Contributors

Monday, November 01, 2010

Wednesday, November 3rd.

Tomorrow is the election. So what are our choices? A friend of mine on Facebook put it best.

Republicans - Toxic economic ideas, more interested in obstruction, power, and "winning the game" than actually helping people. Democrats -- Spineless. Unable to lead, inspire, or communicate the few good ideas they do have. Tea partiers -- Mostly too insane to hold office. Yay! Let's all go vote next Tuesday!


I completely agree. I think that many Americans do as well and that's why voter turnout will be low tomorrow. This, of course, favors the Republicans. If they win both or either house, what can we expect?

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president.----Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.


So, it's not serve the American people. Winning is more important. What else can we expect?

This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles. ---John Boehner, likely Speaker of the House should the GOP win.


There will be no compromise---Mike Pence, GOP leader and Congressmen from Indiana.


Contrast this with what President Obama said would happen if the Republicans win.

If the Republicans don't agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they'll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don't agree with me on infrastructure, I'll try to see if they agree with me on education. So I'm just going to keep trying to see where they want to move the country forward.


The answer, Mr. President, is nowhere. They want you to fail. They want you and the Democrats to lose. They could give two shits about the American people. All they care about is power and money. Why are Democrats so naive in thinking otherwise?

Another one of my Facebook friends had this question pose of him recently.

If all these things are so great, then why are so many Democrats shunning the President and running against him as well as Nanci Pelosi???

His answer was perfect.

Short Answer: "Poll Shows Americans Don't Know"

Longer Answer: We wouldn't have needed a stimulus package, had nearly 10% unemployment, we would have better than 2% growth if the economy had been managed properly during the previous administration.

Thank deregulation, lack of financial iindustry oversight, unnecessary, expensive and poorly executed wars/quagmires, and a ballooning government (have any idea how much the Department of Homeland Security cost?) during the Bush years. Instead of squandering the Clinton tax surplus and in-debting ourselves to China, it should have been used to pay down our debt and invested in infrastructure, energy independence and education.

The Republican platform that got us into this mess has not changed. There is no way to cut taxes and reduce the debt at the same time. There is no free lunch, Republicans. This isn't socialism, it's reality. Why don't people get this? Poll Shows Americans Don't Know

He's right. Take a look at this poll. And it's this lack of knowledge that the Republicans have exploited with fear and anger.


--Let’s have more tax cuts, unlinked to any specific spending cuts and while we’re still fighting two wars — because that worked so well during the Bush years to make our economy strong and our deficit small.

--Let’s immediately cut government spending, instead of phasing cuts in gradually, while we’re still mired in a recession — because that worked so well in the Great Depression.

--Let’s roll back financial regulation — because we’ve learned from experience that Wall Street can police itself and average Americans will never have to bail it out.

--Let’s have no limits on corporate campaign spending so oil and coal companies can more easily and anonymously strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to limit pollution in the air our kids breathe.

--Let’s discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to join the military and fight for their country.

--Let’s restrict immigration, because, after all, we don’t live in a world where America’s most important competitive advantage is its ability to attract the world’s best brains.

--Let’s repeal our limited health care reform rather than see what works and then fix it.

--Let’s oppose the free-trade system that made us rich.

--Let’s kowtow even more to public service unions so they’ll make even more money than private sector workers, so they’ll give even more money to Democrats who will give them even more generous pensions, so not only California and New York will go bankrupt but every other state too.

--Let’s pay for more tax cuts by uncovering waste I can’t identify, fraud I haven’t found and abuse that I’ll get back to you on later.

For those of you who wonder why I vote for Democrats, look to the statements in bold. The Democrats aren't perfect (and I do stand with Friedman on both of the issues he lays at their feet) but the Republicans are a fucking nightmare.

They will try their hardest (and may succeed) in adhering to every one of Friedman's statements that I have bolded. Make no mistake about it: all of these ideas are completely terrible for this country and are going to make our current situation worse.

As each of you head to the polls tomorrow, think long and hard about which party represents your interests...your best interests. And which one will do the best for your country.

It's abundantly clear to me.

18 comments:

Haplo9 said...

Your whine is exactly what I'd expect from the side that is about to lose power. It makes perfect sense.

jeff c. said...

Possibly losing one house is losing power? Last time I checked, President Obama was not on the ballot. And I'd rather "lose power" and be right and then gain it simply for the sake of winning.

Damn Teabaggers said...

There will be no compromise---Mike Pence, GOP leader and Congressmen from Indiana.

Contrast this with what President Obama said would happen if the Republicans win.


Contrast this with what Obama said when the Democrats won: "I won."

Republicans were completely locked out of the process for both the stimulus and healthcare. So "what Obama said" is, "When I'm weak, you must compromise your principles to make me look good. When I'm strong, FUCK YOU."

You must be proud of such leadership.

juris imprudent said...

Reason #1 Dems are losing this election - adherence to a foolish leftist ideal that the majority of Americans do not support.

Reason #2 the Dems are going to be spanked, with the money quote:

"But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power."

And lastly, for a little levity there is this - your govt (under YOUR administation) at work.

juris imprudent said...

Dang, forgot one - a pre post mortem from a sadder but wiser Dem.

Haplo9 said...

>Possibly losing one house is losing power? Last time I checked, President Obama was not on the ballot. And I'd rather "lose power" and be right and then gain it simply for the sake of winning.

:) I'm actually repeating Mark's words back to him. It's just funny to see the "OMG the Republikkkans are coming!" posts.

jeff c. said...

What a marvelous work of fiction you have created, DT. Republicans weren't locked out of anything. They categorically refused to budge an inch from their ideology while the Democrats compromised their ass of just to get shit passed for their more conservative members of their constituency.

Mark Ward said...

Juris--3 opinion pieces from conservative columnists and one of them John Fund. Ah, life in the fact free zone.

I am curious, though. What does it mean to "govern yourself?" Is this more of the Ayn Rand adolescent power fantasy? Or the twisted reality where the government is secretly Mordor with the Democrat leadership miniature Lord Saurons.

juris imprudent said...

They categorically refused to budge an inch from their ideology while the Democrats compromised their ass of just to get shit passed for their more conservative members of their constituency.

What are YOU whining about. There wasn't the need for a SINGLE Republican vote in either House or Senate.

Your only complaint is that you don't have a lock-step majority kow-towing to the liberal leadership. Too fucking bad - those were the candidates YOUR party ran and got elected. Next time try running Real Liberals(tm) in all of those districts, and watch your party go down in flames. What the heck, The Nation is all in favor of being a purer minority rather than a diverse majority.

juris imprudent said...

Yeah, I knew you'd choke on the Fund bit, despite it being his conversation with a Dem. Probably how your leftie readers feel when you wax positively on Reagan.

I didn't realize the CSM was conservative and fact free - I guess when it suits you it is.

The point of course is that none of those pieces supported your snot-nosed interpretation - that it is all the fault of evil Republicans, tromping all over your liberal goodness. Fuck, what a maroon.

What does it mean to "govern yourself?"

Take responsibility for your own shit is what I would say. Is that too scary or foreign a concept?

Or is the only reason you don't commit murder is because there is a law against it, and you could get seriously punished for doing so. And that is the only reason you aren't out killing.

Dr. Smith said...

Mark was criticizing the CSM as an opinion piece not that magazine itself. That is quite clear.

I have a question for you, juris. When you break your leg or suffer from depression, is it your responsibility to set your leg in a cast or prescribe meds? No. The doctor in each case is more aware of your best interests than you are. Are you an attorney? If so, doesn't that mean that you know your client's best interests in terms of the law?

I know it's chic to hate all government but there are occasions in the past when they actually do know what's in your best interest and I'm not simply talking about defense. They are privy to information that you and I are not. I'm not saying you should trust them fully but you should also not be so acutely distrustful.

Haplo9 said...

>I know it's chic to hate all government but there are occasions in the past when they actually do know what's in your best interest and I'm not simply talking about defense.

Which occasions, aside from defense, are those? No really. The only occasions I can think of involve moments of supreme hubris like Mark, where he claims to know better than someone else what is in their best interest. I mean seriously - do you view government as your daddy or something?

Tess said...

Uh...the Civil Rights Act, Haplo9?

juris imprudent said...

I know it's chic to hate all government...

I've never been one to bend to fashions. Please quote me where I hate all govt. You were after all addressing me, and if you are going to do so, please address the arguments I make, not what other people may say and least of all a bunch of words you wish to put in my mouth.

...but there are occasions in the past when they actually do know what's in your best interest

Such as? Let's be specific, because in general, I do not believe that anyone else knows what is in my best interest better than myself. In the cases you mentioned, medicine and law, it isn't that they know what is best for me overall, it is they are providing specific expertise that I don't have. In general, govt bureaucrats lack that expertise - but I'll entertain a good specific case - if you can make one.

I'm not saying you should trust them fully but you should also not be so acutely distrustful.

You don't even know how much I do trust which parts of the govt - yet you feel qualified to advise me to trust them more - just not completely. Wonderful.

Haplo9 said...

>Uh...the Civil Rights Act, Haplo9?

Er.. pretty sure I don't need the government's "expertise" to let me know whether discrimination on the basis of skin color is or is not ok. I figured that one out for myself. In any case, I thought Dr. Smith was talking about information that the government has that we don't that leads them to make better choices for our own self interest than we are able to. How is the Civil Rights Act an example of that?

This is all leaving aside the obvious problems with Dr. Smith's conjecture, of course:
1. The notion that bureaucrats possess expertise or even interest in anything other than furthering their own careers
2. I suspect that Dr. Smith would not have quite so much faith in the government if it just so happened to be controlled by R's. Would you, Tess?

Damn Teabaggers said...

So let's see...

2004 - Dissent is patriotic. We should never compromise on the eeevil BusHitler agenda.

2008 - Dissent is un-American and even racist, because "I won." We want to work with Republicans, but only with those we don't have to actually compromise with.

2010 - It's time for the Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass the Democrats' agenda.

Go figure.

Tess said...

The continued mentioning of "I won" more or less proves Mark's point that winning is really your focus, right? Sometimes you can lose and still win and vice versa. More importantly, sometimes you can win and be wrong.

juris imprudent said...

Sometimes you can lose and still win and vice versa.

Yes, yes, I remember the victors saying that repeatedly in 2008. [/sarcasm]

More importantly, sometimes you can win and be wrong.

Careful there Tess, you're almost saying "May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one".