Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

(Playing devil's advocate)

Chomsky didn't analyze the Republicans, he just offered an ad hominem attack.

-He presumes that opposition to an unacceptable presidential foreign policy initiative is inherently "astonishing." Citizens in a democracy are not obliged to toe the line of the president just because -- he is an elected official, not a king -- and the president should take responsibility for his failure to build consensus in a system built on checks and balances.

-Was Chomsky equally critical of party-line votes on the Democratic side of the aisle, as was the case with Obamacare? The GOP leadership should not be faulted for leading an effective coalition.

Chomsky slams the Southern vote by default, dismissing it as "remnants of the former slave-holding States." Last I checked, those states had electoral votes that are as legitimate as any other, and much of the population of those states consists of former Northeasterners who have relocated to the Sun Belt.

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius

Because there's no point. He's expressing an opinion regarding a political party with which he has serious philosophical disagreements and he's entitled to that.

Take this point from the article:Precisely the same thing could be said about the Democratic Party when the Senate Democratic caucus voted unanimously to approve the Affordable Care Act. Did Chomsky jump on his soapbox and denounce that party for not having any diversity of opinion and state that he knew one was not dealing with a political party? No! Why not? Because they did something he wanted them to do.

So, without shooting the messenger, I still value his opinion according to how much it cost me - nada.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

You do realize that the "The GOP is a radical insurgency" meme is that of two fellows of the Brookings Institution, a non-partisan centrist think tank recently ranked as "the most influential think tank in the world"?

https://www.amacad.org/publications/...nnOrnstein.pdf

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius

Speaking for the Devil (His Satanic Majesty has authorized this), I wish to state on his behalf that he wishes to retain you as his advocate on more than an ad hoc basis.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

What my right-wing alter-ego failed to point out is that the Republican party has no interest in consensus, so there isn't anything that Obama could have done to win the support that they have no intention in providing.

The GOP's goal is to win majorities, not to assume the role as the loyal opposition, and coalition building should not take the place of governing.

And the Southern Strategy is a matter of fact, so Chomsky is correct when he notes that the GOP pursues the race-baiting, nativist voting bloc. Chomsky tends to speaking in flowery terms and isn't one to drop data into his narrative, but the basis of his argument is easily verified.

So my comments were tripe. But they do show that it is possible to make a bad argument sound reasonable if one is selective with the facts while keeping the strawmen to a minimum.

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius

Even if you're spewing tripe, it sells well in certain circles.

Originally Posted by sir_eccles

Boehner has resigned. Apparently he wants to spend more time with his chocolate factory.

Originally Posted by sir_eccles

As an aside, I saw my first "Carson '16" bumper sticker today. On a Prius!

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius

On a Prius? I thought those cars were reserved for holier-than-thou, save-the-world liberals.

Originally Posted by sir_eccles

A thought occurs regarding Boehner's departure. Fair's fair, Boehner is actually a relatively moderate GOP kind of guy. Despite Congress being quite dysfunctional under his speakership, one wonders how worse it might get.

What if the Tea Party Caucus get control of the Speaker? We could be facing government shut downs every week. This could really play on to people's thoughts come election time.