Democrats & Liberals Archives

After the Shouting

After the shouting of Tea Baggers, the screaming of movement conservatives, the demagoguery of Republican leaders and the vote buying of the super-rich and the elitists of Big Finance and Big Business, what happens next?

After the shouting (according to most predictions) produces a Republican House, Tea Baggers will exult that they made a huge difference, Republican Congressional leaders will preen, boast and threaten the Democrats and the president, the Republican propaganda machine - Fox, Limbaugh, Rove and other "conservatives" - will pronounce victory for Republicans and political death for Obama. The so-called objective media will join the Republican chorus: the Democrats are finished, the Republicans are taking over.

After demagogic shouting the Republicans will indulge in victory shouting.

The super-rich and the Big Business elites will not be shouting. They will know that they, not the Tea Baggers or ordinary Republicans, are the true winners of this election. They will not shout; they will stay ready to collect what they paid for. These rich guys and corporations spent millions of their money without risk, since they did not have to disclose who was paying for political ads. They elected their chosen ones and now they will be waiting to be repaid: a teardown of the new healthcare reform system, a killing of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, reductions in regulations, special tax cuts and maybe a few new tax loopholes for multinational corporations.

How long will they shout? Who knows? But eventually the shouting will die down. Everybody will see that Democrats are still in Congress, but mainly everybody will become very aware that Barack Obama is still the president and that he is the most popular official in Washington. And Obama is the only one talking about how to improve the economy in order to provide jobs to everyone.

Eighty per cent of the people say that Democrats and Republicans should work together to solve our problems. How long will it take for Boehner to catch on and switch from his present position of "no compromises" to doing something useful for the country? How long will it take for Mitch McConnell to catch on and switch from his current goal of "making Obama a one-term president" to trying to solve some of the country's difficult problems?

Sooner or later, everybody will be after both Democrats and Republicans to solve the tough economic problems we are faced with. Both the rich and the poor will want to make money. And that is when President Obama will show them both the way.

Most pundits don't agree with me. They are pessimistic about the future. They expect gridlock. But historian Lawrence Goodwyn, provides some cheer:

So let me present a calming conclusion. In my opinion, the energy among the democratic faithful to make the journey is still there. While ordinary folks have been put through a lot, do not underestimate the resolve that remains for the long haul. Unanticipated poverty is an enormous energizer -- and most of all for people who understand their own fate to be utterly undeserved. In due course they will see through the sleight of hand and empty content embedded in corporate sound bites. I am talking about millions of Americans, many of whom wavered and many who did not. It will take some more time for this to become clear. But it will happen.

Above all, it will become increasingly transparent in the coming year that the politics of the GOP is absolutely incoherent. Much of the Republican tent is simply flapping in the breeze behind a cascade of public lies. As it now presents itself, the so-called party of conservatism has nothing to bring to the economic crisis except demagogy. So long-term despair is unwarranted for Democrats. They need to harness their poise and undertake to be politically creative not just right now but for the next six years.

After all the shouting subsides, President Barack Obama will lead Democrats and Republicans to a healthier economy and a brighter future.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 31, 2010 7:48 PM
Comments
Comment #311890

Sorry, I can’t share your optimism. I might have once, but these last two years have me convinced that they’ve abandoned compromise. The good news is that Republicans are screwed either way, because they’ve narrowed their options so terribly. If they cooperate that’s good, if not for them, but for the country, and more Democrats get elected. If they don’t cooperate, that’s bad for the country in the near term, but the electorate won’t react positively to their hijinks, and More Democrats will get elected, and that will move policy forward.

If Republicans win the house this year, they win in the most shortsighted way possible.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2010 8:06 PM
Comment #311891

Sorry, I can’t share your optimism either. I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that the Dems will lose the House. We’ll see.

Here is a quote about Global Warming from a member of the Tea Party founder, from The Oregonian newspaper:

“It’s a flat-out lie. I read my Bible. He made this earth for us to utilize.” The Teabagger volunteered that his views came from Rush Limbaugh and his own interpretation of Scripture.

These people are woefully ignorant, yet aggressive. These are the Know-Nothings, and make no mistake, there are a lot of them. They are easily steered to promote the agendas of the Oil Industry, as well as Wall Street, Health Care, and so on. Manipulating them is a piece of cake, there are a many with a lot of money who will do exactly that, and I expect nothing but gridlock to continue for the next two years, regardless of who wins the House.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2010 8:34 PM
Comment #311896

Paul Siegel, in answer to your article’s opening question: the answer is obvious. The Plutocracy grows, eclipsing democracy. Couldn’t be plainer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2010 9:11 PM
Comment #311898

I thought we recently agreed not to use the term “Tea Baggies”, because it is a derogatory homosexual term?

Let compromise begin on WB by not trying to inflame others.

I will not be shouting, I believe it’s sad that a man who promised so much, delivered nothing.

Posted by: Beretta9 at October 31, 2010 9:49 PM
Comment #311904

B9, the term has been used in here for months now, as well as all over the country.
Why all of a sudden are you becoming so sensitive? And to all of the wrong things?

Posted by: jane doe at October 31, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #311908

Beretta9-
First, it was a self-applied nickname that only got changed when Republicans learned they couldn’t get it past the American public without Democrats alerting them to the double meaning. I mean, how many problem in Republican communication could be solved with a simple Google of the terms, or similar such look-up of the facts?

I think this is why Paul’s appraisal was too optimistic. It’s one thing to seek compromise with somebody who is willing to make deals. It’s quite another to make such overtures to people who not only don’t want compromise, but reflexively start trouble, start arguments about trivial things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 2:10 AM
Comment #311910

From a fellow by the name of Dave Johnson. I don’t know him, and have no idea of his qualifications, but this encapsolates my views on the subject of fear in America:

There are a number things the public “knows” as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs. Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there: 1) President Obama tripled the deficit. Reality: Bush’s last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama’s first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion. 2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy. Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the “stimulus” was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been. 3) President Obama bailed out the banks. Reality: While many people conflate the “stimulus” with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be “non-reviewable by any court or any agency.”) The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama. 4) The stimulus didn’t work. Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs. 5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts. 6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion. 7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is “going broke,” people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to. 8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on “welfare” and “foreign aid” when that is only a small part of the government’s budget.


Posted by: Marysdude at November 1, 2010 6:39 AM
Comment #311911

Paul;

The earthquake starts tommorow.

Tomorrow, the Republicans will control the House.

In 2012, 21 Senate seats are up for grabs versus 10 Republican seats.

By 2012, the Republicans will control both houses.

Now, a Romney-Christe ticket will sweep away this empty suit and start the re-building process.

Neithe you nor Stephen never acknowledged that both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats two years before Barry got elected.

What’s more, in that election, corruption was the issue, not the economy or the war.

Sorry Paul. The tide turns. Step aside.

Posted by: agent gibbs at November 1, 2010 7:17 AM
Comment #311913

Jane and Stephen;

I just think we should drop the inflamming names a statements. There is no sense in using derogatory statements. Can’t we all just get along. Tomorrow will be a new day and no doubt, the house democrats are on the verge of getting clobbered. Obama will be forced to work with Republicans, so now I think it is time for all of us on WB to stop the name calling and try to come to some agreements. I agree with the WH’s latest plan to work with congress and perminantly extend all middle-class tax cuts and extend the over $250k tax cuts for several more years.

Isn’t it nice to work together; kind of gives you a “warm all over” feeling.

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 1, 2010 11:08 AM
Comment #311916

Beretta,

“Isn’t it nice to work together; kind of gives you a “warm all over” feeling.”

Yeah, kinda like the chili dog I had last night. It hurts less going in than it does coming out.

Your perception that Obama will be forced to “work with” Republicans is false. The fact that Obama did indeed attempt to work with the Republicans seems to escape your reasoning.

Let me remind you that Bush couldn’t seem to find his veto pen until after the 2006 elections, and until that time Congress, including the Democrats, gave him everything he wanted and more.
You can rant about the obstructionist Democrats of the pre 2006 elections all you want, but I have two words that might ring a bell;

Nuclear Option.

Perhaps you might also remember that the Democratically controlled Congress after 2006 got squat from Bush.

Be careful what you wish for.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 1, 2010 11:51 AM
Comment #311918

agent gibbs-
A Romney/Crist ticket?

Your friend Crist is running as an independent. He already got killed in the Republican Primary. Romney? He’s not that far behind.

As a person whose party won overwhelmingly in 2008, and will undoubtedly suffer even if it keeps the House, let me advise you not to make political predictions of that kind. Especially if you think your party’s still reasonable enough to elect a man they forced out and a man they’ve marginalized, folks who actually think McCain was too liberal. The brake lines of moderation are cut on the Republican’s fearmongering sports car, and I anticipate some spectacular, rather kinetic flameouts and crashes.

Beretta9-
Now you’re calling for calm and reasonableness. That’s rich. You plant the wind, and expect not to reap the whirlwind.

Is this to be the pattern? Calm when you win, tantrums when you don’t?

Democrats nowadays have too much pride for that. Or at least I do. Republicans are doing their best to push their way back into power. I’m fairly certain they’ll do their best to blunder back out of it, and Democrats like me will be there to give them the helpful push towards defeat. If you wanted peace you should have beaten us fair and square, not stampeded the country with vitriol and lies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 12:40 PM
Comment #311919

Paul provided this quote from Goodwyn…”Unanticipated poverty is an enormous energizer — and most of all for people who understand their own fate to be utterly undeserved.”

I certainly agree with that. Here’s an example of the OPR (obama, pelosi, reid) brand of “unanticipated poverty” that most folks are currently unaware of.

““I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,”
President Obama, September 12, 2008

Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income.

In February 2010, 5.02 million homes were sold, according to the National Association of Realtors. On any given day, the sale of a house, townhome, condominium, co-op, or income from a rental property can push middle-income families over the $250,000 threshold and slam them with a new tax they can’t afford.

This new ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. This new tax on home sales and unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare. The National Association of Realtors called this new Medicare tax on unearned income “destructive” and “ill-advised” and warned it would hurt job creation.”

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 12:40 PM
Comment #311923

Royal Flush-
Wrong.

In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold.

Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called “high earners” – if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home.

So, once again, Obama keeps his promises.

You know you’re really treading water on an argument when you have Snopes knocking down the argument. I mean, that’s pathetic. Your talking point is right there with albino alligators in the sewer and Pop Rocks death for Mikey.

Oh, and please spare me the BS about me being elitist for correcting you. Lying to people to manipulate them is elitist, because it shows contempt for folk’s ability to offer informed consent.

Obama hasn’t raised taxes on the Middle Class, but he has raised taxes to pay for the program he’s starting, and that is a refreshing change from a President who simply charged the Medicare Drug Benefit to the national credit card, while he tossed everybody’s China’s loan money as if it were free.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 1:15 PM
Comment #311926

WRONG? From Mr. Daugherty’s own quote comes confirmation of what I posted…”The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold.”

Good Golly Miss Molly…what is SD drinking or smoking these days? Apparently he is so depressed over the expected election results tomorrow that he is resorting to arguing with himself.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 1:43 PM
Comment #311932

From today’s NY Times…”The Obama Democrats tried to push through health care reform and climate legislation with the unemployment rate stuck at a 28-year high. On health care, they won a costly victory. On cap-and-trade, they forced vulnerable congressmen to cast a controversial vote, and came away with nothing to show for it. In both cases, they reaped a backlash, while defining themselves as ideological and intensely out-of-touch.

At the same time, their legislative maneuverings — the buy-offs and back-room deals, the inevitable coziness with lobbyists — exposed the weakness of modern liberal governance: it tends to be stymied and corrupted by the very welfare state that it’s seeking to expand. Many of Barack Obama’s supporters expected him to be another Franklin Roosevelt, energetically experimenting with one program after another. But Roosevelt didn’t have to cope with the web of interest groups that’s gradually woven itself around the government his New Deal helped build. And while Obama twisted in these webs, the public gradually decided that it liked bigger government more in theory than in practice.

Obama seems as if he would have been a wonderful chief executive in an era of prosperity and consensus, when he could have given soaring speeches every week and made us all feel tingly about America. But he’s miscast as a partisan scrapper, and unpersuasive when he tries to feel the country’s economic pain.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 2:49 PM
Comment #311933

What happens next is Grid Lock and another Do-Nothing Congress (for the American people) like the one we saw between the 2006 and 2008 elections. Why anyone would expect anything to improve as long as the wealthy special interests are in control of the message, the campaigns, the politicians, the government and its processes, is quite beyond me.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2010 2:50 PM
Comment #311934

Royal Flush-
Don’t bull**** me. First, this is a tax on profits. If I understand that correctly, that means you have to clear $250,000 on the sale of that house OVER what you have to pay back to others, including the mortgage company. And that’s if you’re single.

Most people don’t have $250,000 in the value of their house, much less in profits. And many folks who own their own home are married, and there the threshold goes up to $500,000.

The threshold alone prevents the tax from hitting 95% of the people in this country, according to the Snopes article.

In other words, Obama kept his promise, which if I remember was your gripe in the first place. You were wrong, I was right, have the grace to actually admit it.

I mean, if you folks are just going to deny facts inconvenient to your politics, then I have no reason to be depressed, because Americans are soon going to see your party’s desperately weak hold on reality, and reject you on account of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 2:51 PM
Comment #311937

Royal Flush-
What a shock that Ross Douthat would say that. It’s not like he’s known for being a conservative or anything like that. ;-)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 3:06 PM
Comment #311938

>I mean, if you folks are just going to deny facts inconvenient to your politics, then I have no reason to be depressed, because Americans are soon going to see your party’s desperately weak hold on reality, and reject you on account of it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 02:51 PM

Stephen,

You have been presenting verifiable facts here for years, why would you think suddenly conservatives would start accepting them?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 1, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #311942

Marysdude-
I don’t care if they accept it. If I have to settle for some historian looking back and saying, “Yep, they were full of it.” I will take that.

But in the meantime, our readers will be able to see for themselves who is just spouting rhetoric, and who has a real point. I don’t have to convert Royal Flush. I aim for the audience. That’s why I’ve always relied on hard facts to refute arguments: they are a universal language for the audience. You don’t have to be a liberal to acknowledge the truth about that 3.8% Medicare tax. You might have to be a liberal, though, to enjoy some of the name-calling, for example, that one sees at Kos. That doesn’t transfer so well.

This is the point, I think, that conservatives fail to see, when they say things like what Royal Flush has said.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 3:29 PM
Comment #311955

SD wrote; “The threshold alone prevents the tax from hitting 95% of the people in this country, according to the Snopes article.”

Poor SD, he can’t seem to see beyond today. When the real estate market recovers and prices return to normal that 95% you mention will gradually grow smaller every year. And, if past experience with taxes is any guide, the 3.8% tax will creep up while the $250k exemption will creep down. We have seen it with SS and Medicare. Promises made and promises broken.

And the real blinder for SD and his liberal cronies is that most people who have that kind of equity in their homes are the older Americans. Of course, nearly every liberal is under age 30 or 40 so they don’t really give a damn if our senior’s are robbed of the equity in their homes that took a lifetime to build. It is that same stinkin’ thinkin’ that would reinstate the death taxes.

The liber/socialists never tire of finding ways to put their slimey hands in the pockets of those who earn and save. My prayer is that they live long enough to have to endure what they advocate today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 5:09 PM
Comment #311958

Flush, you are absolutely pathetic!
You can, or will not move away from the scathing bullshit you have come to be so eloquent with.
And just as an FYI…..with the exception of one that I know of, all of us posting on here as liberals, are significantly over 40!!! And since you’re so frikkin’ smart, I know that will just send you into a tailspin.

Posted by: jane doe at November 1, 2010 5:22 PM
Comment #311959

“Gallup has been doing the “generic” congressional ballot polls since 1946 with considerable success, so its likely voter result is always closely-watched. The numbers are only surprising given the size of the margin when taken together with all the other national polls this weekend: the Republicans have a 55 percent to 40 percent lead, with 5 percent undecided.

Gallup’s historical model suggests that a party needs at least a two-point advantage in the national House vote to win a majority of the 435 seats. The Republicans’ current likely voter margin suggests that this scenario is highly probable, making the question of interest this election not whether the GOP will win the majority, but by how much. Taking Gallup’s final survey’s margin of error into account, the historical model predicts that the Republicans could gain anywhere from 60 seats on up, with gains well beyond that possible.
Gallup’s prediction is based on a voter turnout of 45 percent, which the pollster says is slightly higher than recent years.”

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/31/gallups-final-midterm-poll-you-guessed-republicans-poised-t/

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #311960

“Flush, you are absolutely pathetic.” Why thank you very much Jane. I find it useful to measure my impact by the hostility I create in my opponents. And, I do it without insults…you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 5:29 PM
Comment #311963

Royal Flush-
Well, we can index brackets to inflation, then. That’s a resolveable problem, not the end of the world.

As for equity, maybe you haven’t been paying attention to current events. A lot of those people already refinanced their houses, and now are underwater because of the bust in the housing market. And really, it’s not a bust that’s resolving any time soon on its own.

Finally, the inheritance tax is what we’re talking about. The Death Tax is you can’t take it with you.

;-)

Essentially, you’re not talking about a dead man or woman keeping money they no longer have use for, but said stiff passing on their worldly possessions to their children, who didn’t earn it themselves. Very few people will ever have to worry about the Estate tax, and most of those people, even with the tax, will never have to worry about anything anyway. The real question is, why the hell are we deficit spending on behalf of folks who have shown that they’ll just save it back, rather than stimulate the economy with it?

So save the self-righteousness about taxes. The adults in the room recognize that you actually have to pay for government. How that is done, and who the burdens mainly accrue to is a matter for what we should hope is mature and practical discussion.

There’s a reason no Republican President has left office with a lower deficit or lower national debt in recent times: the GOP’s still digging for its pony in the crap of supply side economics. It’s got to be in there somewhere!

jane doe-
Don’t lower yourself for an opponent’s sake. Royal Flush may be a marvellous person if you meet him on the street. It’s his theories and arguments that are lousy. Focus on those.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2010 5:45 PM
Comment #311964

Royal Flush

if you think they’re coming unhinged now, just wait till wednesday morning. even if they manage to maintain the majority in either or both houses it will not be large enough to continue on as they have for the last 18 months.

personally, i think the republicans take the house. the senate probably not, but that’s just my opinion. either way the obamas marxist revolution will be dealt a serious blow.

Posted by: dbs at November 1, 2010 5:46 PM
Comment #311965

SD wrote; “I don’t have to convert Royal Flush. I aim for the audience. That’s why I’ve always relied on hard facts to refute arguments: they are a universal language for the audience. You don’t have to be a liberal to acknowledge the truth about that 3.8% Medicare tax.”

Interesting…in SD’s comment #311926 he said I was wrong. I proved from his own quote that I was correct. He then changed tactics, while not manning up and admiting his error, and said only 5% of American’s would be affected (today) so it really didn’t matter to real folks who thrive on giving away other people’s money.

Now, SD tells us that he doesn’t have to convert me to liberalism. Fat chance…you’ll see pigs flying before that happens.

SD goes on to write…”I aim for the audience.” Meaning that he writes to convert others on WatchBlog.

Survey please…how many will admit to being converted to liberalism by Daugherty?

Now comes the best part of his post…he writes that he relies on facts.

Not long ago I proved to him that what he had written was not a fact. Mr. Daugherty is not a fact-finder, but rather, is one who rarely has original thoughts and mostly just repeats what others whom he agrees with have written.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 5:53 PM
Comment #311966

SD concedes my point and writes; “Royal Flush-
Well, we can index brackets to inflation, then. That’s a resolveable problem, not the end of the world.

As for equity, maybe you haven’t been paying attention to current events. A lot of those people already refinanced their houses, and now are underwater because of the bust in the housing market. And really, it’s not a bust that’s resolving any time soon on its own.”

This is typical liberal logic…legislate the poison pill and then, later, fix it so that those you favor don’t have to swallow it. More mental disorder thinking is revealed when Mr. Daugherty downplays the 3.8% by writing about the current real estate market.

The article I posted stated…”This new ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. This new tax on home sales and unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare.

OH yes, $210,000 million, what an insignifican number. I wonder why the libs even bothered putting this “little” tax into the HC bill. I also wonder how few American’s realize that there is a time-bomb ticking set to go off in 2013.

“Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 6:06 PM
Comment #311971

You on the left are just being fired that is all.

2006 was about firing the Republican congress.

2008 was about firing Bush/Cheney.

2010 is about firing Pelosi Reid and the Democratic Congress

This wont be as much a Republican win as a Democratic loss.


You on the left just misread your mandate in 2006 and 2008. It was not about your agenda but about stopping the excesses of the Republican congress. Health care reform was never high on Americas mind, just high on yours.

Obama is up next. He either changes (like Clinton did) or he is the next on the firing line.

American people have had it with the hyper agendas of both politcal parties. They are simply shortening the leash. Americans simply do not trust the political class of either party.

As one writer put it, the left is the party of big government, the right the party of big business which leaves no one to be the party of the people.

So this time you on the left get to feel the wrath of voters.

I think the right has the advantage because we have had more time to think about it.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 1, 2010 7:43 PM
Comment #311983

Royal:

“Survey please…how many will admit to being converted to liberalism by Daugherty?”

Not me, but David has convinced me to vote all incumbent liberals out.

Losing it, aren’t they”

Posted by: Beretta9 at November 1, 2010 10:10 PM
Comment #312008

Baretta9, that’s a good beginning and gets you half the way toward sound logical and rational voting behavior :-)

Kudos!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2010 12:21 AM
Comment #312009

Craig, I agreed with every word you said up to: “Health care reform was never high on Americas mind, just high on yours.”

Nearly 7 out of 10 Americans wanted the Public Option. That is factual archived record. In fact, a majority of Americans know that entitlement spending, specifically, the rapidly rising deficits of Medicare/Medicaid are going to bury us in debt. Which is why a large majority of Americans wanted the Public Option, including numbers of Republican voters. They understood personally that the health care cost inflation was making them poorer every year, regardless of where their insurance was coming from.

So, sorry, but, your quote above is just patently inaccurate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2010 12:26 AM
Comment #312015

>I find it useful to measure my impact by the hostility I create in my opponents. And, I do it without insults…you?
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2010 05:29 PM

RF,

Few here have been more insulting to others than you.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 7:00 AM
Comment #312040

RF, Few here have been more insulting to others than you.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010

You mistake my political philosophy insults for personal attacks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2010 2:17 PM
Comment #312048

You mistake my political philosophy insults for personal attacks.


Flush….your attempts to “parrot” Stephen fail dismally.

Posted by: jane doe at November 2, 2010 2:48 PM
Comment #312059

dbs-
Well, one good thing about this election: Republicans will be given a chance to take a break from hating liberals, and start hating themselves again.

Why? Because they’ll achieve precisely squat of what they want. They only have Congress.

You know, I think this is poetic justice, after a fashion: The Republicans sought to reproduce their previous victory in 1994. They’ll fail.

They obstructed government in order to sink Democrat’s popularity, demoralize the base. Now they’re in a position where Democrats simply have to filibuster or vote down by a majority anything they try to pass. And if that fails? Obama has the veto pen. That will probably not do wonders for their morale. They won’t likely deliver on their promises. They will likely be forced into compromises when they tread on political livewires.

End of the marxist revolution? What paranoid BS. You would rather scare people with stale cold-war rhetoric than respectfully talk to them about policies that are not even as restrictive as those we won the Cold War under. By your logic, Reagan was Stalin.

But heck, it only has to make bumpersticker sense. No need to really think it through, is there.

Royal Flush-
I did say you were wrong, and you’re still wrong. Obama promised that for 95% of Americans, those earning less than 250,000 dollars, their taxes wouldn’t go up.

A person who gets 250,000 dollar’s profit doesn’t get a dime of taxes taken from that for the new Medicare tax. Then, what comes after that is taxed at 3.8%. Which means if they make 251,000 dollars, they only get taxed 38 bucks.

That figures out to 380 bucks for every ten thousand. A median priced home in Los Angeles County, if sold for a complete and utter profit, no mortgage or other expenses dragging it down, will have $4180 tax, for an effective tax of 1.16 percent.

Where I come from, a person selling the average home or a house at median price wouldn’t even have to worry about this tax, even if every dime on their property was pure equity.

And guess what? That’s for a single homeowner. The married homeowner enjoys twice that limit.

Let me ask a question: do you enjoy getting people worried about nothing?

Not long ago I proved to him that what he had written was not a fact. Mr. Daugherty is not a fact-finder, but rather, is one who rarely has original thoughts and mostly just repeats what others whom he agrees with have written.

Why are you speaking for what you proved to me? You’ve proved nothing to me. As for not having original thoughts? Well, my entry “Tangled Hierarchies” applies Douglas Hofstadter’s strange loop concept to politics. Show me who else on this blog posts items like that.

As for who repeats what is told to them? Well, first, you ought not to be so bold as to criticize people for repeating what others say, because we are disputing a quoted source here, after all. Secondly, though, there is nothing wrong with quoting a source, even one, shockingly enough, that you agree with, if the sources facts and information are right.

Have you disproved my premises? Where? I don’t think you’ve even discussed the facts I offered. You simply have said that I’m wrong. You make it out to be a looming threat, I puncture your looming threat with information that indicates that its unlikely to really hit most homeowners, especially middle class homeowners, whose value typically falls below the single, much less the married threshold for such taxes.

What other BS are you going to scare people about today?

You talk about me saying, Index brackets to inflation. What does that concede? Well, it concedes that brackets can creep up due to inflation.

But it also provides a ridiculously easy solution to the problem, which is to say, your dire, hair on fire “oh my God Cthulhu is prepared to smash our economy” panic over this 3.8% tax on capital gains is absurd, and the solution is so damn easy you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that it’s a threat to our economy. The problem isn’t that bad, even if it comes to pass, and if one simple thing is done, like pegging the threshold to inflation, the problem is fricking solved.

Is their any other worthless threat you want to make people think is the end of the world?

Craig Holmes-
Yes, we’re feeling the wrath. Too bad we couldn’t pass more bills by the 60 vote threshold Republicans forced. That might have mollified the voters, improved conditions in the country faster. But because of what I will admit was weak leadership in the Senate, the Republicans were not held to account for their intransigence. No matter. They’ve decided to put themselves at least one hand on the wheel. They can no longer smile and say that they’re not responsible for anything, even as they kneecap the Democratic agenda. They will have to make the budget decisions, they will have to show their real face in the House. I wonder how long they will be able to contain themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2010 3:33 PM
Comment #312060

David:

Here is polling data from right before the conventions in 2008.

You will notice that Health Care reform does not make the list of what was important to voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/us/politics/21poll.html

Number one in 2008 was the economy followed by the war in Iraq and Terrorism. Health care reform was way down the list.

I understand what I think you are saying is that if you ask voters what is important to them with health care reform a majority wanted the public option. However if you ask what is most important to you for Obama and the Democratic congress to tackle, health care reform was a minor issue.

Congress and the President spent enourmous political capital on what voters considered a secondary issue and are paying the price today.

I am heartened that the Republicans are not planning a huge bash tonight. This is not going to be a Republican victory as much as firing Democrats for not listening to them in the last election.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 2, 2010 3:37 PM
Comment #312061

Stephen:

It is the other guys fault? On the verge of an historic defeat and it is the Senate leadership, and the Republican’s fault?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 2, 2010 3:55 PM
Comment #312062

Craig,

In a nut shell…yes. But, that is not the worst part. We now have to go through another ‘time of troubles’, with the dark side even more powerful than they have been. We have to live through times when those with a conservative bent, have no idea about what they want to do to help us go forward, and so can only provide the reverse gear to take us back.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #312064

>On the verge of an historic defeat

Craig,

It is yet to be seen if it will be historic or not. We went through a pretty trying time in ‘94, and I understand you conservatives had quite a problem in the same vein back in ‘48. Historic is a big term, but it means very little. If this is another of your leadership’s talking point, it merely means they will start calling even the most minute margin, ‘mandate’. Political jargon is still political jargon, no matter who uses it.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 4:12 PM
Comment #312074

I’ll bet if a poll were taken tomorrow on those with a hangover, the left will lead.

just to see what that is all about go to:

thpolling.com

It doesn’t really exist so whatever numbers the left make up will be right in order for them.

Posted by: tom humes at November 2, 2010 4:49 PM
Comment #312090

Marysdude:

As I said above, I don’t see what is happening as a Republican victory. We were fired in 1996 and now it is your turn.

It was the Republican Congress’s fault for getting fired in 1996. It is the Democrat House’s fault for getting fired today.

Yes it is historic. When power changes hands it is historic.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 2, 2010 5:45 PM
Comment #312118

Craig,

Yep, every day is historic. Today’s no different than yesterday, unless that tsunami occurs. If that happens, I’ll conceed ‘historic’, ‘epic’, ‘unusual’, any blown up term you want to use. If you get more than sixty house seats, and take the Senate, I’ll even give you mandate.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 2, 2010 7:25 PM
Comment #312260

Craig, you CONTRADICT YOURSELF!

You said: “You will notice that Health Care reform does not make the list of what was important to voters.”

Then turn right around and say the opposite: “Health care reform was way down the list.”

Whassup with that, Craig? Did it make the list, or not. It was on my list. It was on the NY Times list.

Let’s try to be coherent and follow some rules of logic, shall we?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2010 5:02 PM
Post a comment