That's a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.
The only pleasure I got last night was one point in Obamas acceptance speech. He
said he would reach across the aisle. Hah Hah and Hah!
I don't entirely disagree with the substance of this editorial, but I
believe there is more to this election than simply a return to the status quo.
No President since FDR has managed to earn re-election with so many people out
of work. Even in the face of a sputtering economy and creative
"redistricting," Democrats have managed to increase their majority in
the Senate and even picked up a few House seats. This should give the Republican
Party pause. This should have been a big night for them.I constantly
hear that Republicans want to "retake their country." They might want to
start by retaking their own Party. Much of the political activism of the last
two years has been aimed at removing any sign of moderation or compromise from
the Republican ranks. The adverse consequences are only beginning to appear.
This proved self-defeating last night. George W. Bush got 44% of the Latino vote
in 2004. Last night Romney only got 27%. Bush also got over 40% of the Organized
Labor vote. Last night it was the Unions that got out the vote for Obama in Ohio
and elsewhere. Its time to rethink the Republican brand.
Re: "Status quo: A divided House of Representatives, Senate, and White
House"Probably the best we could have hoped for -- government
should stay deadlocked for at least the next 2 years, and a government that does
nothing is infinitely better than one given a free hand to "fix"
I welcome the divided control of Congress. Historically this has been good for
the US because when congress spends its time fighting and stuck in gridlock,
businesses can prosper because the number of new regulations and taxes is
The Republican party, my Republican party, has no one to blame but itself. It
has allowed the party extremists to move the party away from the middle,
particularly on such issues as immigration (could have used that Hispanic vote),
oil and gas exploration, healthcare reform, and budget/deficit reduction. This election shows that the American people tend to be more moderate,
and the Republican party is moving in the opposite direction. I think Romney
was much more moderate than he portrayed on the campaign trail, but to win the
nomination he had to pander to the deeply conservative. He won the battle, but
lost the war. The Republican party, if it wants success, needs to have a
strategy to win the war and not just battles.
Simply put, Republicans need to become even more like Democrats to win. We have
a two-party system in theory, but not in practice. It's getting more and
more difficult to find any significant differences between them.
More of the same political gridlock and economic malaise, here we come!
To procuradorfiscal:It seemed to me that you were hoping for quite a
lot more when you criticized Nate Silver's predictions before the election.
You said that he cherry-picked the polls, omitting or de-weighting the most
accurate polls (such as Rasmussen, in your view). It seems that his more
scientific approach to aggregating the polling data has been proven correct.If the gerrymandering that was accomplished following the Republican
gains of 2010 had not occurred, the House would belong to the Democrats, too.
Let us hope that the party of "NO!" will find a way to compromise now
that the writing is on the wall for the future of their ideas.
I realize the far right posters on these threads are really stinging from last
nights loss but after you lick your wounds try reading RBN's comment there
is a lot of common sense there, something that has been missing from the
republican platform for to long. You do not have to become democrats we have
enough of those but we do need the GOP to drop the rhetoric and return to common
@Tolstoy: if you're talking about me (and you seem to be when you refer to
becoming like Democrats), I'm not stinging at all. I'm a non-voter. I
honestly can't see any significant difference between the two major
parties. So I watched the election with some lack of passion because it
doesn't matter who wins or loses. What matters is that the American people
are the losers. And either party is dealing a losing hand these days in that
The politics may look like status quo, but looking spending cuts and expiring
taxes will force them to act.President Obama tried to negotiate a
deal with John Boehner to increase tax revenue by $800 billion. The deal was
described as "a remarkably, even stupidly generous offer", but Boehner
turned it down.In January, the expiring Bush tax cuts and automatic
spending cuts mean that President Obama will have 5 TRILLION in higher revenue
without doing anything. Both sides agree that amount will be bad for the
economy. They'll settle on something between the deal Boehner snubbed (800
billion) and the fiscal cliff (5 trillion).
Some on this forum have stated that the Republicans need to rethink their
stance.I believe that we are simply becoming a minority. We are
being out numbered.The Biggest US Welfare States*#1 -
California#2 - Maine#3 - Tennessee#4 - Massachusetts#5 -
Vermont#6 -District of Columbia#7 - New York#8 - Minnesota#9 - Washington#10 - New MexicoIn fact the top fifteen
welfare states are, with two exceptions, Democrat.*From CNBC Website
States with the highest poverty rates Lots of red on this list.1 Mississippi2 New Mexico3 DC4 Alabama5
Kentucky6 Arkansas7 Louisiana 8 South Carolina9 West
@SEYSo then you choose to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at those
that are trying to make a difference? good to know.
Here's a question: what would a real two-party system look like?
Republicans are looking basically like Democrats-lite. Both parties are
converging upon the "magic middle-ground" for votes. That's why I
say the differences are almost indistinguishable. To me, it appears
that the fatal element in the Republican party is their dependence upon the
evangelical wing. What seems to be missing from the political discussion in both
major parties is a non-interventionist perspective. Both parties have shown they
are eager to intervene in the lives of other nations as well as into the lives
of their own constituents. Let the Repubs and Demos be responsible for the
despicable NDAA and its "kill orders" of even Americans without due
process. I want no part of that. Let them be the ones behind the erosion of
civil liberties with their health laws and obeisance to Big Pharma. Let them
answer for the destruction of the dollar and the widening gap between rich and
poor via their redistributive channels that enrich their cronies.Until these issues and others are addressed, there is little if any point to
becoming involved with either major party.
States that take the most from the Federal government1.North
Dakota2.West Virginia 3 Alabama 4 Kentucky 5 New Mexico,
6 Hawaii, 7 Maryland, 8 Virginia, 9 Alaska10
TexasStates that have the most people NOT paying federal income
taxes not in order but Utah has 39% of people NOT paying federal income
taxes.Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, FloridaIt like a Freeloader
belt right down from Idaho all the way through the Republican south.
SEY,Though we sometimes disagree, I have had some great
conversations with you and have I appreciated your depth of thought and
analysis.That is why I am shocked that you do not vote. I am sorry,
but I find your excuse to be just that - an excuse. Some liberals make the same
charges against the Democrats (that they are indistinguishable from
Republicans). If find that just as problematic.If you cannot find
anyone in the major parties to support, what about smaller parties? Could you
not work to put them on the ballot?Also, what about folks down the
ticket (the Senate and House) surely there are some there who merit your
consideration.I subscribe to the old maxim. "You can't
complain if you don't vote".Hope to see you around.
SEY: You've said it all and I thank you for it, as it is not rocks you are
throwing but wisdom and clear-sightedness. I doubt the issues you mention will
be addressed by Democrats or Republicans any time soon, if ever, as those who
hold the real power in this corporatocracy depend on the status quo and devil
take the hindmost. Those who dare to take on these issues, such as Ron Paul, are
quickly drummed out of the running and painted as nutcases or extremists. So I'm with you, SEY--forget either party unless they address the
real problems in this country and do more than talk about the solutions.
Re: "Let us hope that the party of "NO!" will find a way to
compromise now that the writing is on the wall for the future of their
ideas."Americans proved yesterday that's just the opposite
of what we want.As much as liberals try to pontificate, obfuscate,
and demagogue the issue, the ONE clear thing coming out of yesterday's
election is, America prefers gridlock to a compromise of our principles.We know government is the problem, not the solution. A deadlocked
government is not exactly what many of us hoped for, but it's the next best
thing -- infinitely preferable to one that would steer the ship of state on a
deranged, immoral, accelerating heading off the port beam.
@SEYI do not understand that logic that if you do not like something stand
on the sidelines and pass judgement. A very famous civil rights leader once said
"if you see a good fight get in it," what you are choosing to do is
stand on the sidelines and let things you consider to be wrong to continue. If
you stand on the sidelines and watch how are you any different then those doing
the thing you consider so harmful? If neither of the major parties fits your
sense of right or wrong look for a third party that does or start your own
party, write in a candidate that fits your views but don't stand on the
sidelines and watch or you are no better then those you sling the mud at.
@Twin Lights: I appreciate the kind words, first of all. But here's how I
look at it these days: little if anything comes of voting. Like one person said,
"If voting made a difference, they'd make it illegal." I believe
that to make a real difference, you have to use persuasion and action.
Persuasion should not come from the ballot box or from the barrel of a gun
(which is what voting enables). Any real change will take place outside of
political parties and outside of the voting booth. I can't help but feel
that voting is something granted to us to give us the illusion that we (the
people) have some control over what government does. We don't, at least not
through the election process. In the big scheme of things, politicians and power
elites are not afraid of what happens when we vote. They're more afraid of
what happens outside of the voting process. That's where I want to be.
This is all part of Mitch McDonnell's plan. They hard balled themselves
into a real tight corner. From probable majority to isolated obstructionist
I think what SEY and CLM would really like is to see the current partisan
landscape devolve into an "Austrian School Party" vs "Keynesian
Party" political environment.Honestly though, I'm surprised
that SEY doesn't just vote for Libertarians (or write in Ron Paul) instead
of being a passive spectator. To each their own, I guess . . .@one
voteI totally agree with your post (though I think you meant McConnell
instead of McDonnell). I would also spread a significant share of that blame to
The Senate minority leader and House majority leader anticipate a continued
effort to derail any legislation the Obama administration might pursue in a
second term. This is nothing new. Republicans are sore that they lost and will
do what they can to show how angry they are. Cooperation has already been taken
off the table. They want to show the American people that they do not respect
the choice of the American people and will essentially shut the government down
in protest. Nothing will come forward. Nothing will get through.After making their primary political objective to restrict Barack Obama to a
single term, they will continue with Rush Limbaugh's edict to make him a
"failed" president. It's not certain how many hundreds of millions
of dollars they'll spend generating anti-Obama propaganda, but the needs of
the American people are not high on the priority list.Hopefully,
moderate voices in the Republican Party will emerge and the Tea Party extremists
will be sidelined. Otherwise, Republicans will continue to do harm by doing
nothing. The question always was, who do Republicans legislators serve, the
Party or the American people?
SEYElected leaders (hence voting) is described as the ideal in the
Book of Mormon unless you can ensure yourself of truly great kings. Also, if
the Constitution is inspired (not perfect, but inspired) then the voting process
is something we can believe in.I would have no problem with change
coming from outside the parties – they are not part of the constitution.
But what constitutional change can come from outside of the voting booth?If political change is not via the vote, where does it come from and
what is its authority? How can political change come from any source other than
voting and still be constitutional? Are you talking about folks taking matters
into their own hands? If so, that is clearly not constitutional.Obviously encouraging personal change (teaching folks what is good) is fine
but that is not direct political change. Procuradorfiscal,Government is the problem? Then is NO govt. the solution? I think you might
want to rethink that concept.CLM,A quick search shows
you seem to always agree strongly with SEY and are usually complimentary of
him/her. Are you the same person or related persons?
Re: "Then is NO govt. the solution?"No, but, as we all know,
LESS government certainly is.No re-thinking is necessary at this
point -- it has been proven over and over and over again.Even
liberals know it, down deep. But it gets in the way of their deranged,
vote-buying Santa Claus act, so they disingenuously dismiss the idea.
Twin Lights: A clever conclusion to some tricky detective work! I'm humored
by your focus. Had I regularly disagreed with SEY as you do, you'd simply
chalk it up to right thinking. Yet you seem to find enthusiastic agreement with
SEY so inconceivable that doing so would make me a relative or even SEY
himself/herself. This conclusion speaks volumes. Sorry to disprove your theory,
but as far as I know, I am neither related to SEY nor am I his/her alter ego.SG in SLC: For at least the last five decades, the partisan landscape
has been "Keynesian Party" vs "Keynesian Party" and therefore
ultimately have little difference between them. Considering the state of the
economy after such Keynesian tactics as QE "infinity", we continue to
head toward collapse. The one candidate to offer a more sound approach, Dr. Ron
Paul, was unfortunately not in the final race. However, I'm grateful Dr.
Paul continues to bring his ideas, including Austrian School economics, to the
public. He continues to have a large following who champion his policies and
encourage the Austrian vs Keynesian debate.
CLM,It is not that you agree but the enthusiasm of your agreement
that spurred my question.I hardly think that disagreement with SEY
is evidence of right thinking. I do not always agree but I would not engage
him/her so often if I thought him/her to be an idiot.It was
specifically because I do respect SEY that I was so shocked at his/her lack of
voting. It seemed (to me) out of character with his/her otherwise engaged
re:Y Ask YAgreed!!