Maggie's Farm

Yep - that's the Republican party I know all right, at work on their 'winning' platform. Watch them do it - get up there and stump for their guaranteed 10% of the vote and alienate the rest.

Heaven forbid they should put up a bigger tent, win decisive majorities, and then have to actually lead. That would take creativeness, determination and coalition building on common-ground issues, and we all know how hard that is.

Yep, that's the loser's creed all right.

Are you satisfied with the way you're being governed at the moment? Feeling beleaguered and powerless? You won't make any of your vaunted principles into anything widespread at all, unless your party is the governing party and in a position of societal leadership.

To govern you must win elections, and to win elections you must win votes in a solid majority. To win votes, you must persuade the voters that you are supportive of their interests. Staking all of their political capital on uber-polarized positions like abortion and even birth control in such a draconian, out-of-touch way will lose elections. Prosecuting people for traveling to a different state? Brilliant. Way to win hearts and minds.

What about out-of-control immigration? What about the economy, stupid? What about free speech? What about indoctrination of kids in schools? What about government over-reach and the Administrative State? What about phoney international wars? These are the issues that will win voters over, because their disastrous mishandling by the Democrats has become so obvious, so inept, so costly - except to the entitled class.

Never let a disaster go to waste. That's how the Democrats seize opportunities, sometimes even create opportunities. But not Republicans; Rome could be burning, and Republicans would devote their attention to becoming fiddle critics.

Nobody loses in politics as well as Republicans do. Of course, there's always the Loser's Bench. The benefits are just as good and the food is almost the same. And the hours are easier too. Why worry about winning? Governing is scary business. Watching it happen, as we speak.

So: You're happy with the Status Quo then. Got it.

Dr. Torch likes to go on the attack from a safe space, never offering any constructive suggestions once he gets done trashing out any opposing comments. Then he declares victory and has a parade for himself. Past the critiques, did you notice him telling us what he does instead, or what he thinks would be a better strategy? Any constructive ideas on what should be different? Nope, right back under the rock.

My only point was about being pragmatic with our form of government. You will never lead the country if you aren't in control of the House and the Senate, and especially if you are in a substantial minority where even the filibuster won't help. All of the palaver about our current issues, abortion at the top of the list, amount to nothing if you can't enact legislation or influence its passage. You have to win first to have the power. Democrats understand pragmatic politics very well, and know that sticking together is fundamental. Not so much, Republicans.

Past Republican wins have been squandered, as we all know. So what? Why not share with us what you suggest. Should we throw our hands up? Pack a small case and march voluntarily to the re-education camps? Be my guest, you can fall in line with the good doctor, apparently.

It doesn't end with the vote obviously. If you want your elected officials to do your bidding we have to pay attention and be activist voters. We have a voice. Parents are putting city governments and school boards on uncomfortable notice by simply paying attention and demanding answers. It works.

It's a nice, pithy, skewering type of comment, but unfortunately, it's not true.

All recessions are identified in the rear-view mirror, so to speak, and GDP is a lagging indicator - but it's pretty simple to go directly to the source and verify the data:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA

Hover your mouse over the curve, or download the data.

The recession of 2001 did not have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

The recession of 1960 did not have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

Note also, the recession of 1970 didn't technically have them either - there were two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, but the recession didn't begin (according to the Fed) until the second one, Q1 1970.

Also: Where a recession does have two consecutive negative GDP quarters, it does not always occur at the beginning of that recession.

None of this excuses the corrupt practices of scrambling to re-define the term in order to prop up the current administration's BS. I think it's likely that Q3 and Q4 will also bring bad news about the economy's growth - that's what the leading indicators are saying.