Can someone please inform the...oh...I don't know....ENTIRE COUNTRY....that the Democrats held onto the Senate? Apparently our "liberal" media seem to be under the impression that Mitch McConnell is the new majority leader in the Senate. They are covering all of his latest statements as if he was releasing some news about Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith.
Actually, someone should tell him that Harry Reid is still the boss over there (by the exact 53-47 margin that predicted b to the w) and the House can try to pass all the bills it wants but they have to go through the Senate as well. While we are on the topic of Reid, if the voters sent the message that they were rejecting Obama and the Democrats, why did he win? And by such a large margin in a state that is purple to red? Why are the Democrats still running the Senate? I'll the GOP props for the shellacking in the House but they hardly won a mandate given the results in the Senate.
13 comments:
Mark,
You've been saying that the Reps have been the party of 'no'. If you want to read some voter intent out of an election that leaves congress split - consider this election as a mandate of 'no'.
And while you (and everyone else) have been trying to minimize tea party gains, if you compare this years elections with previous 'third party' showings it would be easy to see that the tea party has shown to be much more like the nascent republican party in 1854 than the bull moose party of 1912.
They are covering all of his latest statements as if he was releasing some news about Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith.
LOL - doesn't that truly put it in perspective?
Charlie Schumer must be the most depressed man in America.
As to why did Reid win - do you even need to ask? The Repubs ran probably the weakest candidate they had in NV. Why aren't you simply rejoicing over Republican stupidity? If the Tea Party had caused any more party disunity you would have had to think it was Rove working for the Dems, right?
I don't get it either of you. One of you says the Tea Party is strong and growing and the other says it's causing disunity. Which is it?
I'm very anxious to see what independents say when the Tea Party starts to govern. Something tells me it's going to be a lot like when the hippies in the 60s tried to create their utopia--a fantasy that sounded nice on paper but ultimately proved to be ridiculous.
Uh jeff,
Look at what happened to the whig party in 1852-4.
Well, let's see, a political third party (albeit with more in common with R vs D) is growing. That would cause disunity in those 'established parties', as adherents from either side move to the third party. Seems like a pretty logical causation to me Jeff... what don't you get?
Mark, would somebody tell Jeff and oh...I don't know... THE ENTIRE COUNTRY... that the tea party is not going to be governing. The Presidency and the Senate are still controlled by Democrats.
Hippie Utopia, Socialism, Keynesian economics... they all look good on paper. Thank goodness for empirical data showing them all to be ridiculous.
Oh, and Senator Reid got the endorsement of the NRA. Perhaps that's one reason why he's still there.
Would that be the same empirical data that shows how wonderful deregulation has worked out in the last several decades?
There's not much difference between the hippie utopia and the Randian libertarian fantasy. Socialism may not work on a grand scale but it sure does within that long list of things Mark put up in a pledge recently. Would you take that pledge? Or admit that you will refuse to?
I don't get it either of you.
Ah, poor Jeff - doesn't understand that the other side is only a creation of his side. I am beholden to no party, and I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em. I can give a real fine rant on how execrable the Republican Party of California is if you want. But don't ever mistake that for any kind of love for the scumbags known as the Democratic Party of California.
I'm very anxious to see what independents say when the Tea Party starts to govern.
Please be sure and tell me when the Tea Party is on the ballot and gets elected. [hehehehe]
Would that be the same empirical data that shows how wonderful deregulation has worked out in the last several decades?
Y'know, we tried to have that discussion a couple of posts back. But someone claimed airline deregulation was a failure because he didn't like the service he was buying (coach). Trucking is another deregulation case study - if you actually want to learn something that is.
Let's take an example of a truly unregulated market - consumer electronics. Please tell us all how we have less choice and pay more because of the failure to adequately regulate that market.
Would you take that pledge?
Read the comments on that pledge, I already showed why it was ridiculous to the point of being asinine.
However:
Fire Services - Same kinda deal as those folks in Tennessee. I'll keep the gig I have, thanks.
US Postal Service - Haven't used it in... something like 10 years, probably longer. And won't use it at all if I have any other choices.
The US Railway System - Never used it, never intend to.
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children - ...about half of which is blatant propaganda, which you'd know if you knew any medical professionals. Pass, thanks.
As for the rest of it, show me how it wouldn't exist had the government not paid for it. No one has even attempted that, you all just blandly assume that since the government spent the money, if the government hadn't done it nobody would have, ever. That's kind of like saying if someone lives in a place with no fire department and their house catches fire, you assume that they'll stand there saying "Duh", rather than grabbing a hose.
While you're at it, why not claim that if Ben Franklin hadn't been involved in the 1st Continental Congress we wouldn't have electricity? That's no more ridiculous than your silly pledge.
Cmon Jeff. Two paragraphs... disunity that you don't understand, and salivation over the non-existent 'governing' tea party.
The reply explained a theory regarding the disunity angle, and a refutation of your 'governing' mantra.
Your response decries deregulation and bandies around some sort of 'pledge' that I am supposed to recognize.
Let's stick to a few topics at a time please, and try to make the debate linear. Did the disunity explanation make any sense to you? Do you now understand that the tea party/Republicans are not in charge?
For the record - As noted above, I have one of those "pay as you go" deals for fire department where I live, like Obion county, TN. However, it's a large, sparsely populated county, and of course you can't know in advance whether they'll be answering a call 40 miles away.
As it happens, when a transformer blew up on the street across from my house a few weeks back, the fire department was there in about 10 minutes. Speed was important as we've been under a burn ban/semi-drought for quite some time, and thus when the transformer blew it started a brush fire under the pole immediately.
It turns out, their presence was basically formality and inspection to make sure we hadn't missed anything. You see, by the time they'd gotten there, me, my next door neighbor and his wife, the neighbor across the street, and just some random guy who had been driving down the road, had it out and drowned.
Your "pledge" assumes that if my county had no fire department, such a response wouldn't have happened. I'm not sure the English language has the concepts to properly express how idiotic that assumption is.
So when you refer to yourselves as the "reality" based community... don't forget the quotes. In the reality the rest of us live in, we don't stand and watch a brush fire spreading in front of our homes and decide that it's not our problem.
Let's take an example of a truly unregulated market - consumer electronics. Please tell us all how we have less choice and pay more because of the failure to adequately regulate that market.
Three new comments since, and two new posts on the blog. And no one cares to discuss this?
[sniff]
Must be too busy watching Dancing with the Stars.
They never have liked answering questions - they may have to get specific and they don't like that. I was recently wondering on here what a "landslide election" consisted of and they couldn't tell me.
Well, 2 or 3 more posts and this will just slip right on down the memory hole.
Then they can whine some more about deregulation like it was some new idea.
Post a Comment