Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSo the tide turned Tuesday on Democrats, liberals, Obama, the left. Republicans are "energized," The New York Times reports today, their elation marred only by the prospect of an inter-party feud that could cost them winnable races in 2010.
So the conventional wisdom asserts. Intelligent conservatives know better. One of them is Andrew Pavelyev, who, over at David Frum's blog, parsed the results of Tuesday's election in a strangely overlooked state: North Carolina.
As everyone knows, Barack Obama narrowly won North Carolina a year ago. As most people agree, Republicans must win it back to defeat him in 2012. So what happened on Tuesday? As Pevelyev observed, Republican Bill Knight won the mayoral race in Greensboro, defeating the incumbent Democrat. "Unfortunately," he went on to note, "Greensboro will now be the only North Carolina city with a population over 100,000 that has a Republican mayor. After an unbroken 22yearstring of Republican mayors, Charlotte yesterday elected a Democrat, Anthony Foxx. The Democrats also won 8 out of 11 seats on the city council."
Democrats may indeed fare badly in 2010, but, if so, it will surely not be because most Americans in North Carolina and beyond suddenly experienced a change of heart about the party that brought them George W. Bush (and that may yet bring them Sarah Palin). Two weeks ago, a CNN poll showed that the GOP has fallen to its lowest approval rating in a decade. Just 36 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Republican Party, compared to 54 percent with an unfavorable view.
The numbers are basically the reverse for Democrats, whose main problem is mustering the will to deliver something tangible (jobs, affordable health-care) to the voters who elected them a year ago. If they don't, they will surely lose some races in 2010, and perhaps two years later as well. And they will have themselves to blame for this.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
what's changed since election day 2008? that's the more important question.
...the answer, by the way, is "virtually nothing"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:47pm
The world and the US is one day closer to Judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:50pm
Well, we're out of Iraq... No, wait. Um, we're out of Afghanistan, doh! wait...
Unemployment numbers are going down? No? The dollar is stronger! Oh...
Um, oh, we still have HOPE!!!
Right?
Posted by freiheit1 at 11/05/2009 @ 2:59pm
The world and the US is one day closer to Judgment.-----Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:50pm
Okay now...is that the REAL Larry...or that dang poser?
heheh
BTW, what changed in Congress?
In the "pro-Republican backlash"...
Dems picke up a new seat! (NY-23)
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:03pm
The world and the US is one day closer to Judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--are we in the "end days" right now? yes, I am "scoffing" at your non-answer.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 4:21pm
Dems picke up a new seat! (NY-23)
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 3:03pm
I approve loaning the Dems another vote for a year!
The Governors don't have a vote on more deficits, Bill Owens will!
Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 4:21pm
PRESS: ".....for Democrats, whose main problem is mustering the will to deliver something tangible (jobs, affordable health-care) to the voters who elected them a year ago. If they don't, they will surely lose some races in 2010, and perhaps two years later as well. And they will have themselves to blame for this."
Since the Dems have delivered millions of NEGATIVE jobs and no HC this year, doesn't it follow that perhaps, in at least two state, a deep blue and a (recent) blue, folks are in fact "experienced a change of heart about the party that brought them George W. Bush" in spite of the reported dissatisfaction w/the GOP?
BTW, I would answer the same....dissatisfied with the GOP....see NY-23 for the latest dissatisfaction! Does that remotely mean I would vote Dem?
Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 5:08pm
Anyone that thinks any President can change things in a year is an idiot! Lets see any of you try to do it. God help us all.
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/05/2009 @ 5:12pm
Anyone that thinks any President can change things in a year is an idiot! Lets see any of you try to do it. God help us all.
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/05/2009 @ 5:12pm
Good point.
When a presidential candidate campaign's on hope and change, people should look elsewhere. Hope and change are intangibles. People who hang their own fortunes on intangibles deserve what they get. Facts, data and action are what counts. Not hype and indecision.
Barack Obama is a nice guy and a good family man but he simply is not Presidential material. His election was an anomaly and in hindsight a disaster for the country. History will be kind on him for breaking the color barrier but it will not be so kind when the results of his foreign and domestic policy are in. John McCain would have been the better choice at this time.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/05/2009 @ 5:25pm
>>>what's changed since election day 2008? that's the more important question.
...the answer, by the way, is "virtually nothing"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:47pm<<<
That is the REPUBLICAN narrative to progressives, URMYGYRO.
The REALITY of what has changed in 2009 is this:
1. Healthcare reform, including children. 2. National electric grid. 3. Funding electric car development. 4. Green jobs development. 5. Allowing medical marijuana. 6. Restoring Community Block Grants to fight poverty. 7. International consensus before action. 8. Extending hate crime protection for minorities. 9. Ending missile defense in Eastern Europe. 10. Scrapping F-22 funding. 11. Repeal global gag rule on abortion. 12. Appointed first Latina on Supreme Court
You can continue your phony "Obama is not really a progressive" rant if you want to, but REAL progressives know better.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 5:58pm
>>>what's changed since election day 2008? that's the more important question.
...the answer, by the way, is "virtually nothing"
Posted by urmygyro at 11/05/2009 @ 2:47pm<<<
That is the REPUBLICAN narrative to progressives, URMYGYRO.
The REALITY of what has changed in 2009 is this:
1. Healthcare reform, including children.
2. National electric grid.
3. Funding electric car development.
4. Green jobs development.
5. Allowing medical marijuana.
6. Restoring Community Block Grants to fight poverty.
7. International consensus before action.
8. Extending hate crime protection for minorities.
9. Ending missile defense in Eastern Europe.
10. Scrapping F-22 funding.
11. Repeal global gag rule on abortion.
12. Appointed first Latina on Supreme Court
You can continue your phony "Obama is not really a progressive" rant if you want to, but REAL progressives know better.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 6:01pm
....REAL progressives know better.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 5:58pm
There must be a name-brand blog site where these "know better" Progs are patting Magic on the back, huh? Pray tell!
The Nation is of course, not it!
Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 6:05pm
Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 6:05pm
REAL conservative know better as well, that is why they are scared to death of Obama and his policies.
They know if his policies succeed, it will be just like Ronald Reagan in reverse - 30 years of PROGRESSIVE rule!
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 6:11pm
They know if his policies succeed, it will be just like Ronald Reagan in reverse - 30 years of PROGRESSIVE rule!
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 6:11pm
Time to wake up!
There is no fucking way his policies can succeed! Show me any country that has succeed by printing money, add costs to its own productions and slamming the wealth-producing class.
The average GDP increase in the first quarter of a recovery is in excess of 7%. Reagan's was over 10%! Even w/Cash-for-Clunkers & First Time Homebuyer Credit (big deficit spending), Magic's tally was 3.5%!
I feel damn sorry for the children, present and those not yet born, of the middle class!
Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 6:31pm
>>>Magic's tally was 3.5%!
Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 6:31pm<<<
STAY TUNED!
The recovery is in its infancy, and since W screwed up the economy so bad with his oil, defense, and Wall Street pals, recovery will take a little longer than usual.
In the 2012 election, the economy will be a NON-issue.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 6:46pm
Well Droop you and the rest of the happy investor class should feel good about investing in foreign companies. We don't make anything here in the good old U.S.A. anymore but go get your dividend checks and tell us how good you are doing.That is part of the big disconnect that is going on in this country.There was a manufacturing base during Reagan's years. There isn't any more.Tell me something,how can we as a nation hold our collective heads up when we import drywall to build our homes from China. That is called a lack of national priorities. Oh by the way it had some defective batches that made it here. But today we had people demonstrating against health care in Washington. It was organized by thew Minnesota embarasment,Michelle Bachmann. I saw some signs that had references to Mao.Maybe we should refer to our pillars of the transnational corporate community as Maoists. It would be true wouldn't it.Cmon, Droopy give your pals on Wall Street a round of applause when you lament the costs to the middle class.I at least call a spade a spade. You don't have the guts to, why don't you go paint a hallway it sounds like you are qualified.
Posted by whatozz at 11/05/2009 @ 6:53pm
Metteyya,
You proclaim by 2012 the economy will be a non-issue.
Many predict that by 2012 inflation will be rearing it's ugly head big time, due to the ramifications of the Obama economic policy now, and that (the inflation) will trigger a whole new recession.
The economy will be big issue, you betcha!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/05/2009 @ 7:28pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/05/2009 @ 7:28pm
Wage stagnation and global labor markets will check inflation in US, as it has for the last 10 years.
You are living in the 70s, my friend!
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 7:34pm
Metteyya,
You say: ".....You are living in the 70s, my friend!....."
1. OK, I do admit to liking Disco music.
2. Many predict inflation is coming.....time will tell whether they are right or you are right. Then we will know.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/05/2009 @ 7:43pm
Where were the young voters that energized 2008 election? No where to be found,they feel left out and played by Obama and his "management" team. Better actually do what you campaigned on Mr. President or you are a one term guy.That is the talk of my 25 year old son and his friends.They worked on the campaign,gave money,and their reward is high unemployment and no change from the "change" candidate.If the President wants to throw away his mandate over corporate courtship that is his perogative. I just think the largest out pouring of campaign volunteers and private small donations should be worth something.Apparently the corporate management team's strategic policy looks in a different direction.
Posted by whatozz at 11/05/2009 @ 8:08pm
Obama has repaired some of the broken fences that the Bush Administration has caused. It hasn't even been a year yet and already we Are coming out of the recession. All analysts will tell you that unempolyment is the last thing to turn around. I think its unrealistic for the American people to think that Obama can repair all the damage thats been done in the last 8+ years. Just becuase we were blinded by the smoke screen that the former Administrations put up doesn't mean that everthing was going great. It was a magic trick and guess what? the cards came tumbling down. It will take Obama ahell of alot more than 11 months to fix this mess. Thats the problem with most peole they want everything right now, thats another reason how our country has gotten into this mess. Immediate gratification gives you all the hype with an even bigger let down.
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/05/2009 @ 8:12pm
Well Doc ,my question to you is why then the continuation of the smoke screen? There has been a revitalization of Wall Street. Where has that led. To big bonuses for a group of people that led us to the edge of a financial disaster. I call that immediate gratification. What about the majority of the country. High unemployment, home foreclosures aplenty,and a jobless recovery ahead. That sounds like a big let down without the hype. I can see,read, and hear. I don't especially like any of what I'm seeing. What would I or Dr. Piggy feel like if we were unemployed?
Posted by whatozz at 11/05/2009 @ 9:30pm
Wasn't it Bush who started the Bail out for banks and AIG, all these things you mention whatozz were already in place when Obama took office. Do you really want Big Government stepping in and running the banks? I didn't say that the problems were solved, I said its unreasonable for us to think that they are going to get solved in a year. What I said was that we are heading in the right direction. If its perfection your looking for,your on the wrong planet. It took us years to get here and it WILL take years to get out. As far as being unemployed,how do you know I'm not?
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/05/2009 @ 10:00pm
Save money by not foreclosing and we all become landlords......yipee.....where do these dumb fucks come from?
Nov 5, 7:33 PM EST
Fannie Mae seeks $15 bln in US aid after 3Q loss
By ALAN ZIBEL
AP Real Estate Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fannie Mae is asking for an additional $15 billion in government aid after posting another big loss...
The government-controlled company continued to see a dramatic surge of borrowers fall behind as the unemployment rate climbs...
Seized by federal regulators...Fannie Mae's request Thursday will bring the tab for rescuing both companies to about $111 billion....Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion. That's about half of all mortgages.
The two companies lowered their standards for borrowers during the real estate boom and are reeling from the consequences....
Fannie Mae announced Thursday it would give some borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option of renting their homes for a year.
The new "Deed for Lease" program will allow homeowners to transfer title to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease, with potential month-to-month extensions after that. It also helps save money because the lender does not need to complete the often lengthy and time-consuming foreclosure process.....
Critics, however, say the company is simply gambling that the properties will eventually sell for a higher price.
"Taxpayers are now going to own all these houses that (Fannie Mae) should have unloaded," said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital in Darien, Conn. "It's going to cost a fortune."
Posted by Happy at 11/05/2009 @ 10:14pm
Anyone that thinks any President can change things in a year is an idiot! Lets see any of you try to do it. God help us all.
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/05/2009 @ 5:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You mean kinda like the IDIOTS that blame Bush for 9-11or the Demoncrat gov., mayor, and state congress of Lousiana who did nothing to respond to the catastrophe in their own state other than blame FEMA and Bush? Yea, they still post here.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/05/2009 @ 10:22pm
Many who voted for Obama undoubtedly believed that an African-American president, by virtue of his ethnic background, would be more sympathetic to the needs of working and poor people, and that the victory of the candidate of "change" would signal a break from decades of political reaction and the initiation of progressive policies.
One year later, these illusions are turning to anger, frustration and a sense of having been sold a bill of goods. Millions of workers are making a fundamental experience not only with the Obama administration, but with the entire political and economic system. What is emerging in response to the administration's servility to Wall Street and indifference to the social crisis facing the working class, as well as its continuation of a foreign policy based on imperialist war, is a dawning recognition that the entire political system serves the class interests of a financial oligarchy.
The 2008 election reflected a movement of the working population to the left. Obama, however, was not the standard-bearer of this movement. Rather, he was the instrument of the most powerful sections of the ruling elite. They threw their support to Obama in order to make certain tactical changes in foreign policy and improve the international image of the United States after the debacle of the Bush years, and to derail growing domestic opposition to the program of big business.
Posted by Doric at 11/06/2009 @ 05:50am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/05/2009 @ 7:28pm
Hey, SJ....who was that female ex-governor that came out to campaign for Doug Hoffman in the NY 23rd?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 07:19am
You mean kinda like the IDIOTS that blame Bush for 9-11or the Demoncrat gov., mayor, and state congress of Lousiana who did nothing to respond to the catastrophe in their own state other than blame FEMA and Bush? Yea, they still post here.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/05/2009 @ 10:22pm
I agree with you on this one. Bush was not responsible for 9-11, the Clinton Administration dropped the Ball. He was to busy getting a blow job to give a shit about our country. I also don't think it was Bush's sole responsibility to Help after Katrina hit. Yes the federal government needs to step in during catastrophe's but everyone that moved into my area from New Orleans's actually did blame their own governor. It was the media and a select few that used a tragedy as a means to push there own agenda
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/06/2009 @ 07:36am
Um, oh, we still have HOPE!!! Right? Posted by freiheit1
That reminds me of the time when Bob Hope was in the hospital. I heard that Jesse Jackson was outside the hospital protesting! I mean he was actually protesting outside the hospital!!! He was there yelling "Keep Hope Alive!!!
Posted by abell12ct at 11/06/2009 @ 07:36am
What's changed? Looks like Pelosi went into "OMG!" panic mode and moved the vote on the healthcare bill up. So much so that she's backing off her pledge to post the final bill for public review 72 hours in advance.
Sorry, but that is not the action of a woman who is comfortable and confident about what happened on Tuesday. That's somebody who knows that time is not on her side. Somebody who's read the internal polling data and knows the jig is about up.
Dems picked up NY-23. So what. That's what you are supposed to do when you are facing two contentious opponents who split the opposition vote between them. Owens was arguably more conservative than Scozzafava anyway. That race was NOT a ringing endorsement for progressivism.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 07:48am
What's changed? Looks like Pelosi went into "OMG!" panic mode and moved the vote on the healthcare bill up. So much so that she's backing off her pledge to post the final bill for public review 72 hours in advance.
Sorry, but that is not the action of a woman who is comfortable and confident about what happened on Tuesday. That's somebody who knows that time is not on her side. Somebody who's read the internal polling data and knows the jig is about up.
Dems picked up NY-23. So what. That's what you are supposed to do when you are facing two contentious opponents who split the opposition vote between them. Owens was arguably more conservative than Scozzafava anyway. That race was NOT a ringing endorsement for progressivism.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 07:48am
Pelosi is one horrid individual who has no problem lying to the American people.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/06/2009 @ 08:30am
Unemployment numbers are out-10.2%. $787 billion stimulus and this is what we get. How's that hope and change working out now????
Posted by fram at 11/06/2009 @ 08:34am
Unemployment numbers are out-10.2%. $787 billion stimulus and this is what we get. How's that hope and change working out now????
Posted by fram at 11/06/2009 @ 08:34am
And a good morning today to all of our Lib friends who are, of course, enjoying all that "stimulus", compliment of their Messiah.....I tell ya, it's Magic!
Hey, anyone remember what I love to say: Time is the Conservatives' friend?
Oh, have I said "I told you so!"...if not, consider it done!
Posted by Happy at 11/06/2009 @ 08:49am
Maybe what he meant to say is: "If we pass this stimulus now, we might be able to bring unemployment back down under 9% NEXT YEAR."
Rather than telling us it would keep us under 9% this year.
Once again, we see the Keynesian wisdom of taking money out of the private sector through taxes that will have to be paid by people who haven't even been born yet in order to pay for "stimulating" jobs like highway underpasses for crawling endangered turtles and feasibility studies for a monorail linking Las Vegas to Anaheim.
Imagine what might have happened if Obama had announced he was going to leave $787 billion dollars IN THE ECONOMY to begin with rather than spend it on a bunch of "bridges to nowhere"?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 08:52am
Maybe what he meant to say is: "If we pass this stimulus now, we might be able to bring unemployment back down under 9% NEXT YEAR."
Rather than telling us it would keep us under 9% this year.
Once again, we see the Keynesian wisdom of taking money out of the private sector through taxes that will have to be paid by people who haven't even been born yet in order to pay for "stimulating" jobs like highway underpasses for crawling endangered turtles and feasibility studies for a monorail linking Las Vegas to Anaheim.
Imagine what might have happened if Obama had announced he was going to leave $787 billion dollars IN THE ECONOMY to begin with rather than spend it on a bunch of "bridges to nowhere"?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 08:52am
So, my right-wing friends, given your statements...
Care to make a prediction on President Obama's re-election chances in 2012? A DETAILED one?
Or still not that confident?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 09:23am
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 07:19am |
And who will she and her well-heeled backers submarine next?
Can you say, "political kryptonite"?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/06/2009 @ 09:51am
Mask, I'm fairly confident we will pick up seats in both houses in 2010. We'll likely pick up most gubernatorial races too, if Virginia and New Jersey (especially) are any guide.
It goes without saying that we will likely pick up many more seats in state legislatures from the simple "coat tail" action of people voting in the larger races.
This is to be expected, historically. What I'm not going to do is boldly declare any of this a "paradigram shift", as Obama peole did after 2008. He overextended and continues to govern as if he has a clear mandate to shift America away from it's founding and towards European style welfare statism.
He and his enablers were wrong about that. Even with everything going in his favor in 2008, all he could manage was a 7 point win. The people didn't change and no, we don't want a new New Deal, and no, Obama is not the new FDR. He's just another 50% divider.
But you want my prediction. We pick up seats in 2010. Probably not enough to take back both houses. Maybe, but it's too early to tell. If 2010 is worse for Obama than that and it is clearly a rebuke of his policies (or inaction), then he'll be a lame duck for 2 years. He'll be the Jimmy Carter that makes another Reagan possible. Just as Bush was the Nixon that made Obama possible (like Carter).
Really, I think if current trends continue, we won't need a man or woman with Reagan's stature to beat him. America will be so sick of The Obama Show Overexposure Tour, that just about anybody with an "R" after their name can beat him.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 09:56am
Mask, I'm fairly confident we will pick up seats in both houses in 2010. We'll likely pick up most gubernatorial races too, if Virginia and New Jersey (especially) are any guide.
It goes without saying that we will likely pick up many more seats in state legislatures from the simple "coat tail" action of people voting in the larger races.
This is to be expected, historically. What I'm not going to do is boldly declare any of this a "paradigram shift", as Obama peole did after 2008. He overextended and continues to govern as if he has a clear mandate to shift America away from it's founding and towards European style welfare statism.
He and his enablers were wrong about that. Even with everything going in his favor in 2008, all he could manage was a 7 point win. The people didn't change and no, we don't want a new New Deal, and no, Obama is not the new FDR. He's just another 50% divider.
But you want my prediction. We pick up seats in 2010. Probably not enough to take back both houses. Maybe, but it's too early to tell. If 2010 is worse for Obama than that and it is clearly a rebuke of his policies (or inaction), then he'll be a lame duck for 2 years. He'll be the Jimmy Carter that makes another Reagan possible. Just as Bush was the Nixon that made Obama possible (like Carter).
Really, I think if current trends continue, we won't need a man or woman with Reagan's stature to beat him. America will be so sick of The Obama Show Overexposure Tour, that just about anybody with an "R" after their name can beat him.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 09:56am
Can you say, "political kryptonite"?---Posted by snowball777 at 11/06/2009 @ 09:51am
WE can....guys like SJ never will. In fact, I fully expect him to say "Hoffman wouldn't have done as well as he DID, despite losing...if not for Saint Sarah showing her support for him!"
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 12:32pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 09:56am
Citi....I'M fairly confident the Repubs will pick up seats in 2010. 20-25 would be the average, based on the historical precedence of Reagan-1982, Bush-1990, especially Clinton-1994. Dubya-2002 was the anomaly because of 9/11 and the Afghanistan war. (and smearing heroes like Max Cleland).
Of COURSE, the Repubs will pick up seats...but if they don't win the majority, then all the "Obama is a total failure" and "Dems a bunch of radicals completely out of touch with America".....rings a little hollow, yes?
Shouldn't the prediction, if we believe the hyperbole, be "Yes. John Boehner WILL be the next Speaker...and Repubs will sweep every Senate seat that's open"?
BTW, since you like history. What were Ronald Reagan's chances put at in 1982? Or Clinton's in 1994?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 12:36pm
There are other variables, sure. I may have downplayed the importance of who we run against Obama more than I intended. We run another RINO, that effects the dynamic somewhat.
Any predictions like this are not much more than a cigar room discussion.
Why would I predict that Boehner will be the next Speaker? And as long as we're talking about hyperbole, have you forgotten all of it that surrounded Obama's win? That America had finally rounded a political corner? That the GOP was going to be nothing more than a "regional party"? Books about "the death of conservatism"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Democrats held up Obama's win in Virginia as an example of that national political shift to the left.
According to the hyperbole of the Messiah's ascendency, nothing like what just happened was supposed to happen.
I'm inclined to be a little more conservative in my interpretation of what last Tuesday's results mean, but I do know that they bode ill for liberal Democrats. Again, Pelosi's sudden scramble to put healthcare up for a vote and abandon her pledge to post it for public viewing 72 hours in advance is NOT the action of a woman who saw what she saw on Tuesday and LIKED it.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 12:59pm
There are other variables, sure. I may have downplayed the importance of who we run against Obama more than I intended. We run another RINO, that effects the dynamic somewhat.
Any predictions like this are not much more than a cigar room discussion.
Why would I predict that Boehner will be the next Speaker? And as long as we're talking about hyperbole, have you forgotten all of it that surrounded Obama's win? That America had finally rounded a political corner? That the GOP was going to be nothing more than a "regional party"? Books about "the death of conservatism"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Democrats held up Obama's win in Virginia as an example of that national political shift to the left.
According to the hyperbole of the Messiah's ascendency, nothing like what just happened was supposed to happen.
I'm inclined to be a little more conservative in my interpretation of what last Tuesday's results mean, but I do know that they bode ill for liberal Democrats. Again, Pelosi's sudden scramble to put healthcare up for a vote and abandon her pledge to post it for public viewing 72 hours in advance is NOT the action of a woman who saw what she saw on Tuesday and LIKED it.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 12:59pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/06/2009 @ 12:59pm
1. If Obama loses Congressional seats by the historical precedence in 2010...and little more....that's not a "victory" for Republicans.
2. I don't believe that conservatism will EVER die....because it never really was alive to begin with.
What are the "conservative principles"?...
Smaller government? ...did it get smaller, even under Reagan?
Cutting or eliminating entitlements?....Dubya imploded trying to privatize Social Security and Repubs now promise to "protect Medicare from Obama's cuts".
Tax cuts?....sure. Everybody likes them. But again, Reagan had to re-raise taxes (gas and corporate). Gingrich never repealed Clinton's. And Dubya's resulted in deficits...til the end of his Presidency.
So they fail everytime they've been tried in the last 30 years. (Yes, yes..."No, it was SPENDING that OUTPACED the revenues!"...but it's a un-spun fact, tax cuts equaled deficts...Clinton's hike equaled balance and surplus)
So why declare conservatism dead...when very little of it has EVER been supported or tried?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 2:06pm
Mask,
In a fit of enlightenment up above, you declare:
"......WE can....guys like SJ never will. In fact, I fully expect him to say "Hoffman wouldn't have done as well as he DID, despite losing...if not for Saint Sarah showing her support for him!"......"
You are aware that:
1. Scozzafava was the designated Republican party candidate, with backing of the party mechanism.
2. Hoffman entered the race as a third party candidate, of the Conservative party. The Conservative party does have more prominence as a party, separate from the Republican party, in New York State than in some other states, but still has lesser influence that the GOP or the Dems.
3. As a third party candidate, Hoffman had drawn into a virtual tie in the polls with Owens, with Scozzafava a distant third. When have you ever seen a third party candidate overtake a party standard-bearer or designated candidate in a general election contest? How often does that happen?
4. I think it is quite possible that had Scozzafava not dropped out of the race, then Hoffman would have won. I think perhaps more of her votes went to Owens than to Hoffman. That may have been Scozzafava's intent - she did endorse Owens and she seems more ideologically aligned to his policies and many other Dem policies anyway, and when she realized she was not going to be the winner she may have felt she could influence the result in Owens' favor.
5. Remember, too, 5% of the vote still went to Scozzafava, her name was still on the ballot. Where would those votes have gone? Owens or Hoffman?
It does seem that some national concern towards this race, including involvement by next President Palin, did help Hoffman.
You will say you predicted my answer, it came from Rush, etc.
What other explanation would you give?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/06/2009 @ 5:56pm
Mask,
If what you proclaim is true:
"........So why declare conservatism dead...when very little of it has EVER been supported or tried?....."
Then it would seem the time is right to support it and try it in 2012!!
Sounds like a good idea to me, you betcha!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/06/2009 @ 6:04pm
You will say you predicted my answer, it came from Rush, etc.
What other explanation would you give?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/06/2009 @ 5:56pm
Rush? You mean Rush Limbaugh? Isn't he that fat ass radio host that was addicted to Oxycontin? Yea there's a good source of info, no problems with his cognitive abilities!!! LLLLLLOOOOOLLLLLLLL!!!! Sorry I just fell off my chair from laughing. LLLLLOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/06/2009 @ 8:00pm
BTW, since you like history. What were Ronald Reagan's chances put at in 1982? Or Clinton's in 1994?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2009 @ 12:36pm
You're comparing Obama to Clinton and Reagan?
Not a big Clinton fan, but both him and Reagan had executive experience.
Obama is a celebrity president, elected because of how he made people feel rather than his past job performance or personal history. His Nobel Prize is a continuation of that trend. He was awarded it because of how he makes people feel, rather than on an actual accomplishment.
We're the better part of a year into his presidency and he's still standing before crowds complaining about what he inherited. If I had an employee who a year into his job was still blaming his predecessor for his inability to get the job done, I'd consider finding someone else.
This guy and his inept, embarassing, fringe administration of Maoists has all the hallmarks of a one term administration.
And too many more slip ups like that press conference after the Fort Hood shootings where he treated the crowd and cameras to lighthearted banter and jokes when events demanded a different tone, and America is going to see there really isn't anything behind the teleprompter.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/07/2009 @ 08:51am
citizen_carrier, you see what you want to see, we know that you don't like Obama, but to say that he is a celebity Prez, and he was joking while our soldiers were being killed is just dumb, we get it, you don't like Obama.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/07/2009 @ 2:33pm
Obama is a celebrity president, elected because of how he made people feel rather than his past job performance or personal history. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/07/2009 @ 08:51am
You know the old saying Citizen_Carrier? "United we stand divided we fall"-do you really want your country to fail? Start supporting as an American and not as a Republican!
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/07/2009 @ 4:36pm
Denise, telling me I see what I want to see is not the same as telling me that what I'm seeing is inaccurate. If you can, I welcome the opportunuity.
There was more than one liberal media or opinion outlet during the election that said, "Yes, we get it that this guy doesn't have executive experience, we're voting for him based on what he says and what we hope he'll be able to do instead."
Unless you weren't paying attention, you saw that too.
A few days ago you wrote, "At least Obama feels something when a soldier is fallen."
Take a look at that media event Obama held as the Fort Hood shootings were unfolding and tell me what you think he was feeling based on the lighthearted banter and jokes he treated the audience to.
That was inappropriate. At best, it shows a politician who is truly tone deaf. At worst, it shows a politician who has no more depth or substance than whatever it is the teleprompter is telling him to say.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/07/2009 @ 4:43pm
You know the old saying Citizen_Carrier? "United we stand divided we fall"-do you really want your country to fail? Start supporting as an American and not as a Republican!
Posted by DrPiggy at 11/07/2009 @ 4:36pm
Hoping that the policies of a President, a multitude of unaccountable "czars", and a Pelosi-led Congress fail is not the same as wanting my country to fail.
Indeed, I see the long term survival and health of my country dependent upon our ability to prevent such things as cap and trade, etc. from passing.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/07/2009 @ 4:48pm
Cit Car-just explain to me the benefits of our war on terror and the stimulus it has provided to the economy?Tell me how borrowing money for two conflcts for seven years has helped our economy?When is this borrowing policy going to outed by the conservatives as bad? Let's try 2012,oh I guess that is the year of the next Presidential election.
Posted by whatozz at 11/07/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by whatozz at 11/07/2009 @ 5:07pm
"Cit Car-just explain to me the benefits of our war on terror and the stimulus it has provided to the economy?"
So our new guideline will be to only go after the guys who have either murdered our citizens or are planning to do so...but so long as it is stimulating to our economy?
Sorry, but government must first and foremost prevent or avenge the murder of it's citizens, regardless of whether or not iit is "stimulating" to our economy.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/07/2009 @ 6:56pm
So Obama bin Laden is where? I didn't hear Dick Cheney was indicted,when did that happen?
Posted by whatozz at 11/07/2009 @ 7:02pm
Last time I checked, America is still looking for that one man. I don't fault Bush, nor will I fault Obama if they fail to find a guy hiding amongst a friendly population in an area the size of Texas. That's difficult. I get it. Just keep him on the run, looking over his shoulder. It's the next best thing to him rotting in a cell or dancing on the end of a rope.
Hey, did you see the news? The President visited the wounded at Fort Hood!
Oh, wait. It was...President...Bush. And Laura.
I suppose Obama has time to play more golf in 7 months than Bush did in 3 years. And show up on David Letterman's show to disparage the Special Olympics.
It's so good to know we've got a President who really cares these days...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/07/2009 @ 7:33pm
Cit-Interesting in that I am not a big Obama guy but I don't agree with you at all.If you are a neo-con what can I say.I'll say this,we decided we would "protect" ourselves by getting involved in a 2 pronged foreign war with people that were not qualified to lead us.George and Dick took your support and turned it into a vast borrowing spree that continues to this day. On top of that George passed tax cuts that benefitted the richest Americans.What was the result,the stage was set for a budget and economy spiraling downwards. Now we have a President that is in the media it seems every day. Am I a big supporter of this? No, I am not but we are in the midst of a televised society. Don't worry GWB took off a lot of time and went to his ranch.How far from Ft. Hood does George live? He still gets protection by the Secret Service why can't he earn his paycheck. Enough of the B.S. from the right side. If Bush policies were so successful,why did the economy tank? Why did these tax cuts not help?Why have economic steps taken to help financial institutions not helped?Because the largest group of Americans has not been helped. The conservatives do not stand ready to help either. Shut up and go back to the corner you were kicked to.
Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 09:06am
Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2009 @ 6:11pm:
You are smoking some bad dope there buddy. America does not want to become a socialist country. We will see how 10% plus unemployment and a crashing dollar resonates a year from now. The only good news for you guys is no matter how hard you try you will never get to tripple digit unemployment... I suspect had the election been delayed one week, the Thursday news of the 10.2% rate would have changed the NY 23rd result. The bad news for the country (and you) is that you guys are incapable of establishing pro-business policies so we will have this agony for another year, or three.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/08/2009 @ 4:52pm
Well pyeeye tell me something does the money from Wall Street ever trickle down to business?Are the big corporations so disassociated from other businesses that no business goes back and forth? No investment from within business? What do 0% Fed rates mean? My God if business can't take advantage of that when will they take advantage of anything? You certainly don't have a problem with high priced labor,do you think. We need people to spend and not worry. Right now people are worrying about spending.
Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 6:28pm
Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 09:06am
"On top of that George passed tax cuts that benefitted the richest Americans.What was the result,the stage was set for a budget and economy spiraling downwards."
Actually, Bush's tax cuts were across the board cuts for everyone in America who pays income tax. Not just rich people. Thanks to our "progressive" system of taxation, the cut you received is going to be proportional to what you pay into it. If you pay $500,000 in taxes, a 5% reduction in your rate is going to allow you to keep more money than somebody who pays $20,000 in taxes and gets a 5% cut on that.
Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts took about 39.6 million Americans off the tax rolls entirely. Those were low income people. But it only helped the rich, right?
And taking 39.6 million of the poorest Americans off the tax rolls necessarily puts more of the revenue burden on the rich, right? Tax revenues during the Bush years were above the historical average. Spending was his problem, not revenue loss from tax cuts, because there wasn't any revenue loss.
He also cut the captital gains tax rates in 2003. Revenues from capital gains taxes doubled following that cut, because it encouraged more investment, which leads to more revenues.
Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Obama would be wise to pursue pro-growth tax policy while reducing government entitlement spending. And yes, end these two wars one way or another.
Instead, I'm thinking we're going to continue anti-growth confiscatory tax policy while increasing and expanding federal entitlement spending.
You think that's a recipe for success? Short term political, sure. But long term?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 08:07am
Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 09:06am
"On top of that George passed tax cuts that benefitted the richest Americans.What was the result,the stage was set for a budget and economy spiraling downwards."
Actually, Bush's tax cuts were across the board cuts for everyone in America who pays income tax. Not just rich people. Thanks to our "progressive" system of taxation, the cut you received is going to be proportional to what you pay into it. If you pay $500,000 in taxes, a 5% reduction in your rate is going to allow you to keep more money than somebody who pays $20,000 in taxes and gets a 5% cut on that.
Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts took about 39.6 million Americans off the tax rolls entirely. Those were low income people. But it only helped the rich, right?
And taking 39.6 million of the poorest Americans off the tax rolls necessarily puts more of the revenue burden on the rich, right? Tax revenues during the Bush years were above the historical average. Spending was his problem, not revenue loss from tax cuts, because there wasn't any revenue loss.
He also cut the captital gains tax rates in 2003. Revenues from capital gains taxes doubled following that cut, because it encouraged more investment, which leads to more revenues.
Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Obama would be wise to pursue pro-growth tax policy while reducing government entitlement spending. And yes, end these two wars one way or another.
Instead, I'm thinking we're going to continue anti-growth confiscatory tax policy while increasing and expanding federal entitlement spending.
You think that's a recipe for success? Short term political, sure. But long term?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 08:07am