says he was born in Kenya' is a RACIST. Get the difference? I notice that those of you who do disagree with Obama always use denigrating refrences, like "The Chosen One" or "The Antichrist", and never use a civil 'tone'. That smacks of racism or hatred of someone you think shouldn't be president because he is blac...or I mean a socialist.
djanimaequeen
Bravo newswoman. Thank you for that most accurate distinction. Too bad the wingnuts are too stupid to comprehend. But there's always hope.
Leprekike
As Lewis Black once said of the political process in DC:
Politician #1: Hey, I've got a shitty idea!
Politician #2: Well I can make it shittier!
Thing is though, folks may be so tired of Obamadinejad's lies and dysfunctional Executive branch that the GOP will win big in the next round of elections anyway. "Hell hath no fury like a voting block scorned."
hkjonus
People go on and on about Obama and how bad things are, and how Obama has screwed everything.... but they never mention what those things are. You cant name 1 problem we are facing that he created. Short memory I guess because it was 1 year ago that the country was in such peril that the financial system was ready to collapse..... I guess you could twist the physical universe and realign time and space so that the crisis and the Obama Presidency coincide. But you cant. So just accept the fact that Obama is not the cause of this mess, rather the recipient of it. Shut up and give him time. It took years to get into this and will take more than 10 months to get out. Against your dearest wishes that he fails, when he succeeds you will benefit like everyone else.
djanimaequeen
Exactly. It's amazing how these idiots will cut off their nose to spite their face. If Obama succeeds America succeeds. Duh!
stat3man
Beautiful, hkjonus!
Johnnyappleseed
A 12 trillion dollar deficet should be enough, it was only 7.1 when he took over, didn't get a double down yet.... but he will keep trying.
rottenart
Johnny, you mean the debt. When you confuse basic things like debt and deficit (not to mention misspell them), it makes people think you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
hkjonus
Johnny, stop pulling numbers out of your ass! First of all its the Debt, not the Deficit. Yes Johnny there is a difference. The debt was indeed already nearing 11 trillion when Bush left office. Do us all a favor and use your Google. With facts so readily available online, why do Republicans still make so many glaring mistakes or should i call them lies? Google, the prime enemy of conservatism. It just screws up their plans of spreading lies and disinformation....LOL
Aslanleon
ncc - Actually, I'm not that skilled and knowledgeable. However, I do have one valuable skill. I know how to find people who are skilled and knowledgeable. In the early days, I diversified my investment between five small and successful mutual funds. After tracking them for five years, I narrowed it down to two, each with a different investment strategy but likely to remain under the management of the same individuals. Then I never changed them for twenty-five years. I rounded them out with stocks that I thought were undervalued, and sometimes I was right. Pretty simple stuff. Even an index fund would do well for most people, however.
The stock market drop was predictable and overdue. When I saw it coming in the summer of 2008, I thought about transferring half of my mutuals into bonds. Instead, I took a chance. As soon as it looked likely that Obama would win, I transferred half of my retirement into gun stocks, including Smith and Wesson, which I already held. I thought that if Obama was elected, gun and ammunition stocks would go up because of panic buying. Since this had happened every time a Democrat won, it wasn't rocket science to think it would happen again. It did, more than doubling my total investment. Obama certainly provided me with some economic stimulus.
Investing isn't that difficult. The only thing that makes for bad investments is laziness and greed, and if a person has those characteristics, he is better off with government social security, not that this will help him much.
noitek
I truly wish to know how he managed to opt out of social security. With the exception of a few cases, you can not opt out of contributing to social security. So while he may have opted out, and put that money into his own private investments, a majority of the people in this country can not do so.
For the record, those that can opt out are below.
* Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
* State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
* Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
* Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
* Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
* Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
* Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
* College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
* Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.
As for the privatization of social security, I feel that I can safely say, as someone working for a brokerage, that a vast majority of the average joe's involved in the stock market would be thoroughly screwed by the privatization of social security. I am no Wall Street wizard by any stretch, and truth be told, I think the stock market is largely a shell game these days with HFT, and so on, but some of the "trading strategies" I hear about from people just make me wince. Betting your entire life savings on some OTC stock you got an email about, or on something Cramer, or some other talking head, told you pretty much is the extent of these peoples education on playing the market(funny how they get so pissed when I tell them they're gambling, but yet they refer to it as 'playing the market'). And these are people that are interested enough, or that care enough, to get into the stock market. Imagine what people that are disinterested in the market would do to their savings.
blinky
Be careful Leon...I'm sure everybody's impressed with your mad people skills and investment acumen but everybody doesn't have a natural aptitude for calling the market, including just about every free marketeer and pom pom on Fox news or CNBC who for years treated Nouriel Roubini like the skunk at the party and who could never say anything bad about bank stocks or any real estate deal anywhere...I know some incredibly successful, super bright, not greedy or lazy, self made people who watched their portfolios get crushed during last years crash...Making a winning investment does not make you morally superior.
troublemonkey
Another guy who thinks it's smart to manipulate money to make money without actually PRODUCING anything. Thanks for the recession, a-hole.
troublemonkey
That's "bloc", dimbulb. And realize, anyone who uses a term like "Obamadinejad' has disqualified himself from serious discourse the second it drops out his drooling, sub-human pie-hole.
thekingofcheap
Awesome. The Republican Party is imploding before our eyes, leaving us with a government run by Dem-- Oh, wait a minute...
rnrsoul
I think this, coupled with a ticket of Bachman/Palin is a brilliant strategy - keep it up Republicans. A party of nut jobs that haven't offered a platform other than opposition to everything.
Dencal26
Democrats offered nothing but Bush Hate for 8 years. They opposed every efffort from Social Security Reform to issues related to combating terrorism. And it worked for them.
newswoman
I admit we didn't like Bush but it was because of the wars and the Patriot Act, and his trying to privatize Social Security (after the financial crash, we would have lost everything if we had listened to him). In other words, we has REASONS to dislike his administration. Obama has just started and you are comparing the two!! It just doesn't work.
djanimaequeen
Newswoman is right. If Obama is not being attacked personally (his family included which is despicable) he is being attacked for what he MIGHT do. Not what he has done. The hatred towards Bush is real and culpable. The bad decisions he has made has hurt millions of Americans. And I don't know how you can justify your argument when rethugs had the WH and congress for 6 years. There's simply no excuse. Face it. You had your chance. Dubya blew it. Now STFU and let our man do his job. You can complain all day but the fact is that home sales are up and jobless claims are down. Deal with it.
Aslanleon
newswoman-- Obama is keeping the wars on the same terms Bush had. He is keeping the Patriot Act on the same terms, too. My retirement is already privatized, and the original stocks I was invested in have now regained 90% of their value when they were at their peak. Also, I diversified when the market went south so I am almost twice as well off as before the market took the dip. In short, nothing has changed. We still have two wars being fought on the same terms and the Patriot Act being enforced the same ways. And if we had privatized part of Social Security a long time ago, we would all be better off.
I opted out of SS thirty years ago and put the same amount I would pay into SS into my own investment and disability insurance. When I became disabled a short time before retirement, I got twice as much from my private plan as I would have gotten from SS and now that I am retired, I am getting three times as much from my retirement as I would from SS. Every time privatization has been tried, it has produced better results than SS. Every nation now setting up a SS system is using some degree of privatization of investment.
djanimaequeen
10 months asl!! 10 months!! The man has been in office for 10 months. Do tell what you expect to occur in 10 months! Point is, your arguements are mute until at least after his first term.
donquijoterocket
Just once I'd like to see the wingnut of the moment post their definition of "hate" and/or "hatred.Those policies were opposed because they were seen as bad policy.And their due was being characterized as un or anti-american if anything worked for them it was the disgust the country felt at the excesses of that sort by the wingnuts.It's the same principle the leadership of lower wingnutistan generally sees the populace as ignorant rubes who can be stampeded by fear and lulled into loathing the same people they loathe.It also worked because a majority agreed that what dubya and his close coterie of wingnuts were proposing were bad policies. Any denial of this is just more of the wingnut alternate reality where cutting off your nose to spite your face is seen as beneficial plastic surgery.
ncc81701
"Aslanleon"
Your success with your retirement fund is commendable. However I think you fail to realize that not everyone is as skilled and knowledgeable as you may be about how to properly invest their savings and grow a successful retirement fund. While I do not doubt that some will have a better retirement fund with privatized social security I very much doubt that a privatized social security would have worked out for the better for most people.
The whole point of having social security is so that the older work force can retire and not compete with a younger work force in the job market. If someone poorly invested their, privatized social security fund, it is very likely that said person will have to re-enter the job market and thus defeat the whole purpose of having social security in the first place. I am not saying most people are dumb, but most people may not have enough interest and care to properly maintain a good portfolio. While you might want to say, it's their fault for not maintaining such a portfolio, the end result is, you or your son/daughter may now have another person to compete for a job that otherwise shouldn't have happened with out privatized social security and a multitude of bad economic consequences will fall out of that scenario. Played out the scenario enough times and you've got a recession/depression on your hands.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government know best when it comes to spending our money. If you choose to opt-out I would assume that you know what you are doing and you do care and are educated enough to manage your funds properly. However I think the default choice should be opt-in to nationalized social security because I don't think most people care enough or are educated enough to manage their retirement fund properly.
hkjonus
Excuse me Aslanleon, you had me drinking your Kool aide until you said you "opted out of social security a long time ago". Please explain just how one "opts out", im sure we are all interested to know. BTW had we privatized it a long time ago, there would be millions with little or no retirement left. Stock market cycles and collapses are devastating to those who rely on it to pay rent, or buy cat food......to eat.
tumbleweed
That's fine with me if they want nothing but extremist conservatives in their camp. I left the party well over 25 years ago when all the religious nuts and mean-spirited slugs showed up. I have not voted for them since then either. The Republican Party is made up of schizophrenics. What they say and what they do are two different things! I have never come across a Republican yet that doesn't want big out of control government and a burgeoning deficit (until a Democrat starts doing it). They are against government controls on firearms but not when it comes to American's bedrooms and what they do in the doctor's office. Then they are all for maintaining strict controls. Don't hold your breath until I vote for them again! I learned my lesson well with Ronald Reagan one of the worst of the worst!
Dencal26
Reagan won 49 of 50 states. He won every voting group except Blacks and Homosexuals and Blacks . Let me guess where you are coming from.
princeminski
"Blacks and Homosexuals and Blacks" tells me pretty clearly where *you're* coming from, Festus.
newswoman
He didn't win my vote! He was Rep hypocrit. As gov. of CA, he was pro choice, as Pres. he was suddenly against abortion! The same was true of GHW Bush. He was involved with Planned Parenthood, until he ran for Pres. as a Rep. Then he was suddenly against abortion! The same was true of Mitt Romney as gov. of Massachusetts. But I could go on.
stat3man
Who cares where tumbleweed's coming from? Would you be less likely to discount tumbleweed's opinion if he/she were a white heterosexual?
Monk66
His success at getting 49 out of 50 states has nothing to do with how well his presidency went.
Keep turning a blind eye.
Aslanleon
We think he did a good job. Of course, if he were more conservative or had a Republican congress, he would have done much better. And what you think doesn't matter. His presidency went very well by most standards. Only liberals didn't like it, and they are twenty percent of the population.
Monk66
Under Reagan, we sent the deficit skyrocketing, growing faster in real dollars than under any other president, including the Obama. We cut social spending to the bone, creating the homeless problem by turning hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people out on the streets. We appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. We cut school funding. We banned the Beach Boys as attracting the wrong sort of crowd. We traded arms, money, drugs, and hostages between Iran and the Nicaraguan rebels. More appointed officials were indicted and convicted of crimes than under any other president. We gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. We claimed that trees cause most pollution.
He catastrophically lowered taxes in 1981, creating debt so bad he raised taxes each of the next six years and still didn't make up for it. And while he streamlined the complex and exemption-riddled income tax, his changes created the largest-ever shift of tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-class and working poor.
If that is considered a good job, you should raise your standards..
Aslanleon
Monk - a lot of the things you blame on Reagan were due to the actions of Congress. More of them aren't even true. Nice try, though. The Democratic Congress promised Reagan they would hold the line on spending to a certain percentage and passed the tax cut. Otherwise, Reagan would have vetoed their budget. They lied-- presto, big deficits
Aslanleon
By the way, monk-- turning the mentally ill out on the street was a Democratic idea, not a Republican one. We wanted to keep the mentally ill somewhere they would be safe and fed and housed-- liberals wanted to 'free' them. Perhaps they were looking for more liberal voters.
troublemonkey
And anyone with an ounce of IQ recognizes that Reagan was a make-nice-and-smile IDIOT. His popularity is NOT something this country should be proud of.
Dencal26
Reminds me of Obama bashing the Bush debts and deficits. Hundreds of Democrats claiming to be fiscal conservatives. That all ended January 20th. Now he is outspending Bush. I guess Dems are fiscal conservatives when they are not in power.
troublemonkey
If your septic tank busts and fills your front room with sewage, do you decide that spending money on cleaning it up would be irresponsible spending? Because that's essentially what you're saying here. Clean up the mess, but don't spend anything to do it.
princeminski
You are exactly on target, tumbleweed. I might have evolved (a once again "controversial" concept) into a Republican in the natural course of things had they not utterly peddled themselves to the worst elements of American society.
Aslanleon
When Republicans vote for bigger budgets, Democrats smugly announce that they aren't fiscally responsible. When they support more sustainable budgets, the Dems say that they are extremists. I guess Republicans are wrong regardless of what they do, aren't they?
princeminski
Well, yeah!
newswoman
Hypocrits.
djanimaequeen
Bingo.
stat3man
Pretty much. Republicans have ALWAYS been wrong, they ARE wrong now, and they will continue to BE wrong.
tehixe
And when someone points to the hypocrisy of the Democrats while ignoring the same hypocrisy in the Republicans, that's called "fair and balanced."
The Republicans were only fiscal conservatives when they were out of power. They are hypocrites because 100% of the evidence demonstrates that they do not believe what they say. If they wanted fiscal conservatism, or healthcare reform, they would have pulled them off during the 6 years they had unchallenged power. But they didn't, so they clearly are not interested in either.
DuaneBidoux
And did you know that for all the "pro-growth" policies of Bush not one single NOT ONE SINGLE, job was created under Bush.
Democrats create more jobs and more wealth for everyone than Republicans have ever done. It has been that way since FDR. By the way if you really want to see what Republican philosophy does look at the entire history before FDR. Crashes every 10 years, starvation, and poverty rates of no less than 50%. Then there was "total market freedom" and almost no government. Those were the days.
hkjonus
Aslanleon, try Googling "Federal Deficit" and look at the charts. As much as you would like to characterize Democrats as "Tax & Spend" you cannot avoid the obvious fact that Republicans are "Spend & Borrow More to Spend". Which is more responsible? The guy that brings home more income and then spends it, or the fool that spends more money on his credit cards and says to hell with the consequences? The Republicans and their ruinous policies drove the nation off a cliff. Now it will take the Democrats put things back in order. You had your chance and failed miserably so sit ur ass down and shut up!
DuaneBidoux
Stats pretty much speak for themselves: with the one exception of Carter the economy has outperformed every single republican government since FDR. Do the research.
troublemonkey
You know Aslan-hole, you do exactly what your party does: in any given statement, you ignore the things you can't refute, and try to twist the subject around to some different point by omitting key facts everyone knows to be true. Then you pat yourself on the back like you just won an argument. The only place you're 'winning' is in your own deluded mental theater, and with cronies who have decided to maintain a carefully-trimmed blind spot identical to your own. Party affiliation over truth and logic! Yay!
You're basically a parrot. This is absolutely the last time I'll forget that responding to you is like barking back at a dog. Same semantic content, same chance of coming to a mutual understanding, same tendency to stick his nose up the pack-leader's butt. LOL.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.