Well, it means that Last in Line was closer than me, by far, on the prediction and that's all that matters.
Seriously, though, I have many thoughts on the election last night which will trickle out over the next few days but here is what I am thinking now.
First up is obvious frustration. How is it that the American people just voted a massive group of individuals into office most of whom were the chief cause of our massive economic problems? Our federal government failed to regulate the private sector and we just elected people who ran on a platform of less regulation. I don't get it. In my opinion, it's going to make things worse. Much worse.
Moreover, I don't get how a party which has now clearly moved to the right is saying they are going to "help" the American people when that help is from the government. Yet they are about less government. So they are....not going to help us? How is that going to work? Their platform makes no sense. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the Tea Parties who won.
I actually liked John Boehner's speech last night although I'm wonder if my "thinkers and not feelers" in my readership did. He cried. Does that mean he's feeling instead of thinking? If that's the case, there might be some hope for him.
There also might be some hope for Republicans. They seemed quite humble in their victory and did not overreach too much. I guess we'll get to see if that translates into action when they get into session.
Going far right didn't work in the Senate, though. Harry Reid is still around and the GOP completely blew it in Delaware and possibly Colorado. And what will happen in Alaska with "Write In" beating Palin anointed and armed guard user Joe Miller? They could've had both houses and really blew it because of the Tea Party.
In my own home state, the GOP took control of both state houses but (probably) elected Mark Dayton as governor. WTF???!! Dayton made no bones about being very liberal and wanting to tax the rich. So he wins and others lose? It's going to be VERY interesting here.
In my own district (MN-03), I'm happy to report the highest voter turnout in our history! Over 485,000 votes were cast. Erik Paulsen, the Republican, will continue as my representative, getting 90 thousand more votes than he did in 2008. To give you an idea at how massive this is, Jim Meffert, his challenger, get the same number of votes this year (178K) that Paulsen got in 2008. I'm not happy with the result, obviously, but I'm very proud of the voter turnout. I hope we keep it up!
So, what was this election about? Was it really a condemnation of Obama's policies? Certainly those who don't like them will say that. I think it was more about anger and frustration--two emotions the right has always been able to harness quite well. I only need to point to this example.
Last summer, I ran into a friend of mine named Rachel at the gym one night. She lives in MN-03 just like me. The subject of politics came up and her faced turned mean. "I hope we throw our bum out of office. He's the worst rep we have ever had." Not knowing her exact politics, I said, "So you hate Paulsen then, huh?" She nodded her head and proceeded to go on a tirade about government, health care and entitlements. "But Paulsen voted against all those things. He's been a staunch conservative and against President Obama on everything," I politely informed her.
"You mean my rep is a Republican?" she replied. "I'm a Republican. Wait...what district do I live in again?"
I think I know the answer to my questions above.
46 comments:
It's the tyranny of the written document. It's great to set up guidelines, but they should be labeled as such and subject to change with changing situations. These idiots that think that a literal interpretation of the Constitution is appropriate in today's multi-national, multi-billion population world reflect thinking that is outdated and ineffectual. This isn't solely about money, it's about belief and ideology that comes not from reasoned fact and history, but from unchanneled rage. It's like putting a 3-4 year old in charge of a playgroup or its own life.
In Hennepin county in MN, there will be a recount because 880,000 votes were cast when there were only 706,000 people registered to vote in the county. Did the party move right or did the country move right? Boehner was just passionate. Republicans took over, net, at least 19 state legislative chambers. The number of state legislative seats gained–more than 500 for the gop.
Landslide.
Straight from HotAir, I give you sw!
Take a moment and think why that would be, sw. It's not difficult.
I would suggest that part of your frustration is deep rooted in a belief that “helping” people means only government intervention as opposed to occasional government disengagement.
I curiously await your ability to churn out the traditional racism/sexism based innuendo against the wonderful mixed bag of culturally diverse people moving into office.
"So they are....not going to help us?"
That cry sounds quite plaintive...
We need to stop looking to government for help. I think the people voted for government to get the hell out of the way and let the people help themselves. Remember the nine scariest words in the Emglish language...
People who don't have a clue about who their representative is aren't limited to the Republican Party. My wife works as an election judge, and every election someone comes in and says, "Something is wrong. I want to vote against Michelle Bachmann and she isn't on the ballot."
It's really pretty simple how the Republicans won. They trashed the economy, then did everything they could to prevent Obama from fixing it properly. They got FOX News to trumpet lies and pump up the Tea Party 24-7 as a free propaganda machine. Then they got the Supreme Court to open the sluice valves on corporate money. Then they unleashed a tidal wave of negative campaign ads, funded by the corporations who will now own the Republicans they've bought and paid for.
The negative ads pushed the independents toward the Republicans, and the people who turned out in large numbers for Obama were insufficiently motivated to turn out this time around. That includes a lot of young people and minorities who aren't used to the process.
Green... The sky is definitely green.
They trashed the economy,
Dem controlled congress had no input huh?
then did everything they could to prevent Obama from fixing it properly.
A total lock on the house, senate and executive and you still blame the people who had no ability to stop you, for stopping you?
They got FOX News to trumpet lies and pump up the Tea Party 24-7 as a free propaganda machine.
Because FOX has more channels than PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and the majority of the country's newspapers.
Then they got the Supreme Court to open the sluice valves on corporate money.
Darn! couldn't get your substitutions in fast enough.
Then they unleashed a tidal wave of negative campaign ads,
Yep, all the DEM ads this year were full of puppies and rainbows.
funded by the corporations
...provided by Soros and unions.
who will now own the Republicans they've bought and paid for.
Ditto for the DEMS.
Obamas policies pushed independents toward the republicans. Obama is going to fix the ecenomy? How long was it going to take him blk?
sw said, "Landslide."
Hardly.
Obama and the Democrats won the 2008 election by much more than Bush and the Republicans won the 2004 election. That was a true landslide.
Yet Republicans didn't believe that Obama had a mandate to do what he promised to do during the campaign, and did everything they could to obstruct him. They opposed the obvious will of the American people, as determined by the huge wins the Democrats had in 2008.
Winning an election doesn't mean that the American people want everything you said you were going to do, and doesn't give you a mandate to ram whatever you feel like ramming down the American people's throats.
When people elected Democratic majorities in both houses as they did in 2008, it didn't mean they wanted everything the Democrats were for. When they voted this year for a Republican majority in the House -- but not the Senate, it's obvious the Republicans have no mandate.
A Republican win in the midterms isn't a vote for Republicans. it's a protest against the recession. It's a vote for divided government. People vote for divided government because they want compromise; they don't want one party to control everything; they want the people in office to just get things done and quit screwing around.
Unfortunately, that logic doesn't work when one of the parties is completely disinterested in making government work and concentrates solely on increasing the power of their corporate masters.
If the Republicans try another two years of running out the clock I hope the American people are smart enough to see them for what they are.
We can only hope they are as smart and well informed as you, blk.
Because of the bogus rules in the Senate, you need 60 votes to legislation. So saying that Democrats have a total lock on the Senate is false.
FOX donated millions of dollars directly to Republican campaigns. They run several hours of programming every day harping on the Republican talking points. There's no denying that they're a Republican propaganda machine.
NPR and PBS don't donate money to campaigns. They don't run nonstop political commentary; they just give the news and some analysis, have polite call-in shows and some interview shows. The broadcast networks don't run opinion shows like FOX; they just have a few newsmaker shows on Sundays. They really run almost no news at all; really, only 3-4 hours a week.
You must not read any newspapers, because they don't all endorse Democrats or Democratic ideas. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX. The New York Time and Washington Post, liberal bastions of the media, run as many conservative columnists as they run liberal and moderate ones.
Most news organizations just cover the news. Not FOX. It manipulates the news with an eye to getting what Rupert Murdoch wants.
And are you serious about unions and George Soros? Union membership is way down, and George Soros is just one guy. Any one major oil company has far more money and clout than Soros and all the unions in the world put together.
These companies have budgets bigger than most countries. How can you seriously not see that?
Well I'm glad you brought up oil companies, since they give more to dems than to reps.
And I'm glad we have your unbiased opinion about how biased fox is. That's kinda the canary in the coal mine you know. Of course they're not biased, they think just like you!
blk, you are right on the money.
And just to kick it out there, how in the blue hell are people supposed to "help themselves" when there are 4.5 people looking for work for each job available.
Repigs give you freedom: the freedom to beg for food, to lose your home and live in your car, the freedom to die quickly if you get sick and are uninsured. Ain't freedom grand?
And hey, all you xenophobic and anti-Islam "patriots" - it's perfectly OK for Chinese corporations and Saudi princes to fund attack ads against Democrats, right?
The least you could do is keep your bigotry straight.
your friend,
KennedyDem
People help themselves by creating products, services, value and jobs in an environment where they know the rules of the game. In an uncertain economic environment, dominated by an administration hostile to business, not knowing what new regs and restrictions are coming down the pike, people are less likely to take chances and will just hunker down.
Are you saying people are unable to make this work without mommy government holding their hand? Is it only through government that such things are possible?
Searching for that teat to suckle on, KD?
An administration hostile to business?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44268.html
"Profits have surged 62 percent from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department. That is faster than any other year and a half in the Fabulous ’50s, the Go-Go ’60s or the booms under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton."
Your statement make no sense.
From the same article...
"Under another president, especially a Republican president, the data on corporate profits would be envied. George W. Bush, who dedicated a good deal of his presidency to tax cuts aimed at boosting business profits, probably would have loved such results. It took Bush nearly four years to post the gains that Obama has managed in less than half the time."
This would be a fine example of people just being angry and blaming the president without any facts. If they don't like him, that's fine. But making statements like he is "hostile" towards business given this data is completely wrong. It's also propaganda for those interests who can't restrain their greed.
It's the tyranny of the written document.
You're goddamn right, and that you don't like is just too damn bad. There is a process to fix any defects in the Constitution - funny how progressives just don't want to do that.
People help themselves by...
Ah c'mon, don't you recognize a tit-sucker when you see one. If the world doesn't provide him a job, well, he'll just curl up and die.
So tell me Dr. Smith, what exactly does the President do that affects corporate profits, positively or negatively? [Since that is your measure of the Administration.]
And what will happen in Alaska with "Write In" beating Palin anointed and armed guard user Joe Miller?
You would prefer that the Republicans actually ran the colossally corrupt Murkowski? This might be a real good time to chime in on how stupid the voters really can be - that she could still get elected, as a write-in.
Honestly, I don't get how California could resurrect Brown as governor and NOT legalize pot. Being stoned is the only excuse for voting for Brown. Not that Whitman was any better.
Oh, and speaking of Whitman and MONEY - she couldn't buy the governorship, despite her best effort. So much for all that bullshit from you whining lefties about how money rules politics.
Hey blk, any chance the people saw democrats for what THEY are? Naw, can't be.
Simply because they didn't win the senate means that it wasn't a landslide? You have a HUGE case of denial.
You HAD a total lock on the senate is what he said.
juris imprudent, you must have a very minimal grasp on the Constitution or efforts that have been made to change it, or who those individuals were that have made changes to it. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant to the broader truth that documents, especially old documents such as the Constitution or the Bible, are not, and were not designed to accommodate the current world or this countries current situation. You might find more comfort in a society formed by people with your mindset, such as the Taliban. Then you can live by the literal word of some document without accommodation for democracy or the fact that the world has changed during the last 1300 years.
Our federal government failed to regulate the private sector and we just elected people who ran on a platform of less regulation. I don't get it.
Maybe rephrasing will make it clear to you:
Our federal government failed to enforce its regulations on the private sector and we just threw out people who governed on a platform of not enforcing regulation except against their political enemies.
Get it now?
You are familiar with the amendment provisions within the constitution, correct?
Wax-off.
Cherry-picking the news to associate the good with Obama and the bad with Bush is the warm blanket liberals wrap themselves in each night.
Anonymous (catchy username) Of course I'm familiar with the amendment provisions of the Constitution and of course all "sacred cows" change over time, it all depends on the time scale that you choose to use. Our world is changing faster than our society-wide willingness to alter documents like the Constitution. I know it's a scary thing for those of you who have trouble accepting change or that you might not be able to control every aspect of your life, but the simple truth is that the world is ever-changing...we are all just chalk-marks in a rainstorm, drawings on the beach.
That’s quite a statement. “The world is changing.” You have a marvelous grasp of the obvious. Have you considered that when dealing with the lives of millions of people, a nation should not change on a dime. I recall a time when orange parachute pants were the rage. Thankfully by the time I got to buying some, it was over. Had I acted quicker, I would have yet another picture to hide from the high school yearbook.
I think that the GOP needs to be very careful about over-interpreting the election and the mindset of the American people. The economy sucks so people blamed the leaders in power. It's pretty much that simple.
Control. I'm glad this topic has come up. I see a lot of fear of loss of control on the part of those who strictly interpret the Bible or the Constitution. It's a comfort for them and any sort of change is seen as a threat to that. This is where the Rand fantasy comes in to play. They want to live in a world where no one is able to tell them what to do even if it is for their own good. It's akin to a child taking medicine when they don't want to or doing their homework. They don't want to do it but it's for the best. This same child, as they grow up, is constantly fighting for independence and what they perceive is "best for them" not seeing the bigger picture or what is best for others. Basically, it's selfishness to a fault.
The Strict Constructionalists are unwilling to listen to others at all--let alone reason--because somehow they never fully matured in this area of their development.
@Juris-The point is that profits have soared higher than any other time since the 1920s so if he was an enemy, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Therefore, the statement is false.
Why does it always come back to these same root points? Someone doesn't know what's good for them, whereas you do, so you want to impose your will on them for the sake of what's "best for others" or, dare I say, the collective good.
I think I've read that philosophy somewhere...
Ah yes, the selfish children mantra. Gee, haven't heard that one before.
Attempting to insult your opponents is not a way to win your argument, esteemed sir.
I say attempting because your initial premise - that I give a damn about your opinion - is hopelessly flawed.
If you don't like the childish mantra, the stop acting that way. Funny, that's what I tell my children all the time! John makes very good points about how our society today does indeed dictate that we can't have a structural framework where individuals get to decide what's in their best interests in all walks of life except the military. It's not "imposing my will." Good grief, will you please get off that canard? It demonstrates that everything Dr. Smith about control says is true. If I want the federal government to improve my roads so I can be better off economically, I'm not imposing my will on anyone. It's just common sense and it works best for everyone.
Nobody's talking about roads, honey.
Hi johnwaxey, perhaps you should clean the wax out of your ears (and brain).
I said the Constitution provides a mechanism for updates, quite unlike the Bible (which I really could not give a shit about - but thanks for bringing that up and assuming I'm some kind of [fundie] Christian - fuck you very much). It isn't conservatives that have abandoned that - even when the changes they propose are literally brain-dead. It is morons who make arguments like, well like this...
Our world is changing faster than our society-wide willingness to alter documents like the Constitution.
So, we should just ignore it and go with whatever is the concern of the moment? The Founders must be puking in their graves that people like you inherited this country. Congratulations, I think you just set a new standard for stupidity here.
@Juris-The point is that profits have soared higher than any other time since the 1920s so if he was an enemy, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Therefore, the statement is false.
Which of course begs the question I asked you. I am shocked.
Basically, it's selfishness to a fault.
I love when progressives expose themselves as moralist scolds. Well done doctor!
I guess I'd like some numbers from blk as to what a Landslide looks like. 680 state legislature seats isn't good enough? Over 60 seats in the house isn't good enough? I guess his definition of landslide will be a few numbers above whatever number of seats the GOP gains in any election. You blame the losses on corporate money and then markadelphia says yesterday that money doesn't buy elections. You two should work that glitch out for us - which one of you is right?
It's only obvious to you that the republicans have no mandate. The mandate is going to be shoved down your throat. You party got healthcare reform done and the people don't like how you got it done and don't like the content of the legislation, but you guys are the experts at going into peoples heads and knowing exactly what they are thinking when they are voting.
Fox news is going to be around for some time so get used to it. Now tell us blk, how many seats have to be gained to make an electoral victory a landslide? You won't answer that because you don't like answering questions, you just drop by threads, type comments and then just leave the discussion.
"It's only obvious to you that the republicans have no mandate. The mandate is going to be shoved down your throat."
I hear this comment quite a bit and it smacks of some serious paranoia. Everything that Obama or Congress has done is "rammed down people's throats." My dear Sigmund would have a field day with this one but what I'm wondering, rld, is why the anger and hostility? I thought your side was unemotional and not the angry sycophants the media makes you out to be?
"Nobody's talking about roads, honey."
Then what are you talking about? The Constitution doesn't say anything about having an FDA but we do anyway. We regulate sewer systems, natural gas, and water systems. Government programs helped to create Duct Tape, Velcro, and the internet. I think what you are talking about is things you simply don't like.
The anger and paranoia isn't coming from folks like rld here Dr. Smith.
In this discussion, I learned that "(corporate) Profits have surged 62 percent from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department. That is faster than any other year and a half in the Fabulous ’50s, the Go-Go ’60s or the booms under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton."
...but blk also said...
"(republicans) concentrate solely on increasing the power of their corporate masters."
Was Obama really responsible for this increase in corporate profits? If so, how did he acheive this feat?
there sure are a lot of bigots in this country now aren't there kennedydem?
--The mandate is going to be shoved down your throat--
--The anger and paranoia isn't coming from folks like rld--
What color is the sky in your world, last in line?
Thanks for dropping in to drop some more one liners. Can't you tell us how Obama is responsible for this massive increase in corporate profits?
Rld asked a good question...why don't you tell us how many seats have to be won, on a national and local level, for an election to be considered a "landslide".
I don't see any paranoia there in rld's statement. Anger? Sure. I don't know what rld is thinking...unlike you all who can place yourselves inside the heads of everyone who didn't vote the way you did.
...and you making that claim in the same discussion where kennedydem called the folks who disagreed with him Bigots is quite amusing. The race card is indeed maxed out.
BLK,
And are you serious about unions and George Soros? Union membership is way down, and George Soros is just one guy. Any one major oil company has far more money and clout than Soros and all the unions in the world put together.
These companies have budgets bigger than most countries. How can you seriously not see that?
How about some facts to get in the way of your anti-business, anti-free speech invective?
Three of the top five spenders this election cycle were public employees unions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
No, Juris, I make no assumption about your religious affiliation other than your position on the Constitution is similar to the fanaticism that is associated with radical Muslims and Christians alike. I could give flying fuck what form of religion you practice. The simple truth is that there is no standard of stupidity low enough to accomodate the notion that the society that created the Constitution or the Bible is still in existence today. Your idiotic conclusion that the Constitution should be adhered to regardless of its applicability is just one more example of narrow mindedness that will eventually destroy this country and it is not representative of what the men of the Age of Enlightenment thought as they were creating the document and this country. But of course to understand that, you would have to relenquish the idea that you know everything and that every arguement is about winning and not about learned discourse. I don't suspect that will be the case for you.
Post a Comment