BWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!

The charts suggest, if anything at all, a divided control of power is best. Also, the charts do not include the past year (stops at May 2006) so factoring in the performance of the macroeconomy and stock market since then, the charts begin to look very similiar, except for the 9/11 impacts.

In the second link, the author attempts to control for that (although does not really address the full impact of monetary policy, which is not necessarily linked to the party of an Administration). Again, the author goes through an elaborate statistical dance merely to conclude

“Statistical correlation does not scientifically prove causation, and these results do not prove that the
economy does better under Democrats. But we can reasonably conclude that these government statistics provide evidence that directly contradicts the argument that the economy does better on average under Republican administrations. With lagged effects and other causes considered, the difference may be insignificant, but the economy may actually perform worse under Republicans” … the operative terms being “does not..prove,” “may be insignificant,” and “may.”

You skipped over the parts of

“Republicans may nonetheless object to the conclusion that the size of government has not increased more under Democratic administrations, since Democrats (Roosevelt and Johnson) are responsible for the creation of both Social Security and Medicare, two of the largest components of federal spending, along with national defense spending and interest on the national debt. It is difficult to find objective measurements of these future obligations for comparison, but the argument is valid, even if the partisan
comparison has been weakened by the recent unpaid expansion of Medicare drug benefits.” (did he say the argument is valid? How did that get through peer review?)

Or this statement - “Certainly government could often perform some of these functions better, but if less
government was always good for the economy, then Somalia would be one of the world’s wealthiest countries instead of one of its poorest..” Wow, union membership has steadily declined over the last 25 years and the economy has grown steadily..wonder if the author wants to apply the same kind of thinking..

And then there’s always the trick of concluding with another unproven, grossly simplified claim.. “Because they tend to believe that problems are complex, Democrats are
more likely to heed expert advice.”

While I wouldn’t be offering this article around as supporting literature, I do agree with your point that the current Republican leadership does not merit the trait of “fiscal conservatism.”

I have never voted for a Socialist Equity candidate (never had the opportunity!) but I am proof positive that there is at least one Republican out there other than Hugo who admits to voting for a Green Party candidate (Rich Whitney, who ran for Governor in Illinois last year).

To other commenters: To many Republicans who grew up in the Northeast, Maine in my case, our attitude is very much that the Republican party has been leaving us, not the other way around. My political role models were Margaret Chase Smith, Bill Cohen, and John McKernan, none of whom would get too far in today’s Republican party. Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins remain among the few Republicans with national standing who come close to representing my politics. Where I grew up, ‘Liberal Republican’ was no misnomer.

‘RINO’s’ like myself have two options - bolt, or work to bring the party back on course. The first option is far easier and would make both the Faux’s of this world and the Republican right happy. The second option is the one I choose, despite the inherent difficult and inevitable sneering.

Cheers,
Profane (’Useful Idiot’, ‘Enabler’)

build a party of fiscal conservatives, social moderates, and environmental enthusiasts

Hugo, I think the Dems have tripped up many a time, mostly for trying to act like Republicans. Don’t make the same mistake. Instead of trying to resuscitate a dead elephant, I would suggest you focus on the progressive party that already exists and devote your time to the Democratic party. The Republican party of your parents or even your youth simply doesn’t exist any more. The party bosses decided to follow the path of intolerance and bigotry.

And just in case you have bought the lies about “fiscal conservatism” the Dems have proven at every opportunity in the 20th century that they are the best at handling our economy. See http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm for a comparison of the last two and http://www.washoedems.org/files/articles/Economic_Trends.pdf for something more substantial, since at least WWII. In pretty much every measure, the economy, workers, and environment were better off under the Dems.

Let it go, my friend. The Elephant has died and it’s stinking up the joint.

C02 emissions are harder because the diverse sources give rise to resistance across both parties. Look at the behavior of the Michigan congressional delegation and generally Democratic-supporting auto unions toward raising automotive fuel standards. A molecule of methane is 21 times more potent than a molecule of carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Yet, members of both parties pass subsidies for rice framing and livestock production.

If “moderate republicans” are useful idiots, especially on critical issues of war and peace, then what are democrats who hold the Constitutional power to stop funding war operations yet continually give the President exactly what he wants, and occasionally more, by often large majorities?

Check out conservamerica.org

Reminds me of something Barack Obama wrote, where he said (I’m paraphrasing, don’t have his book on hand) that he wants a coalition of democrats, republicans and independents who will work together for a brighter American future because they know we can achieve more together than we can separately.

Perhaps it’s true that a conservative can be for more civil liberties, but environmental protection requires government regulations and funded research, bureaucracy, taxes, and placing values on things the market might not yet recognize. These are anathema to fiscal conservatism. Not to mention intangible values many people on the right do not share, or the party would be more environmental friendly. Sure some of them like to hike and hunt, and there are many hiking and hunting organizations. But most conservatives pick private property rights over the endangered species act any day of the week. Just look at the voting records of Scalia and Thomas.

Any explanations as to how the kind of environmental laws we will need in this century will match up with conservative ideas are welcome. Personally, I’m in favor of market based solutions, because when done right, they work. Look at what cap and trade did for SO2 pollution. BUT if they’re so beloved by the Republicans, why don’t we have one for CO2 yet?