The Politics of Development

[BrandonTO416]

The system would not allow me append my previous post .....

I have heard Harwell speak favorable on the AMP proposal once it was modified to stop at I-440.

 

Few things Harwell has said indicates support of serious transit investments. Would she support a few billion to develop an elevated train in Nashville? If she wouldn't, then I wouldn't say she's serious about transit investment. You can't separate politics and transit, the two go hand in hand as it takes public leadership at all levels to get anything done.

 

In regards of who will be governor after Haslam, the state Democratic party needs to rebuild itself to offer some competition. Right now the TNDP has had some pretty kooky people run, and even as a Democrat myself I wouldn't vote for some of them. That nutbag who ran against Corker for Senate the other year, Mike McWherter's anti-gay stances... The Democrats have to run candidates their base would support them with and then build on, if they can't even run candidates their base fully supports they have no chance to win again.

 

On the Republican side - I'll never be a Republican - but I hope the civil war in the Republican party yields fewer anti-government radicals. There's hope, because anti-government leaders aren't winning. Tracy couldn't win against DesJarlais in a GOP primary, so he has little luck winning statewide office IMO. Since I'm not a Republican, I'd gladly support a Tracy GOP for governor nomination. It would be another Van Hilleary situation where if the Dems run a credible candidate the GOP could actually be beaten easily. Right now many Republicans who are trying to take over the state party think this state is more conservative than it is, and if they nominate anti-government people like Van Hilleary was that are anti-worker, and too far right it makes the GOP weak in a statewide race.

 

If Harwell is the future of the GOP, then Democrats could begin to win again if they run a competent candidate. Bill Haslam isn't an anti-government radical, he's able to pull off centrist voters that are willing to vote Democrat. The TNDP has given Haslam little competition for both his races.

 

But for now, the state has some pretty poor public leadership. Denying medicaid expansion to the poor and making specific forms of transit illegal are extreme, radical policies. It isn't healthy public policy and it needs to change.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Few things Harwell has said indicates support of serious transit investments. Would she support a few billion to develop an elevated train in Nashville? If she wouldn't, then I wouldn't say she's serious about transit investment. You can't separate politics and transit, the two go hand in hand as it takes public leadership at all levels to get anything done.

 

In regards of who will be governor after Haslam, the state Democratic party needs to rebuild itself to offer some competition. Right now the TNDP has had some pretty kooky people run, and even as a Democrat myself I wouldn't vote for some of them. That nutbag who ran against Corker for Senate the other year, Mike McWherter's anti-gay stances... The Democrats have to run candidates their base would support them with and then build on, if they can't even run candidates their base fully supports they have no chance to win again.

 

On the Republican side - I'll never be a Republican - but I hope the civil war in the Republican party yields fewer anti-government radicals. There's hope, because anti-government leaders aren't winning. Tracy couldn't win against DesJarlais in a GOP primary, so he has little luck winning statewide office IMO. Since I'm not a Republican, I'd gladly support a Tracy GOP for governor nomination. It would be another Van Hilleary situation where if the Dems run a credible candidate the GOP could actually be beaten easily. Right now many Republicans who are trying to take over the state party think this state is more conservative than it is, and if they nominate anti-government people like Van Hilleary was that are anti-worker, and too far right it makes the GOP weak in a statewide race.

 

If Harwell is the future of the GOP, then Democrats could begin to win again if they run a competent candidate. Bill Haslam isn't an anti-government radical, he's able to pull off centrist voters that are willing to vote Democrat. The TNDP has given Haslam little competition for both his races.

 

But for now, the state has some pretty poor public leadership. Denying medicaid expansion to the poor and making specific forms of transit illegal are extreme, radical policies. It isn't healthy public policy and it needs to change.

What does this political diatribe have to do with mass transit ?

[Vrtigo]

What does this political diatribe have to do with mass transit ?

It's extremely relevant when you consider the long-term picture and how staunchly these individuals have opposed transit projects. It's all speculation currently, but with the current proposal flatlining, we have to consider how chances for a legitimate, functional system will change with the political landscape.

[Paramount747]

It's extremely relevant when you consider the long-term picture and how staunchly these individuals have opposed transit projects. It's all speculation currently, but with the current proposal flatlining, we have to consider how chances for a legitimate, functional system will change with the political landscape.

Everything in development, mass transit, university expansion, public hospital expansion, infrastructure, public parks, public art, and bridge construction is ALWAYS political. It is always a fight between Public versus Private. Nimbyism more than not is always at the forefront of these debates, and people whose lives will never be affected by the outcome always have the loudest voice.

 

One party over the other is generally against public transportation. Public funding for anything besides the military always gets the Hawks out.

 

Yes,  Mass Transit is 100% political all over the country.

[Guest]

To all of you espousing love affairs with both mass-transit and the now defunct state party formally know as 'democrats' I will state the obvious - you (D)s controlled every facet of state and Metro government for most of the last 100 years and instead of building (or protecting) a BRT/LRT/street car system you were the main driver of TDOT and the ubiquitous 4-lane, divided 'highways to nowhere' that we see in the hinterlands of this great state. To cast such noxious claims on the ®s, who have only been in power for a few years (Legislatively speaking), is to rewrite history.

[samsonh]

To all of you espousing love affairs with both mass-transit and the now defunct state party formally know as 'democrats' I will state the obvious - you (D)s controlled every facet of state and Metro government for most of the last 100 years and instead of building (or protecting) a BRT/LRT/street car system you were the main driver of TDOT and the ubiquitous 4-lane, divided 'highways to nowhere' that we see in the hinterlands of this great state. To cast such noxious claims on the ®s, who have only been in power for a few years (Legislatively speaking), is to rewrite history.

 

Agreed. But just because we used to not do the correct thing doesn't mean we can't change our ways. There is no patent on good ideas. I was no huge fan of the AMP. I do not think it would have worked well in Nashville. But something needs to be done. The status quo is not acceptable and the state government is certainly not going to take the lead on this.

[fieldmarshaldj]

To all of you espousing love affairs with both mass-transit and the now defunct state party formally know as 'democrats' I will state the obvious - you (D)s controlled every facet of state and Metro government for most of the last 100 years and instead of building (or protecting) a BRT/LRT/street car system you were the main driver of TDOT and the ubiquitous 4-lane, divided 'highways to nowhere' that we see in the hinterlands of this great state. To cast such noxious claims on the ®s, who have only been in power for a few years (Legislatively speaking), is to rewrite history.

More than that. The GOP didn't have control of the Governorship/State Leg (and still doesn't have the judiciary) from the late 1860s until 2011, 140 years. Nashville hasn't had a GOP Mayor in nearly 130 years, and still remains an overwhelmingly one-party Dem city. They are free to do as they please here. For all those ranting about how the state/city, et al, isn't to their liking, there are other states and locales out there that is more in line with their ideology to move to. To the bashers, if this state is so mismanaged, why are people fleeing here from other states with their utopian philosophy holding sway ? I'm not personally thrilled with some of the leaders (Haslam, especially), but compared to MA, CA, IL, NY, et al, only the most willfully naïve couldn't see which is a better place to live and conduct business.

To the topic at hand, Karl Dean is the Mayor, he and he alone dropped the ball on Amp. He's never shown any particular hesitation for going on spending sprees, after all. I think he expects he will be the next Governor of TN as well. Let's see if the same folks attacking Harwell, Lee Beaman, the Koch Bros and the Great Pumpkin will try to sweep that fact under the rug if and when he runs.

[dmillsphoto]

Keep it civil. And remember that what you read doesn't necessarily reflect the emotion YOU think it is conveying. 

[Nashville Cliff]

To all of you espousing love affairs with both mass-transit and the now defunct state party formally know as 'democrats' I will state the obvious - you (D)s controlled every facet of state and Metro government for most of the last 100 years and instead of building (or protecting) a BRT/LRT/street car system you were the main driver of TDOT and the ubiquitous 4-lane, divided 'highways to nowhere' that we see in the hinterlands of this great state. To cast such noxious claims on the ®s, who have only been in power for a few years (Legislatively speaking), is to rewrite history.

 

Agreed.  There are supporters for and opponents to mass transit and road building on both sides of the aisle.

[ruraljuror]

To all of you espousing love affairs with both mass-transit and the now defunct state party formally know as 'democrats' I will state the obvious - you (D)s controlled every facet of state and Metro government for most of the last 100 years and instead of building (or protecting) a BRT/LRT/street car system you were the main driver of TDOT and the ubiquitous 4-lane, divided 'highways to nowhere' that we see in the hinterlands of this great state. To cast such noxious claims on the ®s, who have only been in power for a few years (Legislatively speaking), is to rewrite history.

 

Let's not forget that many of those who opposed the Amp did so supposedly on the grounds that the Amp isn't necessary and/or that enabling more growth for the city wasn't desirable.  If that's the case today, how would you expect the Democrats running Nashville for the last 100 years to have been any more successful implementing a forward thinking solution?  If we couldn't get enough people on board now when we're in the midst of the biggest population boom yet, how could we possibly have done better before the issues were even readily apparent?  It should be easier today because the problems we're trying to address are visible every single day, and yet the opposition is still strong enough to table the whole project.

 

Also, as some people on this board like to ignore despite regular reminders, Democrats in the South were conservative right up until the mid-60s.  You guys remember LBJ lamenting losing the votes of Southern Democrats for a generation or two when he signed the Civil Rights Act?  How about NIxon's Southern Strategy?  You do realize there is a reason that the only two Democratic presidents we had between then and now were from Southern States, right?  I know facts are annoying when they work against the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't make them any less important.  Equating the political parties of today with their namesakes from previous eras at face value makes about as much sense as equating BRT to a canal and gondola system. 

 

Finally, allow me to make a prediction: If Nashville's next mayor is more conservative on public transit, we will either continue to ignore the issue for another term, or we will build a cheap, poorly operating service that will be mostly unsuccessful, at which point conservatives will celebrate the failure and blame Democrats.  If Nashville's next mayor is more progressive on public transit, we will still spend years and tons of money re-evaluating the existing Amp concept, then designing and considering alternatives before determining the best way to proceed, at which point the conservative opposition will complain that they had no time to study the plans, provide input, or come up with their own alternatives.

[BrandonTO416]

To all of you espousing love affairs with both mass-transit and the now defunct state party formally know as 'democrats' I will state the obvious - you (D)s controlled every facet of state and Metro government for most of the last 100 years and instead of building (or protecting) a BRT/LRT/street car system you were the main driver of TDOT and the ubiquitous 4-lane, divided 'highways to nowhere' that we see in the hinterlands of this great state. To cast such noxious claims on the ®s, who have only been in power for a few years (Legislatively speaking), is to rewrite history.

 

Actually, it was an Alexander initiative that built TN-840, but it isn't important. Not sure why this topic had to be removed from the actual thread it was involved in as it was on point.

 

There's nothing noxious about the claims, its observation. Republicans are in a civil war, they have a large anti-government faction and use childish arguments to stand against transit funding many times. It doesn't represent everyone in that party, but it does represent a great number and its yet to be seen who will eventually win that party's heart and soul in the longer term.

 

In terms of Democrats, in the state of Tennessee, you're right. The party has a lot of problems. I wouldn't call it defunct at all, it isn't, but the party needs to be rebuilt before people can take it seriously. They've ran some very bad candidates in the past several years for Governor and US Senate alike. Gordon Ball is the first serious candidate to come around in a while, and while I don't agree with him on everything, I think he'd be more competent than Alexander. Alexander isn't an anti-government radical, but his base is influencing him on important projects. It'd be much safer to not have him elected IMO for this reason. But Alexander will likely fund any transit initiative the state and local governments bring to him, so I'm not worried either way on this topic. Its these other yahoos like Marsha Blackburn in Congress and Jim Tracy on the state level that would oppose funding a transit plan that concerns people the most. These are anti-government activists that oppose things just because, not for just cause.

 

In terms of highway building, we live in an American society that demands highway building. Both parties will continue to build highways (hence why this discussion isn't important). Democrats are almost the only reason Nashville has as much transit as it does. The STAR isn't much of a transit line since its infrequent, but Democrats like Bart Gordon and Frank Clement pushed federal funding through on that project. Luckily more moderate old Republicans like Bill Frist didn't oppose and also supported that expense. Progressive Democratic mayor Karl Dean is the only reason AMP is as advanced as it got, he's worked tirelessly with a community to get it done, just to be opposed from everything like Koch funded legislature buyoffs to West End business elites. Then there's the fact that Nashville has just been too small and low density in the past to build anything of significance, which isn't a party issue. This has changed.

 

It is entirely fair and entirely accurate to call out the current anti-government radicals in the Republican fold that is trying to kill funding for projects like this. It is completely on topic with the issue of transit, which is where this discussion should be had.

 

I'm adult enough to disagree without being disagreeable, you don't have to agree with a word I am saying, but from my perspective I call the shots as I see it, and that's how things have been running in America for the past decade or so. Republicans have this absurd, anti-government faction that is eating that party alive. And they'll devour any public works or public spending program on principle instead of paying attention to actual public need for infrastructure or health care, or anything really. It isn't about balancing budgets, its about destroying government. Period.

 

It is what it is. That isn't leadership, its anti-leadership. Republicans who think bankrupting hospitals to stand on principle of no Medicaid expansion? Well, that's lunatic fringe my friend. You don't have to agree, but that's how I assess it.

 

I also don't defend incompetent Democrats that are lunatics. I wouldn't have voted for that joke of a US Senate candidate in 2012 by the name of Mark Clayton. That doesn't mean I would have voted for Corker if I had been in the state that year, but I wouldn't have voted Democrat either.

 

Politicians of either party that are extreme needs to be called out and not supported. Personally, I've always been an independent style Democrat and I haven't voted straight ticket Democrat in several elections. Most people aren't in love or in line with the party they vote for 100%, I'm certainly one of them. But they're certainly not full of as many nuts as the GOP and haven't been for a very, very long time.

[ruraljuror]

More than that. The GOP didn't have control of the Governorship/State Leg (and still doesn't have the judiciary) from the late 1860s until 2011, 140 years. Nashville hasn't had a GOP Mayor in nearly 130 years, and still remains an overwhelmingly one-party Dem city. They are free to do as they please here. For all those ranting about how the state/city, et al, isn't to their liking, there are other states and locales out there that is more in line with their ideology to move to. To the bashers, if this state is so mismanaged, why are people fleeing here from other states with their utopian philosophy holding sway ? I'm not personally thrilled with some of the leaders (Haslam, especially), but compared to MA, CA, IL, NY, et al, only the most willfully naïve couldn't see which is a better place to live and conduct business.

To the topic at hand, Karl Dean is the Mayor, he and he alone dropped the ball on Amp. He's never shown any particular hesitation for going on spending sprees, after all. I think he expects he will be the next Governor of TN as well. Let's see if the same folks attacking Harwell, Lee Beaman, the Koch Bros and the Great Pumpkin will try to sweep that fact under the rug if and when he runs.

 

 

FMDJ, as always you have said many things that I consider to be serious misrepresentations of reality, so I'll just say my peace and try to keep it brief.

 

Have we not already addressed the value of the 'If you don't like how we do it here then you should move someplace else' argument?  To be clear, you are the one who generally opposes the political leanings of our city government.  Based on your statement here, why don't you move out of Nashville to a more conservative part of Tennessee?  And since you don't like our President and Senate Majority Leader's party, why not move out of the USA?  I of course am neither asking you to move nor recommending that you do, only pointing out how silly it is to make such a suggestion to anyone who doesn't like the leaders of their governing bodies at any given point in time.  Are half of us supposed to pack up and move every time there's an election?  This argument is about as well thought out as 'I'm rubber and you're glue.'

 

Also, you're making some pretty broad claims both about what states are better to live and conduct business in and about the reasons for our recent population growth.  While I agree that Nashville is a great place to live and conduct business, part of what I like is the typically progressive city management.  More importantly, the fact that Nashville exists in a state that has a lower cost of living, lower wage expectations, fewer environmental regulations, fewer worker protections, and a pretty nice climate all play a part in helping us attract company relocations and the accompanying new jobs, etc., too.  It's not entirely unlike how much of America's manufacturing moved over seas to places where there were even lower costs of living, wage expectations, and regulation standards.  While I too both encourage and celebrate Nashville and Tennessee's growth and prosperity, it's important that we also look out for the people that make that growth and prosperity possible, not just the companies that make that growth and prosperity possible, which can be a fine line to walk.  And before you start talking about utopias and throwing states like NY, CA, and MA under the bus, you may want to take a look at how Kansas has been doing for a case study in tea party super-majority leadership.

 

Finally, it's curious to me that you're already willing to place the blame for the Amp's failure at Dean's feet.  It sort of seems like you're deliberately trying to undermine the very higher office ambitions that you noted Dean may have.  I personally don't have any particular interest one way or the other in future dean administrations, though I think he's certainly a capable leader based on all that he's accomplished while in office and I would most likely vote for him again given the opportunity.  More importantly, what could you possibly be blaming Dean for here?  If you think the Amp was a bad idea, which I've gathered that you do, then why on earth would you not be happy that he had the wisdom to shelf the project?  From your perspective, he should've just gained points for making the smart call and scrapping a bad idea--like a good leader should.  What does it say about your political prejudice that you want to cast a shadow on the man's future political career because he did the very thing that your opposition wanted him to do? 

[fieldmarshaldj]

Also, as some people on this board like to ignore despite regular reminders, Democrats in the South were conservative right up until the mid-60s.

There were many big-government Southern Democrats in office. Longtime Sen. Kenneth McKellar had started off a Wilsonian liberal and grew to be more Conservative in the era of FDR. He was defeated by liberal Albert Gore, Sr. in 1952. Center-right Sen. Tom Stewart was beaten by liberal Estes Kefauver in 1948. These were not "Conservatives." Dick Fulton wasn't one, either.

You guys remember LBJ lamenting losing the votes of Southern Democrats for a generation or two when he signed the Civil Rights Act?

The same cretin who exclaimed, "I'll have those n***ers voting Democrat for 200 years !" Look it up. Or Albert Gore, Sr's shamefully pandering back and forth, pretending to be pro-Civil Rights, then morphing into a hard-core racist to filibuster the '64 CRA and then moving back again to act as though he was always for Civil Rights. So much so he almost lost renomination in 1970 in the primary. Real Democrat gems and odious hypocrites.

How about NIxon's Southern Strategy?

A media-contrived fantasy to saddle the sins of the Democrats on the GOP. The Republicans were already making breakthroughs in the South in the 1920s, with only the Depression setting them back until the 1950s. It's curious that when the Democrats won the South, that was no problem, but once the Republicans became competitive, that was somehow racist and evil. Again, more hypocrisy.

You do realize there is a reason that the only two Democratic presidents we had between then and now were from Southern States, right?  I know facts are annoying when they work against the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't make them any less important.  Equating the political parties of today with their namesakes from previous eras at face value makes about as much sense as equating BRT to a canal and gondola system.

Actually, it's very easy to equate them, since you can play connect the dots. Some people like to ignore that and hide behind the great lie that the parties "switched." They never switched, this is how they've evolved (or devolved) over the years. It was the stated goal of left-wing activists in the 1890s, yup 1890s, to take over the Democrat party (and away from the sensible pro-business Bourbons). With the ascendance of William Jennings Bryan in 1896, culminating with the election of leftist Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and on through to the present day, the Dems remain the same party it has always been. Only the players have changed.

Finally, allow me to make a prediction: If Nashville's next mayor is more conservative on public transit, we will either continue to ignore the issue for another term, or we will build a cheap, poorly operating service that will be mostly unsuccessful, at which point conservatives will celebrate the failure and blame Democrats.

If Nashville's next mayor is more progressive on public transit, we will still spend years and tons of money re-evaluating the existing Amp concept, then designing and considering alternatives before determining the best way to proceed, at which point the conservative opposition will complain that they had no time to study the plans, provide input, or come up with their own alternatives.

Again, since the left (Dems) controls Nashville (city/metro) politics, they are free to push through largely anything they see fit. Since 1975, each successive Mayor has been more left-wing than the previous (Fulton-Boner-Bredesen-Purcell-Dean). The likelihood of a more "Conservative" person getting elected would be against the odds (though it would be a breath of fresh air). What exactly is a "Conservative" stance on transit or other expenditures ? It's about not tossing money down the drain. It's also about recognizing realities that despite what you may like, people PREFER to use their own cars. Only a minority, an often vocal one, but a minority nonetheless, prefer other methods.

Sure, I'd love to see streetcars and the like plying our boulevards, but it's a matter of cost and usage. Why not get together like-minded transit supporters, form a private entity, and pay for it yourselves ? That way we'll be able to gauge true interest in its usage and if the costs to support it are viable. You guys are always very generous when it comes to using taxpayer money that isn't yours. How about using your own money for a change ?

[ruraljuror]

There were many big-government Southern Democrats in office. Longtime Sen. Kenneth McKellar had started off a Wilsonian liberal and grew to be more Conservative in the era of FDR. He was defeated by liberal Albert Gore, Sr. in 1952. Center-right Sen. Tom Stewart was beaten by liberal Estes Kefauver in 1948. These were not "Conservatives." Dick Fulton wasn't one, either.

The same cretin who exclaimed, "I'll have those n***ers voting Democrat for 200 years !" Look it up. Or Albert Gore, Sr's shamefully pandering back and forth, pretending to be pro-Civil Rights, then morphing into a hard-core racist to filibuster the '64 CRA and then moving back again to act as though he was always for Civil Rights. So much so he almost lost renomination in 1970 in the primary. Real Democrat gems and odious hypocrites.

A media-contrived fantasy to saddle the sins of the Democrats on the GOP. The Republicans were already making breakthroughs in the South in the 1920s, with only the Depression setting them back until the 1950s. It's curious that when the Democrats won the South, that was no problem, but once the Republicans became competitive, that was somehow racist and evil. Again, more hypocrisy.

Actually, it's very easy to equate them, since you can play connect the dots. Some people like to ignore that and hide behind the great lie that the parties "switched." They never switched, this is how they've evolved (or devolved) over the years. It was the stated goal of left-wing activists in the 1890s, yup 1890s, to take over the Democrat party (and away from the sensible pro-business Bourbons). With the ascendance of William Jennings Bryan in 1896, culminating with the election of leftist Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and on through to the present day, the Dems remain the same party it has always been. Only the players have changed.

Again, since the left (Dems) controls Nashville (city/metro) politics, they are free to push through largely anything they see fit. Since 1975, each successive Mayor has been more left-wing than the previous (Fulton-Boner-Bredesen-Purcell-Dean). The likelihood of a more "Conservative" person getting elected would be against the odds (though it would be a breath of fresh air). What exactly is a "Conservative" stance on transit or other expenditures ? It's about not tossing money down the drain. It's also about recognizing realities that despite what you may like, people PREFER to use their own cars. Only a minority, an often vocal one, but a minority nonetheless, prefer other methods.

Sure, I'd love to see streetcars and the like plying our boulevards, but it's a matter of cost and usage. Why not get together like-minded transit supporters, form a private entity, and pay for it yourselves ? That way we'll be able to gauge true interest in its usage and if the costs to support it are viable. You guys are always very generous when it comes to using taxpayer money that isn't yours. How about using your own money for a change ?

 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you missed nearly every point I was trying to make, but alas I'll try again.

 

I recognize that in addition to conservative southern Democrats, there were big government Southern Democrats of yesteryear, too, though I hope you recognize that being 'big government' and being conservative aren't mutually exclusive.  In fact the parties were less homogeneous in terms of liberalism vs. conservatism in general, but I digress.  Most importantly here, my point was that the Democrats of eras past that you're referring to did not have the same goals and agendas that the Democrats of Metro Nashville today were trying to address with the Amp.  For example, the Democratic leaders of Nashville in the 1970s were not attempting to manage a urban influx/revitalization movement, right?  So why would they have built the Amp then?  Can we blame them for not doing so?  Similarly, the Democrats of the 1950's weren't concerned about carbon pollution or oil reserves, so they didn't have additional incentives to encourage mass transportation, right?  To blame the Democrats of today for the lack of action by Democrats over the last 140 years makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  That's like complaining that the city planners in the 1890's dropped the ball by not building an airport. 

 

Regarding LBJ and Democratic hypocrisy, what's your point again?  That some Democrats were racist even when they were passing pro-Civil Rights legislation?  Who cares?  I applaud when politician's do the right thing, even if they may not be able to live up to the ideological standards that they are attempting to set.  If your point is that there have been racist people since the beginning of time in every political party that has ever been, then we are in agreement.  LBJ didn't have to believe in equality to enact equal treatment under the law, and I for one am grateful that he did, even if he was a bigot himself.  Are you not?  Racist policies are far more destructive than racists themselves, and fewer of each has to be better, right?

 

Finally, asking people to privately finance their own private streetcar system makes about as much sense as recommending that they move after every election that their party of choice loses.  I'm guessing that you know it was a nonsensical thing to say (though in that case I'm not sure why you would choose to bring it up in the first place), but I'll be happy to point out all the reasons why if you insist. 

[BrandonTO416]

FMDJ, as always you have said many things that I consider to be serious misrepresentations of reality, so I'll just say my peace and try to keep it brief.

 

Its not worth feeding the nonsense he speaks, because virtually all of it is irrelevant to anything with a basis in reality. Keep it brief by not even acknowledging he's said anything. People with fringe beliefs de-legitimize themselves without others having to address them. LOL

 

When it comes to politics, pure politics, Tennessee isn't even remotely close to the most conservative state in the union. In many ways its actually fairly liberal, but as with most southern states the use of that word is misunderstood among many people, so I'll just use the word moderate. And after living in upstate New York for almost 5 years, I can assure you that growth in certain states down south has as much to do with weather as it has to do with anything economic. Besides, higher tax states like North Carolina or Georgia have higher growth than Tennessee. Both NC and GA have higher income taxes than I paid in New York. Go figure.

 

Some things just aren't based in politics. Personally, snow doesn't bother me, but most people can't handle it. So they move south. And I think it has more to do with why businesses don't move there since a new airport hub would deal with snow, and shipping/distribution companies would have to drive through it. Right there is where tons of growth has happened down here: logistics, transport, and etc. The city of LaVergne was probably built on logistics and warehousing... Politics has little to do with a lot of these issues.

 

On Tennessee politics (now that this discussion has been separated into its own thread), the state has a history of centrist politics. In many ways its to the left, and on social issues like religion and guns its to the right. But overall it is no Utah, Democrats here - even when fielding poor candidates - always get about 40% of the vote. That's a hardcore base vote, and can be built up from there. The problem recently is that the TN Dems have had such poor candidates Democrats aren't even showing up at the polls anymore. Tennessee had very, very low voter participation in the last federal election. Tens of thousands of voters didn't show up that were voting in the past.

 

People here generally like their health care programs and generally like investments into infrastructure. People here still love their social security checks. And Vanderbilt has so many polls on abortion, its all about how you position the question. Tennessee actually is more of a pro-choice state than it is an anti-choice state, which is hard to believe if you hear the right wing radio rhetoric or right wing media speak.

 

Don't forget, Phil Bredesen just spent 8 years as governor before Haslam. People in this state WILL vote Democrat. And despite how people misunderstand the words liberal/conservative/socialist/whatever, Bredesen was as much a Democrat as anyone else. He loved the Kennedy family and worked with them in his youth in the 60's, he was educated in Massachusetts in ivy league schools, something the right wing HATES. Tennesseans still voted for him and he was admired. When he expanded state programs, such as his Cover Tennessee health initiative, people liked him for it.

 

Bredesen wasn't perfect, but he left office with generally a good rating. Tell me how a state could be such a right wing state and have a recent Democratic politician leave office with respect? Tennessee isn't a right wing state, that's why.

 

This idea that somehow serious, competitive Democrats can't get elected here is only an attitude exhibited by self-defeatists or hardliner right wingers who think they have more power than they do. What it takes is running competent candidates, if the TN Dems are to have success again.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Its not worth feeding the nonsense he speaks, because virtually all of it is irrelevant to anything with a basis in reality. Keep it brief by not even acknowledging he's said anything. People with fringe beliefs de-legitimize themselves without others having to address them. LOL

I should probably thank Brandon for his comments where I am concerned, because they so glaringly demonstrate the problem of those on the left today. You'll note the usage/practice of PC or Alinskyite tactics and language (troll, fringe, irrelevant, illegitimate, et al) towards those he so stridently disagrees with (indeed, to the point that he wants to fantastically wish them away like Billy Mumy and the cornfield). It is the practice of making of non-persons, something practiced well by Josef Stalin, the founder of political correctness.

It is one, as Brandon is, who is so safe in the cocoon of his well-indoctrinated beliefs that he cannot dare to defend them logically. Employing the aforementioned methods of ideological bullies whose supremacy and perfection is such, to allow their challenge is forbidden as a high holy commandment.

This straitjacketed ideological mindset is employed on the majority of our college campii (and lower educational bodies), the media, et al. The "Free Speech" movement evolved to "Our Speech or NO Speech !" to practitioners of WRONG (non-left) thinking. I'd like to thank Brandon so very much for showing why leftism in all its glory remain such a vile hazard to the body politic and true intellectual discussion of today.

FMDJ, as always you have said many things that I consider to be serious misrepresentations of reality, so I'll just say my peace and try to keep it brief.

 

Have we not already addressed the value of the 'If you don't like how we do it here then you should move someplace else' argument?  To be clear, you are the one who generally opposes the political leanings of our city government.  Based on your statement here, why don't you move out of Nashville to a more conservative part of Tennessee?  And since you don't like our President and Senate Majority Leader's party, why not move out of the USA?  I of course am neither asking you to move nor recommending that you do, only pointing out how silly it is to make such a suggestion to anyone who doesn't like the leaders of their governing bodies at any given point in time.  Are half of us supposed to pack up and move every time there's an election?  This argument is about as well thought out as 'I'm rubber and you're glue.'

 

Also, you're making some pretty broad claims both about what states are better to live and conduct business in and about the reasons for our recent population growth.  While I agree that Nashville is a great place to live and conduct business, part of what I like is the typically progressive city management.  More importantly, the fact that Nashville exists in a state that has a lower cost of living, lower wage expectations, fewer environmental regulations, fewer worker protections, and a pretty nice climate all play a part in helping us attract company relocations and the accompanying new jobs, etc., too.  It's not entirely unlike how much of America's manufacturing moved over seas to places where there were even lower costs of living, wage expectations, and regulation standards.  While I too both encourage and celebrate Nashville and Tennessee's growth and prosperity, it's important that we also look out for the people that make that growth and prosperity possible, not just the companies that make that growth and prosperity possible, which can be a fine line to walk.  And before you start talking about utopias and throwing states like NY, CA, and MA under the bus, you may want to take a look at how Kansas has been doing for a case study in tea party super-majority leadership.

 

Finally, it's curious to me that you're already willing to place the blame for the Amp's failure at Dean's feet.  It sort of seems like you're deliberately trying to undermine the very higher office ambitions that you noted Dean may have.  I personally don't have any particular interest one way or the other in future dean administrations, though I think he's certainly a capable leader based on all that he's accomplished while in office and I would most likely vote for him again given the opportunity.  More importantly, what could you possibly be blaming Dean for here?  If you think the Amp was a bad idea, which I've gathered that you do, then why on earth would you not be happy that he had the wisdom to shelf the project?  From your perspective, he should've just gained points for making the smart call and scrapping a bad idea--like a good leader should.  What does it say about your political prejudice that you want to cast a shadow on the man's future political career because he did the very thing that your opposition wanted him to do?

I'll merely tell you the same thing I did awhile ago. Of course what I say is going to fly in the face of your perceptions of reality. I used to be on the left a long time ago, but the things I had to believe in vs. the reality meant literally having to accept wrong as right and up as down in order to subscribe to it. Either things are as they are or they aren't. The cognitive dissonance required to belong to the left was, is, simply too much to swallow.

But anyway, just as an aside, I don't want to frame all of our arguments in terms of Dem vs. GOP, since that tends to put me in the position of looking like an absolute defender of the latter, which I'm not. I've got many problems with the GOP, enough so that I consider myself an Independent. The GOP is likely to make a sweep next week, but that doesn't mean I'll be dancing a jig, since far too many in the party remain a part of the problem. Brandon is correct, partly, but for the wrong reasons, regarding internal GOP strife. But it has to do with the leaders agenda being grossly at odds with the base. Lamar Alexander (with Haslam and Corker) being examples of this.

Addressing some of your other points:

On "moving." I'm a firm believer that you should live under the system you support. It's one reason I believe that our nation might be better served with an amicable split. Let those of one ideological bent have those areas and vice-versa. Why I urge this is because it only serves to vindicate my ideological beliefs. Leftism (or whatever other tarted-up words to describe it) doesn't work. Yet people continue to subscribe to the myth that it can. So all those that believe in it can have full and unfettered control to enact such a system. No blaming the right, it's all theirs to do with. I guarantee that within a short period of time, it would be utter bedlam and banging on the doors to be let back in to "Right" America.

What I've observed, too, are individuals that for whatever particular reason, leave their utopian nook and take their voting habits with them. They cannot comprehend (again, as the mindset of leftism requires) that it was their voting habits that made the areas they left "unliveable." Too expensive, lack of jobs, high crime, high taxes, et al. I was reminded of that in an article about San Francisco residents and homeowners and a law enacted that's essentially created a windfall for renters, having to pay out in the 6 figures to have them leave. A couple harmed by the law was asked how they voted, and it was predictable. When you support an ideology so blindly, you cannot act shocked or surprised at the ultimate outcome. Yet so many do.

Re: Nashville vs. State

Much like with Austin in Texas, Nashville benefits from having a state government at odds with their local ideology. This is effectively having your cake and eating it, too. If either were to be the predominant ideology of either state, there would be a decided crash. California is a premier example of that. Leftism killed the golden goose or state. Nobody, save illegals, are flooding into CA to take advantage of its political or business climate.

As for tossing the states (CA, IL, MA, etc.) under the bus, I didn't do that. They did it all on their own by pursuing policies and electing individuals that made those states highly unpleasant and oppressive (for the productive class at least). I guarantee going back to the founding fathers philosophies of governance and principles (alas, loathed and hated by the left, since it requires a complete jettisoning of their ideology), these states would become success stories again. Sadly, too many people are too deeply invested in keeping things status quo (indeed, again, I submit the left are the reactionaries not wanting REAL change to what works). Too many benefit from the dysfunction.

Re: Kansas

I'm glad you brought up Kansas ! Understand that Kansas has three parties. Conservative Republicans are one, "Moderate" (liberal) Republicans are another, and the Democrats (which consisted of those not belonging to either party, but actually had people across the spectrum). This makes KS a very peculiar state as a result, and gives the impression that just because it appears Republican, doesn't mean it is Conservative. Many Republicans from the state have been decidedly anti-Conservative.

You might be interested to know that from 1962-1979 a man named James Pearson was one of the two U.S. Senators. Pearson was born here in Nashville. Pearson was also politically left-wing. Many times his voting record was close to or identical to Ted Kennedy's (who arrived in the Senate the same year as Pearson). But he was a Republican. Bob Dole joined him in the other seat in 1969. It was not unusual for them to generally vote opposite to one another. Pearson was succeeded by Nancy Landon Kassebaum, and though she has generally been considered to be a liberal Republican, was more Conservative than Pearson. Pat Roberts now is generally considered a bonafide Conservative, and as a result, the "Moderate" (liberal) wing in KS has gotten behind Orman, his Senate opponent. Usually, when the members turn out to be Conservatives, the liberal wing helps to elect the Democrat.

How this has gone at the state level is very curious, indeed. In my research, it appeared that the last "Conservative" Governor hailing from the GOP was elected in the bad GOP year of 1964. A 10-year member of Congress took the job, named Bill Avery. In those days, Gubernatorial terms were 2 years. Just as oddly, in a favorable GOP year in 1966, Avery lost to a Democrat, Robert Docking. In those days, KS Democrats generally took in a wide ideological grouping, so these weren't necessarily liberals. Docking was more of a "moderate" (though you'd probably consider him right-wing). He ended up serving 4 terms for a total of 8 years.

When the office came open (again, in the bad GOP year of 1974). The Attorney General, Vern Miller, who was a Democrat, was a Conservative (someone you'd probably consider ultra-right ;-)). His Republican opponent was a man named Robert Bennett (not the future Ed Secretary), who was more of the "moderate" ilk, and he ended up beating Miller. Bennett didn't prove so hot in the job, and he lost to another Dem in 1978 after a single (4 year) term, John Carlin. Carlin ended up serving 2 terms. In 1986, with an open seat, this time another "moderate" Republican won, Mike Hayden. As with Bennett, he ended up unpopular and was defeated in 1990 by Democrat Joan Finney.

Finney was an unusual political figure. In most any other state, she'd have been a regular Republican. She had been one until the early 1970s and tried to run for Congress. The party establishment essentially treated her like she had the plague and joined the Will Rogers-esque KS Dems and won statewide office before long. When she ran in 1990 for Governor, she was to the right of Gov. Hayden. She served only a single term before voluntarily retiring.

With the national GOP year of 1994, Bill Graves took advantage of that to win. Graves, however, was from the liberal wing, and was never well regarded by the party grassroots. When Bob Dole stepped down and Graves named a "Moderate" (lib) to the seat, that spurred Sam Brownback to run and beat her in the primary of 1996. There was a scattershot effort by Conservatives to dump Graves for 1998, but a suitable candidate never emerged. With Graves leaving office in 2002, there was a decided effort by the "Moderates" to install a nominee, thwarted when a Conservative took the nomination. Instead, said "Moderates" got behind the very left-wing Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius to stop the Conservative win of the Governorship. Sebelius used the cache of her name to win statewide (she was the daughter-in-law of the late Republican Congressman Keith Sebelius), with many Republican crossovers probably thinking she was like her father-in-law.

Now, as Brandon alluded to, there has been the battle between the left-leaning establishment of the party (big government/high taxes) and the Conservatives (later called Tea Partiers by 2010). The KS GOP majorities in the legislature were a mix of people of those at-odds ideologies. Essentially, neither should've been under the same roof, because neither had any use for the other. However, "Moderates" (liberals) held many key legislative postings, but this was predicated on Republican Conservative voters (for whom they voted at odds with). When Sam Brownback won in 2010 against effectively desultory Democrat opposition, there was no particular outcry from said "Moderates." It was worth noting that Brownback was the first GOP-Conservative Governor elected in Kansas in 46 years.

When Brownback started to roll out his agenda (and tax reforms), the Moderates (essentially indistinguishable at this point from national Democrats on policies) started to rock and roll. Brownback realized these individuals in the legislature were as obstructionist as if they were from the opposition and had to go. In the 2012 legislative primaries, many of the "Moderates" got tossed. Their reaction at being dumped was no surprise, as they essentially fell in with the Democrats. For too long, many of the left had taken advantage of KS as a GOP state to move within the party to work their goals. When it ceased to be a viable vehicle, they left it. Gov. Sebelius herself pulled off not 1 but 2 weak Republicans formerly in leadership positions (including as party chairman !) to serve as her Lieutenant Governors.

What you're seeing in KS is the revenge of Republican liberals. The media playing up all these Republicans opposing Brownback and supporting House Minority Leader Davis over Brownback are no particular surprise. These are angry Moderates (some of whom have already switched parties since 2012, including one of the legislative leaders who switched her affiliation almost immediately after being primaried, now running for Secretary of State) who saw Brownback sack their leftist policies in Topeka. Realignment in the state is long overdue, with the liberal GOP wing finally declaring themselves to be the Democrats they have been for quite some time.

This is precisely the division that needs to occur. The Democrats remain content to be the party of big government while the Republican base has yet to get rid of countless elected officials whom are far more comfortable with the Democrat agenda (be it socially, fiscally or both).

Now I understand some people think it's a bad idea having the parties under explicit ideologies rather than having different wings, but again, why should each party have a large contingent of members more in agreement with the opposition than with their own party ? The National Dems ran out their Conservatives, beginning in the 19th century, and largely concluding with the post-Watergate period into the mid-'90s, and seeping down to the state and local levels. Curiously, the GOP at present has a much wider ideological range of people in office (whereas virtually all federal Democrats are located in the 0-25% Conservative spectrum, the GOP has the broader 40-100% Conservative). Lamar himself falls on the left of the GOP spectrum (40% range) and is considered the 4th most left-leaning GOP Senator (behind Murkowski of AK, Collins of ME, Kirk of IL).

Re: our state

I predicted in the '90s that the GOP would eventually capture the TN legislature and that the Dems had a majority built on a house of cards (largely due to gerrymandering). The GOP made a breakthrough in the House as long ago as 1969 when they tied the Dems (with a 3rd party member being the key -- he refused to vote). A Black Knoxville Democrat cast a vote for a GOP Speaker (future Congressman Bill Jenkins from the 1st district), the first and last one until Beth Harwell. The Dems reclaimed the body in 1971 and employed ruthless gerrymandering to maintain a majority even as the state ceased to vote majority Dem for the legislature.

I expected that once the majority moved narrowly to the GOP, there would be a complete collapse of the Dems in the state, as the sole remaining two groups in the party were the trendy, young urban White left-wingers (of the types that post on UP) and Blacks (of which neither have much in common aside from voting habits, and the latter itself is built on a tenuous house of cards). TN Dems relied upon a strong rural contingent for a majority. With little exception, virtually all the legislative Dems will hail from either Nashville or Memphis, made up of the aforementioned two groups, and any Dems outside of those areas (unless majority Black) will be outliers.

In fact, the real fight for TN Dems will be between Blacks (who will make up a majority of the party) and White leftist urbanites. With either in charge, the party won't be able to appeal statewide for a long time to come because they've placed themselves in a box. It was effectively 140 years of one-party control in TN, and you guys may have to settle in for a similar scenario. Sure, you may make the occasional breakthrough (a pro-business Dem in a possible off-GOP year), but a left-wing ideology as a whole is never going to be popular here under its current packaging.

I would add that having a party with a supermajority as the GOP has and a desultory minority opposition isn't such a great thing, either. That's precisely how you end up with a situation like KS. We'll have left-leaners running as Republicans in order to get in power.

One way for TN Democrats to make a comeback is one you and Brandon would find distasteful, and that's by trying to out-compete the GOP (now as the supermajority) as a Conservative party (fiscal and social). By doing so, it holds the GOP's feet to the fire and keeps them from becoming complacent and statist as long-term majorities are apt to do. Of course, if that happened, you and Brandon would probably become Republicans. ;-)

Re: Amp n' Dean

Why would I not lay the blame at Dean's feet ? He's the Mayor, isn't he ? He doesn't have a pesky GOP majority Metro Council to reign him in. I think blaming the state is "weak." If he wants something badly enough, he'll move heaven and earth to get it. He dropped it of his own accord.

With respect to the Amp, I had no burning feeling of opposition toward it, nor passionate feeling of favor for it. My concern goes slowly to COSTS of these projects. No one in their right mind in the city wants Nashville to be stuck in a perpetual traffic jam. The question is what are the right solutions to the problem ? Even if Amp is built, will it be used enough to justify the costs ? I see the government pissing away money it simply doesn't have from top to bottom and politicians acting as if the bill isn't going to come due. We've got to be cutting costs and spending dramatically from DC on down, and it's not being done. The Amp is just one of so many things under that aegis.

[samsonh]

With respect to the Amp, I had no burning feeling of opposition toward it, nor passionate feeling of favor for it. My concern goes slowly to COSTS of these projects. No one in their right mind in the city wants Nashville to be stuck in a perpetual traffic jam. The question is what are the right solutions to the problem ? Even if Amp is built, will it be used enough to justify the costs ? I see the government pissing away money it simply doesn't have from top to bottom and politicians acting as if the bill isn't going to come due. We've got to be cutting costs and spending dramatically from DC on down, and it's not being done.

 

I'll address the cost/economics portion of your post because it is really easy to debunk. With a rapidly shrinking deficit and a 10 year Treasury rate at 2.32% as of today, you should be borrowing more money. It is that simple. Inflation is nonexistent and employment is increasing dramatically. The federal government is not a household and does not need to balance it's budget. This should be obvious.

[fieldmarshaldj]

For example, the Democratic leaders of Nashville in the 1970s were not attempting to manage a urban influx/revitalization movement, right?  So why would they have built the Amp then?  Can we blame them for not doing so?

Sure, why not ? People worked downtown then. The Amp would've been a lot cheaper in those days. Where was the vision ?

Similarly, the Democrats of the 1950's weren't concerned about carbon pollution or oil reserves, so they didn't have additional incentives to encourage mass transportation, right?  To blame the Democrats of today for the lack of action by Democrats over the last 140 years makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  That's like complaining that the city planners in the 1890's dropped the ball by not building an airport.

Because they're the ones who've been in charge for eons. Where's the accountability ? They squeal like stuck pigs over this or that when they had all that time, blaming people who aren't in charge, have little to no input.

Let's drop the first 100 years and look at the last 40 years in Nashville. Again, the same people, party and ideology in power (albeit going ever and ever more left each year and with each successive Mayor). Another thing with the left, it's always someone else's fault. The President still blaming Bush 6 years after he left office in DC.

 

Regarding LBJ and Democratic hypocrisy, what's your point again?  That some Democrats were racist even when they were passing pro-Civil Rights legislation?  Who cares?  I applaud when politician's do the right thing, even if they may not be able to live up to the ideological standards that they are attempting to set.  If your point is that there have been racist people since the beginning of time in every political party that has ever been, then we are in agreement.  LBJ didn't have to believe in equality to enact equal treatment under the law, and I for one am grateful that he did, even if he was a bigot himself.  Are you not?  Racist policies are far more destructive than racists themselves, and fewer of each has to be better, right?

Actually, welfare state policies are more destructive than past racist policies, because the latter could and was fought against and the people flourished in spite of. In 50 years, the former has managed to accomplish what 300 years of slavery could not. The complete destruction of the Black family. LBJ knew what he was doing, he was driving Blacks back onto the plantation to resuscitate a party in freefall -- he'd own their votes for 200 years, his own words. What a guy.

Finally, asking people to privately finance their own private streetcar system makes about as much sense as recommending that they move after every election that their party of choice loses.  I'm guessing that you know it was a nonsensical thing to say (though in that case I'm not sure why you would choose to bring it up in the first place), but I'll be happy to point out all the reasons why if you insist.

Hardly. There were private streetcar companies in the past. Before this bizarre insistence the government run or control every little aspect of everything imaginable. You've got scores of rich leftists with utopian visions bankrolling the Democrats. How 'bout getting them to bankroll something as visionary as mass transit ? Get that felon Ernst Stavros Soros to pony up for the Amp. Try something novel, paying for something out of your own pockets ? Private enterprise ! What a concept !

[fieldmarshaldj]

I'll address the cost/economics portion of your post because it is really easy to debunk. With a rapidly shrinking deficit and a 10 year Treasury rate at 2.32% as of today, you should be borrowing more money. It is that simple. Inflation is nonexistent and employment is increasing dramatically. The federal government is not a household and does not need to balance it's budget. This should be obvious.

Rapidly shrinking wha ? Your President added untold trillions to the debt, a figure so staggering, it cannot be grasped by most people. It's going to be close to $20 trillion by the time he has done wrecking us (though the actual figure is probably far higher). The great lie that he "cut the deficit" is a joke. The money has already been spent and tacked onto the bill. That he's spending x trillion per year instead of x+y trillion and calling it a cut is the typical disingenuous language of the left.

As for employment/unemployment, we've got more people not working than at any time in our nation's history in actual numbers. Staggering figures. The government choosing not to count them to make it look like our unemployment rate is coming down is another outrageous lie. The REAL levels are at Great Depression percentages, and that doesn't even begin to reach the levels in the Democrat-run inner cities. Combine these realities, and we're due for a crash of epic proportions that the productive class won't be able to cover. Who's gonna pay the bill ?

[ruraljuror]

I'm a little astounded by how far you go out of your way to avoid addressing the issues at hand, FMDJ.  While I appreciate the retrospective of political infighting over the last 40 years in Kansas, you used about 1000 words to essentially blame the traditional Republicans (who are secretly Liberals in disguise) for stifling the tea party, without acknowledging that it's the conservative tea party policies that have crippled the state's revenues and led to underfunded (though already slashed) budgets and multiple credit downgradings.  You could've saved yourself from typing out the extended electoral history and instead just mentioned which of Brownback's proven disastrous policies that you wouldn't enact in your conservative utopia given the opportunity.  Seriously, for my own curiousity's sake, which of Brownback's policies would you personally have opposed?

 

On moving to accommodate your vote, I certainly don't doubt that you sincerely believe it's a good and/or reasonable idea.  What I'm trying to make clear is how completely wrong you are about that.  Moving is expensive, jobs tie people to certain places, political power changes hands in the same districts regularly, even among relatively politically homogenous districts there are still issues about which there is great disagreement.  As I said, if you believe that moving based on political representation is a good idea that people should take seriously, then you are being hypocritical by not living in a redder part of Tennessee if not leaving the U.S. altogether. 

 

Regarding Nashville vs. the state, I agree with your comparison to Austin and having our cake while eating it.  What you're failing to acknowledge, though, is that both Texas and Tennessee are getting some cake out of the situation as well in that each state has benefited greatly from having a progressive capital that has attracted talent and investment that otherwise would not have considered moving to the state.  You seem to have an idea that northern cities are all crime riddled, oppressive hell holes that people are clawing over each other to escape without acknowledging my earlier point about cost of living, regulatory ease, lower taxes, as reasons that companies and jobs are relocating.  It's true that Nashville and Austin have benefited from Tennessee and Texas' pro-corporate policies that have attracted businesses looking to save on overhead, but don't underestimate the importance of Nashville and Austin's progressive identities in terms of attracting the talent that allows for those relocating businesses to consider the cost-saving move in the first place. 

 

Finally, as far as cognitive dissonance is concerned, and before you go promoting the creation of this conservative utopia (that's different from Kansas in what policy-based ways?) let's not forget that blue states pay more taxes to the federal government while receiving less federal funding than red states, and blue states rank higher in things like education and health care and that's without even getting into the less important stuff like equality and human rights records.  Seems to me like we could use a little more of that around here. 

[dmillsphoto]

... this might have been a mistake ...

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, you did what you could. Please don't delete the thread, but you can lock it if you wish. Nobody is going to change anyone else's mind here, that much is clear.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I'm a little astounded by how far you go out of your way to avoid addressing the issues at hand, FMDJ.  While I appreciate the retrospective of political infighting over the last 40 years in Kansas, you used about 1000 words to essentially blame the traditional Republicans (who are secretly Liberals in disguise) for stifling the tea party, without acknowledging that it's the conservative tea party policies that have crippled the state's revenues and led to underfunded (though already slashed) budgets and multiple credit downgradings.  You could've saved yourself from typing out the extended electoral history and instead just mentioned which of Brownback's proven disastrous policies that you wouldn't enact in your conservative utopia given the opportunity.  Seriously, for my own curiousity's sake, which of Brownback's policies would you personally have opposed?

 

On moving to accommodate your vote, I certainly don't doubt that you sincerely believe it's a good and/or reasonable idea.  What I'm trying to make clear is how completely wrong you are about that.  Moving is expensive, jobs tie people to certain places, political power changes hands in the same districts regularly, even among relatively politically homogenous districts there are still issues about which there is great disagreement.  As I said, if you believe that moving based on political representation is a good idea that people should take seriously, then you are being hypocritical by not living in a redder part of Tennessee if not leaving the U.S. altogether. 

 

Regarding Nashville vs. the state, I agree with your comparison to Austin and having our cake while eating it.  What you're failing to acknowledge, though, is that both Texas and Tennessee are getting some cake out of the situation as well in that each state has benefited greatly from having a progressive capital that has attracted talent and investment that otherwise would not have considered moving to the state.  You seem to have an idea that northern cities are all crime riddled, oppressive hell holes that people are clawing over each other to escape without acknowledging my earlier point about cost of living, regulatory ease, lower taxes, as reasons that companies and jobs are relocating.  It's true that Nashville and Austin have benefited from Tennessee and Texas' pro-corporate policies that have attracted businesses looking to save on overhead, but don't underestimate the importance of Nashville and Austin's progressive identities in terms of attracting the talent that allows for those relocating businesses to consider the cost-saving move in the first place. 

 

Finally, as far as cognitive dissonance is concerned, and before you go promoting the creation of this conservative utopia (that's different from Kansas in what policy-based ways?) let's not forget that blue states pay more taxes to the federal government while receiving less federal funding than red states, and blue states rank higher in things like education and health care and that's without even getting into the less important stuff like equality and human rights records.  Seems to me like we could use a little more of that around here.

Not at all. I clearly answered your points at length and gave you some background on Kansas, which you not only disregarded, but preceded to completely misstate (that's a nice word for another one, which you know).

(Republican liberals = Traditional Republicans ? Secret liberals ? No secret, that's what Republican "Moderates" (sic) are. All of which was explained above at length). This is not the first time you've done this, of course. You basically just end up wasting my time, since you already have your own set of conclusions that isn't grounded in reality.

BTW, if Nashville and Austin were Conservative enclaves with that type of leadership, we'd have even greater growth and influx of residents. Unfortunately, too many cities are filled with precisely the kind of folks that always kill the golden goose, thinking you can keep spending ad infinitum (nevermind the social issues). Tennessee can just as easily become another failed leftist state in that regard if the wrong people bringing the wrong ideology move in en masse, as Brandon (and no doubt yourself) would like to see.

Toodles.

[ruraljuror]

Not at all. I clearly answered your points at length and gave you some background on Kansas, which you not only disregarded, but preceded to completely misstate (that's a nice word for another one, which you know).

(Republican liberals = Traditional Republicans ? Secret liberals ? No secret, that's what Republican "Moderates" (sic) are. All of which was explained above at length). This is not the first time you've done this, of course. You basically just end up wasting my time, since you already have your own set of conclusions that isn't grounded in reality.

BTW, if Nashville and Austin were Conservative enclaves with that type of leadership, we'd have even greater growth and influx of residents. Unfortunately, too many cities are filled with precisely the kind of folks that always kill the golden goose, thinking you can keep spending ad infinitum (nevermind the social issues). Tennessee can just as easily become another failed leftist state in that regard if the wrong people bringing the wrong ideology move in en masse, as Brandon (and no doubt yourself) would like to see.

Toodles.

 

 

FMDJ, I certainly didn't mean to misstate or misrepresent what you were trying to say.  I did my best to abstract what your point was from a rather long and seemingly irrelevant stroll through Kansas political history.  If I missed your point, it definitely wasn't for my lack of trying to understand what you were aiming for.  Maybe you should get to your point faster, or better still, stay on topic in the first place. 

 

That said, you did do a pretty good job of clearing some of it up when you claimed in your follow-up post that all Moderate Republicans are actually Liberals (though they might disagree with you about that).  It seems to me that ideological purity tests are a convenient way of shifting the blame when the party you support makes a mess of the state they control.   As for whether or not you answered my points, I'll only note that you neglected to respond to the one question I asked you in my last post.  I'll repeat if you'd like another crack at it:

 

Which of Brownback's policies do you disagree with and would not incorporate into the conservative-fantasy utopia you keep talking about?  Or are Brownback and his tea-party super majority just a bunch of moderate Republicans (read liberal) too?

 

Finally, I absolutely LOVE the first sentence of your last paragraph:  "BTW, if Nashville and Austin were Conservative enclaves with that type of leadership, we'd have even greater growth and influx of residents."

 

--That's priceless.  Did you just pull that out of thin air?  Does wild speculation equate to making some kind of convincing argument in your opinion?  You do realize there have been quite a few experiments where conservative local governments operate inside of conservative states.  Why not use a few of those places as shining examples when making the claim that Austin and Nashville would be even better if we would only do it your way?  I guess it's probably easier just to make the claim without actually being able to back it up with anything whatsoever, right? 

[Nashville Cliff]

... this might have been a mistake ...

 

Well, at least you had the good sense to move it to the coffee house.  This kind of ideological puffing was what lead to my extended absence from the UP.  It's fine, and kind of amusing, in a separate area; just annoying when you are trying to catch up on the latest developments.  Thanks.