Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Message to Eric Cantor

You can complain about our choice of minority leader when you acknowlege the nature of your choice when you lost the 2006 elections.

I shouldn't be surprised, shocked or dismayed that the Republicans feel it necessary to criticize this choice. But people should be crystal clear on why the Republicans oppose Pelosi's selection as minority leader: because it's a decision made by Democrats, which according to their fiercely partisan politics, makes it a bad one. Note the pattern, though: Republicans are taking the man who lead his house to two defeats in a row, and making him Speaker of the House.

Using their logic, if it isn't disingenous as I claim, that should be a clear sign that Republicans didn't get the message they were sent. Did they get the message people sent about jobs? Well, no. That's the first thing to go.

Energy? Guess what apologist you just hired?Bipartisanship? Not really.

Lobbyists? It would take a miracle.

And how long, really, will Tea Party candidates listen to their supporters with these people in charge?

“You want to be sure that the newbies, when they hit town, do not necessarily bring their campaign staff to run their Congressional offices, because in some cases they are totally ill-equipped,” one veteran Republican lobbyist said. “Winning an election is one thing, running a Congressional operation is another. A lot of these folks are really, really new to politics.”

A Republican strategist agreed, saying Members who come from swing districts benefit from having a staffer who already “knows the ropes” on the Hill to keep them from making mistakes.

Here's what I think: The GOP never intended to change, even in the face of both internal and external criticism. Instead, they acted through obstruction and angry rhetoric to splinter the Democrat's support and claw back the independents to their side, and then hyped the threat of the Democrats and the outsider status of the Tea Party candidates in order to get Republican voters back in the fold.

And it worked!

But to what end? The same damn people are back in power, to make the same damn mistakes, and all indications are, they consider this a vindication for their way of doing business. The few Tea Party Republicans are going to get diluted in the overall party brew, and before you know it, this majority will be no different than the last.

If the party is so different, if such a dramatic change has taken place, why is Boehner returning to power, according to that logic?

So, why should Nancy Pelosi stay, if that logic holds true? First, despite all the Republican rhetoric, Republican actions left 420 bills to languish in the Senate. Should we punish her for doing her job? Her policies were consistently more representative of what people actually wanted out of Congress than what got passed. People would support the Public Option, support the Medicare Buy-in, support other things, and the bills that came out of Congress were consistently like that.

Republicans have spent a crapload of time simply bashing her because she is the leader of the Democrats, and because she doesn't knuckle under as they think she should. They don't feel comfortable leaving her in place, because she had the political skills necessary to lead Democrats to one unlikely political victory after another. Folks suggest somebody more conservative, but why, so that Republicans can win votes by larger margins? So Democrats can get used to being powerless, used to being cut out of legislation, as they were before under the Republicans?

Really. I personally believe that Pelosi and Harry Reid are attacked not for their actual politics, but for simply being the leaders of the Democrats. Reid's not actually particularly liberal, a sore spot for Democrats who resent his excessive caution and deference with the Republicans and the Conservatives in his own party. Pelosi is liberal, but would any other Congressperson really avoid being called a liberal and a socialist and a leftist radical? Republican rhetoric about Democrats is more about what they want people to think of the people it's directed at, and less about the actual people.

I think Americans would prefer if Democrats behaved more like Democrats, taking their side rather than the banks, taking the fight to the consolidated power interests in Washington, creating jobs instead of chewing scenery down on Capitol Hill.

Eric Cantor wants Democrats to pre-emptively admit defeat, to run away from their leaders, run away from their principles, run away from being involved in legislation.

Let's admit that he has his own reasons for why Nancy Pelosi must fall, and not kid ourselves that he's really standing on a principle here in asking Democrats to tuck tail and run.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2010 10:48 AM
Comments
Comment #312711

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Pelosi is liberal, but would any other Congressperson really avoid being called a liberal and a socialist and a leftist radical.”

All the polls I’ve read indicate that liberals make up about 20% of the electorate. And, all the polls I’ve read indicate that it was the independent voters who gave the house back to the Reps.

Is it really in the best interests of the Dem party to have Pelosi, the liberal, as minority leader? Is that a winning strategy for the next two years when independents clearly don’t want more liberalism?

There is no other democrat, not Reid, not obama, that draws so much negative flack and revulsion from the general public, whether merited or not, as Pelosi. She is a curse on the dem’s political hope for 2012.

Does anyone truly beleive the Dems lost the house because they weren’t liberal enough?

Frankly, it would be best for the Reps to have her as minority leader, but not for national interests.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2010 1:20 PM
Comment #312714

Royal Flush asked: “Is it really in the best interests of the Dem party to have Pelosi, the liberal, as minority leader?”

That’s a really humorous question. Let’s turn the question around. Is it really in the best interests of the GOP to have any conservative as majority leader, since Independents, not the GOP base, that determine the election outcomes as you just said above?

Thanks for the chuckle :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 1:44 PM
Comment #312716

Thanks Mr. Remer…glad I could provide a little humor to brighten your day.

If it is true that independents just rejected the liberal philosophy by electing 69 new Reps in the house is it not reasonable to assume that a liberal minority leader in the house may not be appealing to them while a conservative majority leader might be appealing?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2010 1:58 PM
Comment #312718

Royal Flush, it is NOT true that Independents rejected the liberal philosophy of the Dem. Party. It is true that the Independents rejected the legislative outcome of the Democratic Party, for a host of reasons.
But, the Polling data shows the public has no more confidence in the GOP to lead this country in the right direction, than it has for Democrats. The election was about rejecting the incumbent majority during a perceived weak economy threatening worker and family job, savings, and wage security. We saw this very same thing occur in 2008 where the public rejected the Republican incumbent party, and for the very same reason - the economy was in trouble.

Politically speaking, Democrats would be IDIOTS to allow the economy now to improve under a Republican Majority in the House, giving Republicans to the opportunity to claim their majority was responsible for the recovery. That political temptation is going to be extremely difficult to resist, just as it was for Republicans between Jan. 2009 and Nov. 2, this year. And that fact does not inspire much optimism, does it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 2:11 PM
Comment #312719

Well Mr. Remer, the dems hold the senate and oval office. If the economy and jobs picture does improve in the next two years it is reasonable that the dems could claim 2/3 of the credit.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2010 2:15 PM
Comment #312720

Royal Flush, let me quote a Bloomberg article regarding polling data 3 weeks before the election:

The poll finds Republicans in an anomalous position — poised to make political gains while the party and its policies are unpopular. That stands in contrast to midterm elections in 1994 and 2006, when the insurgent party gained congressional control after polls showed voter attitudes tilting toward them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 2:17 PM
Comment #312722

Royal Flush-
I could have asked the same about Boehner and Conservatism. Obviously you proved the doubters wrong in that regard. But Boehner hasn’t been all that well known until recently in a real leadership position.

Pelosi has been tarred and feathered as an ultraliberal, but does everybody care to the extent that you Republicans do?

And really, given the conservative media treatment of any Democratic leader that emerges from the pack, would we really gain any breathing room from throwing her under the bus?

Before 2004, Tom Daschle was minority leader. He lost. Harry Reid replaced him. Was Harry Reid spared the label, being the conservative Democrat he was? Not at all.

There’s no point in running from your lies and hatred. We will stand, just like Republicans did. As for political hopes? I didn’t notice her being such a bad-luck charm in 2006 or 2008.

Let’s see who the public really hates two years from now. You folks had to constantly attack Pelosi to make her so unpopular. Let’s see whether Boehner and his crew can make themselves unpopular the tea-party way: just by what they say and do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2010 2:21 PM
Comment #312723

Royal Flush said: “If the economy and jobs picture does improve in the next two years it is reasonable that the dems could claim 2/3 of the credit. “

True enough, RF, but, as we have witnessed these past 22 months, Democrats aren’t as capable when it comes to controlling the media message, compared to Republicans. And Democrats are going to be underfunded by wealthy special interest groups to buy that media control, compared to Republicans. The Citizen’s United Supreme Court case ruling is very integral to that media message control, as was demonstrated in this last week’s election and results.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #312726

Stephen

I agree with you 100%. I think the Democratic party should keep the entire Congressional leadership in place.

This way, I can use all my old stuff again in the 2012 election cycle.

Pelosi as minority leader would ram home Barry’s bipartisian appeal just a few days ago.

Ya, I agree with you Stephen. Advocate (very hard please) for her election.

Keep me posted. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 8, 2010 2:55 PM
Comment #312729

Mr. Eagle, again the logic of your comments have soared high above the liberal left. Not only will you be able to copy and paste your comments about Pelosi, but Stephen will be able to copy and paste his lengthy essays defending Pelosi.

Posted by: TomT at November 8, 2010 3:06 PM
Comment #312730

Sorry this is off subject but I just have to share it. I have long enjoyed and learned from reading Stratfor. They don’t promote any political persuasion, but rather, present their world view in geopolitical terms. This should be a fascinating series and some of you will really enjoy its insights not usually seen elsewhere.

Editor’s note: This is the first installment in a series of special reports that Dr. Friedman will write over the next few weeks as he travels to Turkey, Moldova, Romania, Ukraine and Poland. In this series, he will share his observations of the geopolitical imperatives in each country and conclude with reflections on his journey as a whole and options for the United States

Read more: A Geopolitical Journey, Part 1: The Traveler | STRATFOR

“Find a food store. Look at the food being offered, particularly fruits and vegetables. Are they fresh-looking? What is the selection? Look at the price and calculate it against what you know about earnings. Then watch a woman (yes, it is usually a woman) shopping for groceries. Does she avoid the higher priced items and buy the cheapest? Does she stop to look at the price, returning a can or box after looking, or does she simply place it in her basket or cart without looking at the price? When she pays for the food, is she carefully reaching into an envelope in her pocketbook where she stores her money, or does she casually pull out some bills? Watch five women shopping for food in the late afternoon and you will know how things are there.”

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101108_geopolitical_journey_part_1_traveler?utm_source=GJourney&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101108&utm_content=readmore&elq=b257f11d19a3442595cc32a80aee2419

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2010 3:10 PM
Comment #312731

Apparently Mr. Daugherty, a large number of Dems disagree with your love for Pelosi:

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/08/fox-exclusive-defeated-democrats-pen-letter-implore-pelosi-step-aside

It’s always entertaining to have members of your own party tell you to GTFU! Now!

I can’t wait to see who the signators are.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 8, 2010 3:34 PM
Comment #312734

Kevin, similar attacks are taking place inside the GOP. Sen. Orrin Hatch is targeted for defeat by his own party members two years from now, along with several others. Should Orrin Hatch just up and resign now, because some in his party are targeting him?

Get a grip, man. Internal political party struggles are constant, they just don’t always make the news. I see where Bachmann is being targeted as well by Republicans in the Party. Oooppsss! Did I let that newsbit out of the bag? She is after all, a real liability, as was O’Donnell, Angle, Wilson, and others of their not-ready for prime time ilk.

Neither party is immune from its internal struggles for power and advantage. No one should know that better than Republicans after this election, where those struggles cost the GOP the Senate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2010 3:54 PM
Comment #312737

Stephen,
As usual, you see Republican leadership for what it is; not a pretty picture. Also as usual, your debating opponents give no ground.

Political power is likely to swing back and forth until the working class gains some real economic traction. The party of NO will do anything in it’s power to prevent the democrats from accomplishing anything on this front.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 8, 2010 4:05 PM
Comment #312738

You can find out the same thing by watching five homeless women in the street. If they are actively begging, there is hope, but if they are just trying to find a softer place to lay down, it’s pretty hopeless. You forget that those five women shopping may have just been reduced from shopping a gourmet high end store to finding food in the local market. They might still have a little extra there, or just be unfamiliar with the idea of saving. Many of our middle class folk, who have just downgraded, find themselves in that very position.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2010 4:09 PM
Comment #312747

dude…please don’t read any Stratfor articles as the content may sail right over your head. They are written for adults.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2010 4:52 PM
Comment #312751

Royal Flush,
You might want to rethink your response to Marysdude since the five women you talk about today could be the same five women Marysdude talks about tomorrow.

For why I do believe both the Conservatives and Liberals are foolish to believe playing Musical Leadership Chairs in Washington will change things. I do believe the move should expand the ranks who believe voting out the incumbents is the only way to truely regain control of our government and society. Because if the Democrats and Republicans in America want to be seen as hearing the American Voter in the 2010 Election than how can they say “No” to changing the Status Quo of Washington?

Now can the Left and Right prove they are “Adults” or will Americans be forced to watch two more years of the Kids of the 20th Century fight over how “Stupid” the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spons of the 70’s have been for the last 30 years.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 8, 2010 5:39 PM
Comment #312752

I can see how it would be hard for Liberals to fire Pelosi. Even though 60% of Americans disaprove of Pelosi
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_favorability_ratings

she got her done from a liberal perspective.

Liberals and Republicans are both delighted, so at least there is finally something both sides agree on.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2010 6:10 PM
Comment #312753

Craig, I think it is also worth noting that Pelosi received a higher share of the vote in her house district than she did two years ago. Her constituents are certainly pleased with her record as their representative.

The Democratic party isn’t interested in regaining the house. It’s mostly interested in doing whatever it can do to preserve the laws that it has recently enacted. Climate change is the only issue that the Democrats never dealt with, but it’s going to be a while before the public warms to the idea of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. When Pelosi made her decision to seek the minority leader position, she never mentioned regaining a Democratic majority:

*** Pelosi’s big omission: The most underreported part of Nancy Pelosi decision on Friday to run for minority leader: The fact that her announcement (both her Tweet and her full statement) NEVER once mentioned how she plans to lead the House Democrats back to the majority. It was about protecting what had been created (health care, and Wall Street reform), not about how Democrats regain power. We know that Pelosi racked up a considerable legislative record over the past two years, and we also know that she and her team were able to win control in ’06. But how does she fix her public image? In our NBC/WSJ poll, her fav/unfav rating was 24%-50% (and among indies, it’s 8%-61%). Her decision on Friday was akin to if Newt Gingrich held on to power after ’98. By the way, Gingrich’s fav/unfav in the Oct. 1998 NBC/WSJ poll was 27%-46% (and 17%-52% among indies). Will House Democrats ask for more details from Pelosi on her plan to get the majority back, or her plan to fix her own image?

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 8, 2010 6:31 PM
Comment #312754
Really. I personally believe that Pelosi and Harry Reid are attacked not for their actual politics, but for simply being the leaders of the Democrats.

Duh. Just like the Democrats did to Newt and Delay. Just as the Republicans did to Daschle.

Let’s admit that he has his own reasons for why Nancy Pelosi must fall, and not kid ourselves that he’s really standing on a principle here in asking Democrats to tuck tail and run.

Again, duh. Go figure a politician would play politics if asked a question about the opposition. I just saw Weiner doing the same thing on Ed’s show talking about the Republican leaders. I’m sure you share my outrage.

Posted by: George at November 8, 2010 6:36 PM
Comment #312755

The Democrats would be wise to change their congressional leadership. Pelosi and Reid failed to deliver a compelling argument to the American public on health care and financial reform. They became pin cushions for ludicrous Republican attacks. In essence, they failed to frame the debate on their grounds. The Democrats need articulate and forceful leadership in Congress. Pelosi and Reid do not fill the bill.

Posted by: Rich at November 8, 2010 6:48 PM
Comment #312756

I can see how this is very hard for Pelosi and liberal Democrats. Both are very proud of the legislative achievments even if the country is angry about them. Pelosi would not want to sit by and watch the country change her legacy from how she intends.

Liberals however are only 20% of the electoriate. The liberal agenda just isn’t supported by the majority of Americans. So it goes out ugly.

I think Pelosi running makes it harder for Obama to get reelected in 2012.

However, Liberals do not want to go down without a fight.

I believe there is a working majority for Republicans in the Senate if they want it. Moderate Dems are not likely to want to go to the political shooting squad the way the House moderates did. And with 20 or so Democrats up for reelection in 2012, and also with the election results of last week, it is likely they will not want to drink the koolaid from Obama Reid Pelosi on every vote.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2010 7:14 PM
Comment #312758

Rich,

Conservatives have dumbed down America to the point that Pelosi nor Reid could have made a dent in the thickness of skull. We had thirty years of failure to learn the basic truism…if it don’t work the first…or second…or third times, it might be a good idea not to try it the fourth time. What a strange concept…try something that is working rather than the old crap that has proven to be so useless and harmful.

RF,

>dude…please don’t read any Stratfor articles as the content may sail right over your head. They are written for adults.
Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2010 04:52 PM

If adults can’t use their own heads, maturity is wasted on them. How are YOU feeling?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 8, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #312760

Stephen
Why are you so hung up on those 420 bills that didn’t get shoved up someones orifice? Is Congress so lame (both parties) that they fail to legislate 420 (actually more) more laws? What is wrong with existing law? 420? What’s in them? More federal power? And this was just a short stint. This gets repeated over and over again. Passing more and more laws that just convolute the existing structure. Meanwhile you sit there and in your papal attire try to be the holy see and see all and know all abour how the country is going to go in the next 2 year. Your are a joke, dude. Go back to Kos and cuss. Maybe you’ll see one of your idols (Meester Olberman) over there looking for a job.

Posted by: Larry at November 8, 2010 7:25 PM
Comment #312763

Craig Holmes,
Why the Democratic Party might be in trouble if they pick Pelosi as their leader. I do believe the Republicans and Tea Party risk losing their voters in 2012 if they elect Boehner and Company for their leadeership.

No, my advice to All Americans is to call up your local Senators and Representative and tell them you want to see new leadership in Congress. For why the Conservatives and Liberals can do all the trash talking they want over the nrxt two years using the same old arguments. Do they really think in 2012 the Independent Voters will support the same old candidates and incumbents running on the same old platform?

In fact, I would say a Third Party Candidate would have a good showing in 2012 just saying “I’m not Your Parents’ Conservative or Liberal Politician” and offering just a few ideas on how they can work in Congress to change the Public Debate.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 8, 2010 8:15 PM
Comment #312764

Oppose Nancy? Hell no. I think Republicans welcome her as minority leader. She is just the kind of person Republicans, moderates and even many Democrats heartily dislike. Nancy Pelosi as minority leader will improve Republican prospects in 2012.

Posted by: C&J at November 8, 2010 8:16 PM
Comment #312766

SE-
First in line!

You know, Obama basically conceded a number of points to Republicans before hand and let their ideas be included in his major bills. Among his regrets, after over a year’s worth of constant obstructionism, was not forcing the Republicans to bargain for those things first.

Republicans can talk about others not being bipartisan, but if their basic premise for bipartisanship is simply “Do what we want Democrats.”, no thanks.

TomT-
Cut and paste? Well, I do quote people, and knowing how to use the proper tags for it, they show up in nice blocked quotes. But I what I write is original. You want to know a good test for that, one I’ve used on some of your articles, especially when they omit the author being quoted? Google a key phrase.

I come from a tradition, academically, where you are expected to cite sources independent of yourself. This helps define your ideas with more than just your own personal opinions.

Kevin L. Lagola-
Damn, you’re going to force me to have some fun. TomT, if you’re paying attention, this is why you cut and paste. ;-)

Many of us want the chance to run again and reclaim the seats that we lost on Tuesday. With you as the leader of House Democrats, the hangover of 2010 stands no chance of subsiding.

Yeah. Boehner was just so ineffective as a House Majority leader, that he got elected Minority leader twice and now is getting promoted to Speaker of the House.

If anybody was going to suffer from a hangover, wouldn’t it be the Republicans with the guy who lost 2008?

But it’s the next one that makes me laugh.

Many of us have run our last race but remain committed to our party; we want to help recruit successful candidates to run in our stead. Unfortunately, we fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting.

“Unfortunately, we fear that the Republicans will further demonize you”

If you’ve been keeping up, the folks who ran against their own party, their President and its leadership lost. It’s the stupidest political manuever in the world: alienate both sides at once. It’s why Lieberman’s current term is likely his last.

But really, being afraid that your leader will get demonized by the Republicans? Republicans would demonize a piece of fried chicken if you put (D) by its name. They didn’t bother to draw a distinction between those who ran away from Pelosi and those who ran towards her, those who voted against the healthcare bill, and those who voted with it. The Republicans were not interested in this last election in being fair judges of political position and merit. Anybody who decides to run from being a Democrat, or from this Democratic Party leadership will never have the chance to do anything BUT run.

Oh, wait, it gets better:

This is a difficult letter to write, because we admire your commitment, your drive, and your conviction. You have been an historic figure in our great nation, and for that we are all proud, as should you be. Nonetheless, we each experienced how Republican demonization of you and your leadership contributed to our defeat.

Do the folks who wrote this realize that the contents of this letter disqualify them from Phylum Chordata? I mean, really, the word “demonize” has a connotations of unfair slandering or libel. When a person is demonized, they are made out to be the worst thing in the world, evil, all that sort of thing.

So, these fellows say that the wise thing to do to win, is not to oppose this unfair portrayal, but rather to fold in its face.

Morons. Utter morons. You don’t win elections by being ostentatious WEENIES. This letter is either an anonymous forgery from a Republican, or the work of somebody who most likely, from the wording of the letter, deserves the defeat they got. If you can’t stand up for you principles, if you can’t defend your party from unfair attack, if you’re perpetually running from the other party’s attacks, you deserve to lose. Badly. Forever.

The problem with too many Blue dogs is that they really stood for nothing, and standing for nothing, they fell for everything.

You did notice, didn’t you, that nobody’s signed that letter?

Craig Holmes-
Do you know what the numbers are on John Boehner?

Do you know how angry people are about recissions being banned? About the end of pre-existing conditions for children now and adults later? The banning of lifetime caps?

Have Republicans soured people on a policy, or on a brand?

And really, is Obama actually suffering at the polls? He’s doing better than two presidents who got re-elected were at this point.

You’re right that Democrats don’t want to go down without a fight. I think they’re beginning to realize, though, that disappointing people is a quick way to get booted, and that they don’t need to be getting too lovey-dovey with the Republicans. As if the Republicans would let them.

Larry-
Filibusters and holds, mister, filibusters and holds, used for purposes they were never intended: to cripple Congress’s ability to function by majority rule.

You can rationalize it all you want to, tell us that we are now on our way to Eden because of your heroic efforts to deny majority rule, but really, what it amounts to is a bunch of selfish political hacks who were jealous that Americans chose them.

But now you’ve got one house back. What excuses will their be now?

Republicans cannot keep the charade up forever. Americans want active leadership now. Unfortunately, they’re trying to convince themselves that people simply ratified their agenda.

I think we’ll see how long the honeymoon lasts with this majority. I don’t think Republicans fully comprehend how little patience the American people have left with them. There’s a Reason Congressional Republicans rate lower than Democrats.

C&J-
I think you, thanks to your immersion in the GOP, have an overly inflated notion of Nancy Pelosi’s unpopularity. It’s easy, when you’re surrounded by Fox News and other such sources, to get caught up in the Echo Chambers current objects of derangement. It’s Nancy Pelosi’s turn to be the verbal punching back of the Republicans. But they aren’t going to be kinder to her successor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2010 9:31 PM
Comment #312768

Stephen:

Seeing this from your perspective, I can see why you would see Nancy Pelosi as almost a hero of sorts. She got your agenda through as much as she could. You might even like her better than Obama.

The issues you mention above while deeply important to you as a liberal, are not nearly as important the voters when compared to jobs.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2010 10:17 PM
Comment #312770

Stephen:

Here is what you on the left were hired to do:

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/pom/StateId/QTzlyAFix_EtUoPzurLRvi4DZYxqm-4C_G/HAHTpage/Summary_Link?qstn_id=1718144


Here is what the Republicans in the House have been hired to do?

The exact same thing.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 8, 2010 10:28 PM
Comment #312771

Glenn Beck has a great series on is cable show this week. It is a continued move to reveal Sorros and the socialist left. The left attacks him, but they never answer the questions he poses. The red phone has never had a call from the WH, disputing his proof.

Posted by: Bill at November 8, 2010 10:36 PM
Comment #312779

Bill,
The problem with Glen Beck is that he is not willing to admit his power based are truely Socialists. For who benefits from low interest rates and taxes if not the Wealthy and Upper Middle Class? Who benefits from the 20th Century Business Model?

Yes the Democratic Leadership in the 1990’s formed some solid working relationships with the Industrial Barons amd continue to work on building more; however, Beck fails to show how the same information can be used to show how a handful of Conservative Citizens are promoting their idea of socialism. For when is the lasrt time you heard Glen talk about Republicans are working to keep the American Consumer and Small Business Owner from increasing their income?

So why he gives a good story about how the Democrats are promoting socialists views, ask him how does he feel about eliminating Corporate Welfare especially since one can make the argument that Radio and TV advertisement and public announcements write offs could be seen as socialists activities.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 8, 2010 11:44 PM
Comment #312783

C&J said: “Nancy Pelosi as minority leader will improve Republican prospects in 2012.”

Yeah, like Boehner, as minority leader swept the public off their feet in this last election. Get a grip. Americans don’t vote based on the minority leader of the House of Representatives. Check your exit polls for verification.

It is a far more defensible statement that the public will be voting on Majority Leader Boehner’s performance, rather than minority leader Pelosi’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 12:42 AM
Comment #312784

David,
Given the political talk by the radio and TV pundits it seems that the only winner that will be coming out of Congress in 2012 is the going Anti-Incumbent Movement IMHO.

For why Cantor and others might glow about the idea of running again against Pelosi, I agree that whoever the Republicans pick as Speaker of the House will make a fine Lamb for Americas’ Political Groups.

In fact, couldn’t one make the argument now that while Wall Street is happy to have gridlock in Washington. Main Street is ready to take matters in their own hands if Congress fails to address the Issues such as unemployment, energy, and the environment?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 9, 2010 5:43 AM
Comment #312787

Craig Holmes-
Hero? Not quite. But you can’t deny she’s effective. Otherwise conservatives like yourself would be gloating over how ineffective she was, rather than worrying about communist takeovers out loud.

Reid I could part with. Here’s a man who took sixty votes in the Senate and let the Republicans walk all over him. I’m a practical person politically. I prefer folks in charge who can actually get things done. The only thing that saved his rear end, I imagine was Sharron Angle.

Speaking of that, your party picked some truly horrible candidates, all in the name of looking like the outsiders. Well, some people get left out of elected office for good reason. The problem for Republicans, as I see it, it that they allow themselves very little flexibility. In fact, they build their appeal on that uncompromising nature.

It’s a positive when you’re talking about the initial election, where people prefer the stronger-willed leader. If you can seel them on your ideology, you’re in there. But once in there, they have to legislate in response to the real world. It’s not that Democrats are any better, necessarily, at all times. The trouble is, Republicans simply don’t allow themselves to be flexible in their approaches, seeing such variation as a sign of weakness.

The Republicans will test their theories to destruction. But this isn’t Mythbusters, this is the American economy, American society as a whole we’re talking about. Failure shouldn’t be an option, because government has a job to do: keep this country together, keep it doing well. Republicans define that purpose so rigidly that they’re willing to accept appalling situations and screw-ups to push thing to that end.

The main question is, do Americans have any patience left for the government screwing things up?

The newsfolk talk about the people wanting the parties to work together and all that garbage, but I think I can essentialize it down to one very simple statement: Americans want their goverment to work.

That means, they want it to help improve the economy. That means, they want jobs back. That means, they don’t want another economic or ecological crisis. They’re tired of seeing government fall down on the job, and they are not so rigid about what good government is capable of as the Republican party.

Which, I think, is a problem for your party. If the Republicans actually believe that they can tell the American people no when it comes time to deal with some crisis, reform some injustice, they will get killed in the next election.

They’ve been thinking these past four years that people faulted them for not being conservative enough, for compromising on things like the bailout. They’ve done a very good job of convincing themselves that folks really are more conservative at heart in this country than liberal.

But I think ideology was irrelevant to the Republican’s failure in the last two elections. I think what really did them in was marked tendency, when confronted by important issues, to persist in pushing a bad set of solutions even when those policies had disastrous consequences. Americans were essentially asked to overlook how badly things were going.

The irony of this last election is that the Republicans succeeded in making it look like the Democrats were doing the same, but in reality, the Republicans were simply inflicting the same kind of stubborn resistance to changing policies that they were before. They were simply hiding behind the large Democratic majority while they were doing it, preventing Obama officials from being confirmed in a timely manner, preventing 420 bills passed by the house from coming to a vote.

And my bet is that they will do the same sort of crap with their newfound majority in the House. Maybe they get away with it, maybe they don’t, but I can’t imagine that they can operate with the same subtlety as they did before, in terms of gumming up the works. And I don’t see them wanting to be subtle. They want to be seen to be getting in the way of government so their folks back home can see them do it.

If they don’t do that, if they don’t reject deals, they lose their base. But, as I noted before, the rest of the electorate will not have such patience for what they’re doing. So, the Republicans have put themselves in a position where they cannot maintain both sides of their electoral support. They either sacrifice their base to their center, or their center to their base.

That’s why I’m confident the Democrats have a chance of taking Congress back in a couple years. I’d be pleased as punch at the prospects, if it weren’t for the fact that I care about policy, first and foremost.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2010 8:15 AM
Comment #312788

Stephen

You did not tell me why it is so important to add 420 pieces of legislation to our allready overburdened legal system. But that is par for the course for you.

You mentioned one of the crown jewels of what you refer to as a health reform bill and that is pre-existing conditions. An extremely small number of people that are eligible for this coverage have been able to afford it. You goofballs said it would be affordable for those people. Well it is very expensive to the point that most people with that lot in life will be able to get it. Your party sure does care for somebody but not the common man. In my upbringing I was taught that it is a lie to not tell the truth. That is a classic example of a lie. Your royal lady leading the sheep said they should vote for the bill and see what is in it. Oops, there is a lot she can’t talk about because they would start calling her the fisher lady because of all the big ones that got away.

Your party had all those votes and power and the best you can do is cram legislation down peoples throat that they did not need nor did not want. That is classy. You blame republicans for your failures and take credit for your successes. You can take those successes and stick ‘em. Blaming someone else for your failures is so childish and irresponsible.

The greatest success for the first two years of the Obuma administration is killing pirates. Beyond that I would have to stroke my beard while contemplating a success that benefited the American people. I’m still stroking my beard. Let me get back to you on that.

You are now “The Voice of Prophecy” with some of your minor prophets. Your mind has been infiltrated with what some day you will stand and say I was a Marxist all along. You say some capitalist things to throw off the opposition but the rest is soft-soaped Marxism. The thing that I understand is that in other locations around the world people would say the nice things people wanted to hear and as the power was gained along the way the less nice things would be spoken and more power deeds were done. That is what the democrats, liberals, progressives, etc. are doing today. They are walking the Marxist Ave of thought and one of these days not far off, they will converge and form the convergence of their collective processes and announce that they were Marxist all along. These little tidbits of things to sidetrack the opposition, like $600 billion or $800 billion, or spending, or trips, and so on are only to occupy the oppositions thinking so the leftists can steal about and conduct their programs to further enslave the citizens of this great country. The great fortune of the American people is that the founding fathers made it more difficult for the leftist scoundrels to achieve success. That is why it is taking so long.

Posted by: Larry at November 9, 2010 11:03 AM
Comment #312800

Larry-
Yes, I did. You didn’t pay attention.

You know, we could have brought in a public option or a relatively cheaper Medicare Buy-in, if it weren’t for the obstructionism your party practiced. You complain at us that we didn’t do better, even as you praise those who kept us from making many of the improvements.

Americans wanted such programs, but Republicans filibustered them. They want DADT ended. Who stopped that? They want stronger, more robust Wall Street Reform, cramdown on Mortgages so things don’t get worse in housing.

Your party’s been there to manipulate the Senate rules to defeat majority support for these bills. So who’s really cramming what down people’s throats?

The failure belongs to Congress as a whole, but to the Republican delegation in particular for their deliberate sabotage of 200 years of Senate tradition. The Senate, and Congress as whole by extension, do not make policy in their parts, but instead as a whole. Republicans took their delegation and used the Senate rules to block majority supported legislation- that is, legislation that would otherwise pass.

So why not blame you? What’s childish about assigning responsibility according to the basic consequences of the actions of the people in question. The Republicans deliberately blocked 420 bills, and way over a hundred appointees of the Obama administration, all in an attempt to deny the Democrats, given a mandate in 2008, the ability to carry it out. You may wrap it up in banners of heroic political resistance, but you didn’t concern yourself with what the majority thought when you started this bull**** right after you lost that election.

You simply want to get things your way, whether or not the majority supports it. That’s what all the crazy rhetoric and propaganda is for: to provide majority support after the fact for political actions you’re already taking. You’re not waiting for approval, you’re white-washing your contempt for Democracy in polls taken after you’ve been unloading toxic rhetoric for a year or more.

As for being the voice of prophecy?

I am not a Marxist. You are simply someone who cannot discuss economic policy on the merits.

I am a capitalist who believes that people misbehave in the financial sector and in business, just like they misbehave everywhere else. Some law and order is required in an economy to keep the cheaters and the con-men from dominating the competition, to keep the greedy from making our economy dependent on an overleveraged, inhumanly complicated, overly-consolidated financial system.

I don’t trust the market to do it. It never reins these people in until they screw up big time and can no longer juggle the transactions necessary to keep that screw up a secret. Then the rest of the economy suffers and freezes up as we pick up the pieces from their frauds and bad gambles.

You call me a Marxist to distract people from the fact that your people are simply very incompetent at governing a capitalist economy. Raise the specter of us becoming like the Soviets, scare the folks who remember the old cold war threat, never address the fact that the greatest uncertainty comes from a sector of the economy that the government was actually forbidden to regulate or oversee by Republican legislation.

The “free” market of the Republican policymakers failed. It distorted itself, did what the Communists did, just with a different mechanism. No system is immune from the temptation to try and defy basic economics, constraints of supply and demand. Not a Soviet Communist economy, nor a Conservative Capitalist economy. Everybody tries to have their cake and eat it too.

Well, sorry, all systems need rules in place to make sure that realities of supply and demand back the market, not market manipulations that inevitably overcharge, then crater the economy.

If I am a prophet, I am a prophet of an economy where progress is earned, actually worked towards, rather than pretended to until the bubble bursts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2010 12:47 PM
Comment #312802

Terrible rut you’re in there Stephen. Blaming others for your failure is not rational.

What you pen does not represent capitalism. It represents large government socialism.

The majority of the people do not want DADT to be repealed.

The majority of the people do not want federally mandated health care.

“cramdown on Mortgages so things don’t get worse in housing.” What the devil is that? Get out of the mortgage business alltogether. Let capitalism, you know the thing you are in favor of, do its thing involving mortgages.

Stephen, you are spinning your wheels in that rut you are in and are burrying yourself. But, that is your choice.


Posted by: Larry at November 9, 2010 1:04 PM
Comment #312807
The majority of the people do not want DADT to be repealed.
False Posted by: Warped Reality at November 9, 2010 1:37 PM
Comment #312809

Larry, do you support a strong military?

Do you support a strong border enforcement agency?

Do you support space exploration competitive with other nations?

If the answer to any of these questions is YES, then you are a socialist. These are all socialist programs. Taking taxes from all and spending them on programs which NOT all tax payers support. These programs constitute a transfer of wealth from tax payers to individual investors and owners of contractors who provide the goods and services for these programs. These programs all involve government jobs and employment and hiring.

These programs are socialist. I suspect you are a socialist supporter with a preference for only a specific set of socialist spending programs, while reserving the right to call anyone else supporting any other kind of socialist programs “SOCIALIST” while reserving the right to ignorantly exempt yourself from that definition.

Of course, I could be wrong, you may be an anarchist, in which case, you could truly exempt yourself from the label of socialist, advocating no government and the anarchy that would result. If you want a taste of anarchist freedom, take a vacation in Somalia.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 2:13 PM
Comment #312812

Larry-
The problem with using a word like “socialism” as a bludgeon like the Republicans have done is that it saps all the real meaning out of the word.

What they really mean by socialism is communism, but calling it communism makes people sound more overblown, since we have decent living memory of how extreme that system it is. So, socialism it is, with a nice dose of anti-European Xenophobia sprinkled in for good measure.

It’s a cheap substitute, but the fact that flinching from any shadow of Marx has been bred into the Baby Boom generation, it’s been effective as political propaganda.

But as policy? It’s been God-awful stupid.

I remember a time when it was basically agreed that free market capitalism meant the hybrid fusion of new deal economics and regulations with a strong, robust private sector that set the price of its goods in regards to supply and demand, rather than having it set from some central office, like the Soviets did. Do I support this? Hell yes! I support capitalism. I support people making money off of doing good business.

But what I also support are rules that bind corporations to operate morally within society, not cheating people, not loansharking them, not betraying their professional obligations to them. I also support rules that require capital institutions to reserve a certain level of assets to cover potential losses if they don’t want to get taken over. I support rules that would separate the high-risk financial institutions from the low-risk ones, that would end conflicts of interest that have the people who service the debt of a company being the same folks selling stakes in that company.

This isn’t your idea of a free market, but then my idea of a free market never centered around giving corporations extraordinary freedoms to act like no individual American would be allowed to act. If you knowingly dumped poison in your neighbor’s drinking water, conned them out of money in an investment, or got them killed doing some work, you’re damn right you’d feel the consequences.

But you? You would hand special rights to corporations to allow them to do this, and this would be your idea of freedom. But that’s not freedom. Freedom comes with obligation. Free speech doesn’t entitle people to yell fire in a crowded theatre. The right to bear arms does not entitle you to take potshots at your neighbor. The protection against unwarranted searches does not obviate the obligation to stand aside for the warranted kind.

I believe its perfectly legitimate to require that businesses be honest with consumers, investors and others. I believe it’s legitimate to require certain things of banks to operate as banks, just as its legitimate to ask that buildings be built to code.

All of these things cost businesses from their bottom line, but the failure of those businesses to do those things harms people both economically, and in other ways that can’t be counted with dollars and cents. It isn’t necessarily cheaper or more efficient to run a society the way the free market fundamentalists want it to be run, and we’ve found that out to our considerable dismay.

So call me a Marxist. Then you can avoid discussing the social consequences of pushing special rights for businesses.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2010 2:51 PM
Comment #312813

David said, “Americans don’t vote based on the minority leader of the House of Representatives.”

Tell me David, how do you explain the democrats letter to Pelosi? Do democrats who lost, know something you don’t know?

“In addition to the Blue Dogs, the defeated Democrats cannot help but feel Pelosi is to blame for the “shellacking” the Democrats took on Election Day. Following the results of the midterm elections, defeated House Democrats submitted a letter to Pelosi imploring her to step aside:

“Many of us want the chance to run again and reclaim the seats that we lost on Tuesday. With you as the leader of House Democrats, the hangover of 2010 stands no chance of subsiding. Many of us have run our last race but remain committed to our party; we want to help recruit successful candidates to run in our stead. Unfortunately, we fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting.

This is a difficult letter to write, because we admire your commitment, your drive, and your conviction. You have been an historic figure in our great nation, and for that we are all proud, as should you be. Nonetheless, we each experienced how Republican demonization of you and your leadership contributed to our defeat.

It is impossible not to judge the results of November 2nd as anything but a profound loss. We want to recover. Recovery of our majority in the House necessitates new leadership at the top of our party. We believe that you can and will play an extraordinary role in our party, and it is extremely unfortunate that Republicans have taken away your ability to lead as effectively as you are able. Nonetheless, one mark of a strong leader is the ability to discern when it is time to pass the baton. As defeated members, whose party needs to rebuild, we are counting on you to show the strength of your leadership in this dark hour. We ask that you step aside as leader of our party in the House.”

http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/5130-nancy-pelosi-becomes-dems-scapegoat

Stephen, why do people on WB continually accuse you of being a Marxist?

Posted by: TomT at November 9, 2010 3:42 PM
Comment #312815
Less than a week after his election, Kentucky’s Senator-elect Rand Paul already appears to be making a rapid departure away from one of his campaign promises: an earmark ban that stood as a conservative cornerstone, a position Paul touted to indicate he was serious about tackling the reckless spending practices of Washington.

Here’s what Paul told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad “symbol” of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. “I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests,” he says.
Such statements would have seemed impossible back in March. Here’s Paul’s clear-cut pledge to tackle the “corrupting” carve-outs of federal money

Just a little friendly fire…
:

Posted by: Marysdude at November 9, 2010 3:51 PM
Comment #312816

>Stephen, why do people on WB continually accuse you of being a Marxist?
Posted by: TomT at November 9, 2010 03:42 PM

Because it is the only way some folks can feel good about themselves, ie, putting Stephen and other liberals down, creates a sense of superiority they cannot feel by honest debate.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 9, 2010 3:54 PM
Comment #312817

Thank you for the quick response Stephen, oh… sorry…it’s marysdude defending stephen.

Posted by: TomT at November 9, 2010 3:58 PM
Comment #312818

marysdude said, “Less than a week after his election, Kentucky’s Senator-elect Rand Paul already appears to be making a rapid departure away from one of his campaign promises: an earmark ban that stood as a conservative cornerstone, a position Paul touted to indicate he was serious about tackling the reckless spending practices of Washington.”

Here we go, I guess we are going to have to listen the socialist second guess the republican house for the next 2 years. Stupidity in action.

Posted by: TomT at November 9, 2010 4:01 PM
Comment #312820

TomT,

Don’t get your panties in a twist, I merely placed a little political observation, about your new Senator, out there for y’all to chew on.

Do you EVER step into a post addressed to any other poster? If you don’t, there are plenty here who do. It is common and acceptable. This is an open forum. My answer was appropriate, because Stephen is not the only one who puts up with that stuff.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 9, 2010 4:16 PM
Comment #312821

TomT-
That’s simple. Because they don’t know how to argue their points logically.

I believe in capitalism, but capitalism that doesn’t afford businesses special rights that we would never think to give to the average citizen for the fear that it would harm society.

If some jihadi from Saudi Arabia came here and dumped poison in our drinking water, we would consider that an act of terrorism.

When an energy company comes in, fracks a shale gas well, and leaves people’s drinking water flammable, though, it’s consider business as usual.

The Free Market folks think that any time an obligation to society costs a company money or added time and effort, that the obligation should go. I feel this is a ridiculous way to run a society, to subsidize misbehavior by groups of people that we wouldn’t tolerate from individuals.

As for the Letter? The letter’s BS. Either it comes from a Republican who wants to make Pelosi look unpopular, or it comes from a defeated Democrat advocating that others take the spineless course that probably lost them their job.

Either way, I think fighting for the interests of society, of the average person doesn’t constitute socialism. It constitutes good sense. American cannot afford a repeat of Katrina, of the Gulf oil Spill, of the Iraq war or the mismanagement of Afghanistan. It cannot afford a repeat of the 2008 crash, or the 2006 housing collapse that preceded it.

But Republicans want to maintain the special rights these corporations have because of some misguided notion that the free in free market equals anarchy, the lack of law and order. The Republicans are no longer a party of conservativism, but a party of decadence, prepared to squander this nation’s greatness on a grand political experiment that’s so far been a great failure.

I’m tired of giving Republicans more chances to screw up, but evidently Americans were convinced to give them a shot. No matter. Republicans aren’t interested in policy that works, they’re interested in policy they think works, no matter how many times reality disagrees with their wishful thinking.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2010 4:19 PM
Comment #312825

Stephen and David

As candidate Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again”

Both of you putting in print something I did not say and only came from presumptions which were faulty. Geez, how can you guys be so wrong so often?

And David, specdifically a strong military is part of the founding fathers plan for the republic. It does not tax a certain group of people to pay for the operation. What you are talking about is silliism, goofballism, or let just keep it simple, stupid.

I came inside for a break from putting up a new ham radio antenna so I could talk to more people around the world and while catching my breath I get this. How silly of me to expect more from my fellow Americans.

I leave for the day with this simple thought:

God gave man imagination to compensate him for what he is not; and a sense of humor to console him for what he is.

Posted by: Larry at November 9, 2010 5:11 PM
Comment #312828

Larry-
It’s easy to tell somebody they are wrong, to use cute little catch-phrases like “There you go again” and wait for appreciative laughter from your fellow right-wing followers.

But are they wrong, or are you the one who is wrong?

I try to argue to more people than just my fellow Democrats and Liberals.

You? You insult me, tell me I’m in a rut, wonder out loud why I couldn’t just be a freedom-loving true believer just like you.

Fact you didn’t know that DADT repeal had majority support is indicative of the problem of your approach. You talk of Healthcare Reform, too. Well, most people don’t want mandates, too. But they do want an end to insurance companies discriminating over pre-existing conditions, especially with children, and they do want an end to recission. With companies essentially barred from simply dumping the unhealthy for the sick, though, the moral hazard would be that people would wait until they got sick to get insurance.

So, the real question is whether people are willing to accept something they don’t want for the sake of something they do. That’s the way the real world works sometimes. Tax cuts often poll with great popularity, but that doesn’t mean they’re always a good idea, either. We’re running deficits that are going to be an economic burden on their account. If people really thought policy through instead of just reacting, oh how many problems we would be avoiding right now.

We need to govern based on realities, not wishful thinking. Reality is often complicated, and there isn’t any such thing as a free lunch.

Although Wall Street gave a good try with its whole derivatives scheme. But not even modern technology and modern politics can keep such a system from eventually self-destructing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #312832

Larry,
“And David, specdifically a strong military is part of the founding fathers plan for the republic.” Additionally, the Founding Fathers agreed that “We the People” should provide for the General Welfare and insure Domestic Tranquility, yet to listen to some Conservatives and Republicans the Individual should not want their government to provide those services. So should we do away with roads, police, fire, and other 911 Services? How about leaving every American to find their own source of clean water or allowing business to put toxic waste next door to your house? Yes, even the fact our government prevent Con-Men from using financial advisors to rip off the uninformed investor or retired person can be seen as socialism. Thus, when does Capiyalism turn into Rapitalism and should our government provide a Common Defense against such acts?

And “It does not tax a certain group of people to pay for the operation.” Well, that might be true if the Conservatives and Republicans did not believe only 50% of the population pays federal taxes. For leaving out half the population from the group who pays for Americas’ Military breaks down your statement, does it not?

Tom T.,
“Here we go, I guess we are going to have to listen the socialist second guess the republican house for the next 2 years. Stupidity in action.”

No Tom not Stupidity in action, but a well warrented fact that the Status Quo of the Republican Leadership has failed to realize Americans are living in the 21st Century.

For example; they say they want to repel Obama Care and site that today’s elders cannot find primary care doctors as one of the reasons; however, they fail to address it has been their policies over the last 30 years to promote Specialized Medicine over General Medicine.

Additionally, one can make the case that the Conservatives and Republicans have been supporting the Enemy of America by calling for the repel of Cap and Trade. For why everday Americans stay dependent on foreigh oil, we give our wealth away to nations and companies who want to see America fail. However, it seems to me that the Status Quo of the Republican Leadership would rather deny President Obama and the Democratic Party another feather in their cap even if it means paying for both sides of the War on Terror.

So, should Americans point out just how Stupid the Conservatives and Tea Party Members are for believing in their candidates elected to serve in Washington especially when that person changes their political position even before they get sworn in? Well, if Sen-Elect Paul was a Democrat would you provide him with the same defense. Yes or No!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 9, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #312838

Larry said: “And David, specdifically a strong military is part of the founding fathers plan for the republic.”

Is that why the Founding Fathers had a clause in the Constitution restricting the establishment of a standing army beyond emergencies? Article I, Section 8,

“The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….”

Posted by: Rich at November 9, 2010 8:23 PM
Comment #312848

Please, please, please hire Pelosi for minority leader!

It’s bound to do wonders for the growing anti-incumbency sentiments!

But how about firing more incumbents in both parties, instead of merely being the dumbest who let dumb and dumber take turns screwing the dumbest?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress for these abuses with re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2010 9:38 PM
Comment #312850

TomT asked: “Tell me David, how do you explain the democrats letter to Pelosi?”

Well golly gee, TomT, do you think Pelosi is the only Democrat vying for a position of power. Did it ever occur to you that others might want that powerful, potential stepping stone position as minority leaders, as well?

That might explain the letter SOME Democrats sent to Pelosi. Just like the message the Tea Party is sending to Orrin Hatch and others who they want to vacate seats of power, so they can insert themselves into them. It is called politics. Interesting game, that, with a 230 year history, and not much has changed in that game since Adams succeeded Washington.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 9:51 PM
Comment #312851

Larry said: “Both of you putting in print something I did not say and only came from presumptions which were faulty.”

Dumb statement. Why on earth would I want to reiterate what you already said? That would be redundant, now wouldn’t it? And contribute nothing to the debate.

Next time you want to make a claim about having insight as to what the people want, provide a link to a reputable poll substantiating your claim. Then your opinion may have a modicum or more of authority attached to it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 10:04 PM
Comment #312852

d.a.n said: “Please, please, please hire Pelosi for minority leader! It’s bound to do wonders for the growing anti-incumbency sentiments!”

Got that right. There is nothing an anti-incumbent voter likes more than name recognition in an incumbent. Makes quick work of the ballot on Election Day.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 10:06 PM
Comment #312853

Larry said: “And David, specdifically a strong military is part of the founding fathers plan for the republic.””

Talk about an IGNORANT comment. They just don’t come more ignorant than that. Larry, here’s a link to the Constitution. You do know what that is, right? It is the document that voiced the consensus of the founding fathers. I suggest you read it to discover how VERY MUCH you don’t know about the founding fathers and their intents.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2010 10:10 PM
Comment #312856

Well with the claim of supporting a strong military being a socialist ideal I would say I might have been talking down to someone when I tried to keep it simple. I have no idea what your bent is with military, the constitution, socialism, and who knows what else. You just are not making sense. And I think this is going nowhere. I am thru talking to a foolish person.

Posted by: Larry at November 10, 2010 12:45 AM
Comment #312857

Larry,
Why you probably don’t want this Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s having a 6.4 billion personal robotic security force, the fact Americas’ Military is going robotic should not come as a surprise. However, only a foolish person would agree that the government should own th military and not the individual. Now can you explain to us why the Founding Father of America realized that Capitalism and Socialism was a better government than Winner take All?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 10, 2010 1:11 AM
Comment #312863

David: well golly gee David, do you suppose the topic of your conversation was, “Americans don’t vote based on the minority leader of the House of Representatives.”? I don’t remember Orin Hatch being mentioned.

You say, “Just like the message the Tea Party is sending to Orrin Hatch and others who they want to vacate seats of power, so they can insert themselves into them.”

Your answer exhibits your lack of being able to stick to the subject; so just change the subject. I believe an answer like this is called being “IGNORANT”.

Question; did the letter to Pelosi, by SOME of the democrats, ask her to step down and if she continued as minority leader it would hurt their chances of election or re-election? The democrats who wrote the letter are saying their own election chances are based upon who is minority leader.

David, you don’t have to concede this point because I know concede is not in your vocabulary, so just continue with your argument.

Posted by: TomT at November 10, 2010 9:20 AM
Comment #312864

Larry, I also have a probem following David’s logic. I believe he is a person who just wants to argue. And when it comes to Henry Schlatman of the “70’s”, I have no idea what he is saying. I think he, and maybe David, smoked too much of the wacky weed in the 70’s.

Henry: the word is “WHILE” not WHY.

When you’re socialist agenda is being rejected by the American voter, then I guess the next best thing is to change the subject and talk about everything else.

Why heck, why don’t we just change the subject again; “How bout them Cowboys”. Here you go Dave; take this ball and run with it.

Posted by: TomT at November 10, 2010 9:31 AM
Comment #312872

Says the poster who has never answered or proposed anything directly since he bagan posting here.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 10, 2010 12:38 PM
Comment #312878

TomT, Cowboys! Oh, yeah, I have made several references to you in several commentaries. If you know your American history, cowboys were just about the most uneducated class of workers in American history.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 1:20 PM
Comment #312879

Damn, TomT, your comments are denser than a brick. If you don’t see the parallel to the Tea Party’s targeting Orrin Hatch, I have to estimate an education level of about third grade, and black hole at the center of your information pool.

Gotta move on to those with education enough to relate two parallel facts as having common ground. See ya.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 1:25 PM
Comment #312880

David, you are from Texas aren’t you? I was talking about football, Dallas Cowboys. Good Grief…

Posted by: TomT at November 10, 2010 1:25 PM
Comment #312890

Tom T.,
I know the 70’s was about 40 years ago, but do you really want to talk about short term political thinking?

And though the Right can cry all they want about Pelosi running for Minority Speaker of the House. I do believe until Cantor or some other Conservative wants to change political parties and oppose her than they have no say in who the Democrats elect.

Now, care to tell me who is running in opposition to Boehner for Speaker of the House or should a Democrat or Tea Party Representative be allowed to throw their name in the pot for the job.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 10, 2010 5:04 PM
Comment #312891

Henry:

“And though the Right can cry all they want about Pelosi running for Minority Speaker of the House.”

I don’t think the opposition to Pelosi becoming minority leader is coming from the Right. Perhaps you could provide a link for proof? In fact, Republicans are happy to have Pelosi run the minority. Her name is well known among the voters.

Of course there is a lot of Democrats protesting to Pelosi becoming minority leader.

It doesn’t matter who Boehner is running against, why change the subject?

Posted by: TomT at November 10, 2010 5:13 PM
Comment #312893

Henry:

TomT is correct, the right is thrilled that Nancy is running.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 10, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #312895

David:

Stop with the personal attacks.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 10, 2010 5:27 PM
Comment #312899

Tom T.,
In reality the Republicans cannot run against Pelosi; however, that does not mean someone like Cantor cannot change party in Jan. and run oppose to Pelosi for the Minority Speaker of the House. Ans why I’m not sure if that has ever happened before in our history, the fact that no current Democrat is running for Minority Speaker of the House has been out on Cable Media for the last few days.

And why not put Boehner into the debate? Is it because the rest of the Republicans and Tea Party Representatives scared to oppose the Washington Insider when their Voting Public clearly elected them to change Washington?

No, It’s funny how much the Left and Right argue about the problems in Washington, but fear upsetting the Status Quo in their quests not to solve the Issues of the 20th Cemtury.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 10, 2010 6:07 PM
Comment #312901

Craig, here is my response.


.. Nothing Personal.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 6:22 PM
Comment #312902

Craig, yes, the Right is thrilled that Pelosi wants to be Minority Leader.

The Right was also thrilled with Bush having been reelected, not once, but twice, resulting in their loss of control of both the White House and Congress. Your point is?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2010 6:24 PM
Comment #312951

The reason for the Republican loss in 06 and 08 was not only about Bush, it mainly resulted because Republican lawmakers lost their way. They became tax and spend liberals. We of the TP call them RINOs.

Posted by: Justcurious at November 11, 2010 8:05 AM
Comment #312964

Justcurious,

If you think either the Republican Party OR the Tea Party are representative of the ‘Grand Old Party’, you have no concept of history. RINO’s did not ‘lose their way’ in the sense you use the phrase. They lost their way because they forgot, like Eisenhower knew, that we are all Americans. If a party cannot serve Americans, it cannot lead us out of the wilderness. The Tea Party can yell and scream ‘til the end of time, but unless it decides to serve Americans, it will only get in the way and hinder progress. This nation needs help…help is the last thing on Tea Partier’s minds.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 11, 2010 11:57 AM
Comment #312974

David:

Those were personal attacks.

You are very aware that they were personal. You intended to attack him personally.

It is a measure of your personal character that you would do so in a public forum.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 11, 2010 2:53 PM
Comment #312977

Craig,

Does that mean you are NOT attacking on a personal level?

Hmmm…

Posted by: Marysdude at November 11, 2010 3:22 PM
Comment #313006

Craig, David knows exactly what he is doing. He insults and talks down to everyone. It’s a shame we don’t have anyone on WB who can sensor him.

Posted by: Bill at November 11, 2010 7:56 PM
Comment #313013

Justcurious-
Yeah, that’s the story. But:

1) Have the people leading the party changed?

2) Are the policies that led to the deficit going to change?

They keep stringing along folks like you with promises that their policies will reduce the deficit, even as Obama’s proposal quite obviously adds less to the deficit than theirs does. You can claim that there’s going to be a magic deficit-reducing period of growth, but beyond that, you are not likely to see an end to the policies that maintain those deficits you blame on liberalism.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 11, 2010 9:08 PM
Comment #313019

Craig, and you are now personally attacking me, saying you can read my mind and thoughts and thereby divine my intentions which you denigrate.

You are also way ouitside the rules, but, you know, that’s fine me with me now. I am no longer responsible for enforcing them. Have at, Bub, you are getting good at violating the rules and personal attacks while attempting to claim it is others who are doing it.

I am just a participant here. No skin off my chin what you do or say as projection of your own behavior on others. I am now free to ignore it. Which is what I will do with your reply to this, because you clearly believe the rules should apply to me but, not yourself.

Your do as I say, not as I do, position on this blatant and frankly, laughable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2010 12:23 AM
Comment #313022

I would provide a list of those who talk down and denigrate others on WB, but it would be easier to list those who don’t. Stephen. All the rest of us do, or did, or will, or will again.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 12, 2010 12:33 AM
Comment #313031

Stephen never talks down or denigrates others?
In what universe is that?
That’s laughable, and certain doesn’t do much for the credibility of your comments.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 12, 2010 2:09 PM
Comment #313036

d.a.n.,

Perhaps you’ve seen more than I have, but most of Stephen’s denigration has been in response to much worse directed at him, and then only after it becomes obvious that the other party(s) are going to continue in the same vein. I’ve never witnessed his being first, second or even third. Sue me if I’m wrong…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at November 12, 2010 3:56 PM
Comment #313054

I don’t remember a rule that says one must respect stupid argument. While it certainly seems personal when David or others call an argument stupid, I know at least David understands English well enough to call a comment ignorant, uneducated and stupid rather than the commentor.

As to accusing David of “just wanting to argue”, isn’t that what this site is about?

I’m just trying to imagine David with “sensors”.

Posted by: gergle at November 12, 2010 7:32 PM
Comment #313057

“The reason for the Republican loss in 06 and 08 was not only about Bush, it mainly resulted because Republican lawmakers lost their way. They became tax and spend liberals. We of the TP call them RINOs.”

Are these not the same people that cut taxes? The same tax cuts our representatives are discussing now. Didn’t they also get us involved into wars on 2 fronts leaving our grandchildren to pay for them. That ain’t liberals to me, that is borrow and spend conservatism at work. Of course from tea baggers this is what we can expect, misinformation, half truths and outright lies.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 12, 2010 7:36 PM
Comment #313058

>I’m just trying to imagine David with “sensors”.

Posted by: gergle at November 12, 2010 07:32 PM

Perhaps he meant ‘incisors’? Antenna? Proboscis sonarus? Microreceptors? Radar naval?

Posted by: Marysdude at November 12, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #313073

j2t2
Another prophet on the left coming out of the closet. Someont predicting that another group of people are thus and so when there is no track record. Just your charges which cannot be proven. What is the value of that?

Posted by: Larry at November 13, 2010 4:02 AM
Comment #313074

Larry,

Just saying j2t2 is wrong doesn’t make it so. He made a statement…if you disagree, please tell us how he was mistaken. If you can show that, perhaps he will provide more details as to why he thinks he is correct. I’m pretty sure that’s how a debate goes. If I’m mistaken about THAT please let me know, and I will attempt to convince you that I am indeed correct about debating.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 13, 2010 6:31 AM
Comment #313120

Larry, I have not been in any closet to come out of, fallacy 1 on your part. Prophet, fallacy 2 on your part. Because one uses past actions of the group in question to determine the likelihood of future actions on the part of the group does not qualify one as prophet. However to discount the history of the group in determining future actions does qualify one as conservative follower that has swilled to much of the kool aid.

To deny a track record of borrowing and spending when the facts are there is just plain foolish, Larry. Here is a quick run down for your perusal. The 107th Congress, repub/conservative lead, passed the “use of force” bill that allowed Bush to invade Iraq. The 108th Congress, repub/conservative lead, passed the 2003 tax cuts for the rich just shortly after the invasion and subsequent nation building of Iraq. The federal government lead by Bush and the repub/conservative controlled Congress borrowed money to fund the wars as the 107th Congress already had us in Afghanistan in 2001. So tax cut which lead to deficit spending which lead to borrowing was the choice of the repub/conservative leadership of this country. Hence the borrow and spend conservatives statement from my comment above.
SO Larry there is your track record and proven charges. I expect from you a retraction of the “what is the value in that” comment or intelligent rebuttals to the proven track record I have just described.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 14, 2010 11:47 AM
Comment #313154

j2t2,

Don’t hold your breath.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 14, 2010 10:44 PM
Post a comment