Or maybe he's just being a politician.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Or maybe he's just being a politician.

It might be a worthwhile line for them to promote in the election to rev up the base, but reading the remarks (haven't seen the video) it seems like he delivered it really awkwardly.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Among all voters, 47 percent say they would back the Republican in their congressional district if the election were held now, while 45 percent would vote for the Democrat. Any GOP advantage on this question has been rare in past years - and among those most likely to vote this fall, the Republican advantage swells to 53 percent to the Democrats' 40 percent.

Oh my

surprise! It's not all roses for the elephants:

The principal obstacles to GOP electoral hopes continue to be doubts that Republicans have a clear plan for the country should they win control of the House or Senate in November.

a minor concern, I'm sure they'll surmount it

What are you talking about? They have a plan:

1. Impeach Obama
2. Tax cuts for the Paris Hiltons of the country
3. ???
4. Profit!

Mockery aside,this is interesting:

The new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey finds that 58% of American voters believe that Republicans, if they take control of Congress, will have different ideas than former President Bush's, as compared to 35% who think they will return to Bush's policies.

My first reaction was: "Different ideas? Okay. Like what?"

But an answer actually did occur to me: there's some chance they'll be as good as their word and simply not spend any money in an attempt to keep renting power, which is essentially what the DeLay Congresses did with Medicare Part D among many other measures, driving up the debt in conjunction with the tax cuts and wars of choice. That counts as different, even if it almost certainly has less to do with any philosophical shift than the fact that they'll be facing a White House controlled by the other party.

If they keep control and a Republican wins the presidency in two years, they'll probably go right back to Bush-era spending/taxing norms. With the Baby Boomers a decade older and our international competitive position a decade worse, that won't end well.

I'm not convinced that the spending will continue from either party moving forward. While there may not be huge cuts in programs like social security etc., I don't think we'll see the stimulus programs that we've seen recently (even the $50 billion ones). The electorate has a short fuse right now, and I don't think either party is going to get much rope. Likewise with the impeach Obama stuff. People are just tired of it.

People dont know wtf they want. Recent polls show they rather have spending than cuts but they dont wqnt to pay for them. They want to protect our freedoms...but not everyone's. The republican party has a lower approval rating, but they are more likely to vote them in. At this point, i couldnt really give a rats ass what the electorate thinks.

pacino wrote:People dont know wtf they want. Recent polls show they rather have spending than cuts but they dont wqnt to pay for them. They want to protect our freedoms...but not everyone's. The republican party has a lower approval rating, but they are more likely to vote them in. At this point, i couldnt really give a rats ass what the electorate thinks.

They aren't as wise as two years ago when they agreed with you

They dont even know what they think and never have. Who really cares? Just legislate and let the chips fall where they may. Its about policies...get it done. I dont care about winning hearts and minds at this point.

But you need to win the hearts and minds if you want to have any sort of long term window to enact policy.

The Democrats rode into power in 2006 and 2008 because people hated Bush. Then they started passing stuff like health care, and people are like, "Oh shit, we didn't want that. We just wanted that Bush guy to leave."

Yeah. I've been an Obama supporter from the beginning(I'm sure all of you have figured that out), but there was a sizeable portion of the electorate that jumped on his bandwagon without knowing jack about his policies. We have an increasingly stupid and willfully ignorant population and many of these people vote without paying attention to the issues at hand.

The people's willingness to hand back the keys to the same scumbags that got us into this mess shows how short our collective memory is.

pacino wrote:People dont know wtf they want. Recent polls show they rather have spending than cuts but they dont wqnt to pay for them. They want to protect our freedoms...but not everyone's. The republican party has a lower approval rating, but they are more likely to vote them in. At this point, i couldnt really give a rats ass what the electorate thinks.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. I had a teacher in high school who constantly told us that. People want everything without giving anything up.

They want low taxes and may deliver Congress back to the GOP. Don't get upset when they privatize or just outright cut social security to make room for your precious tax cuts.

While the the Republicans (including Bush) deserve a lot of blame for what happened (including out of control spending), there's plenty of blame (Frank and Dodd) to go around. Both parties screwed the pooch.

jerseyhoya wrote:But you need to win the hearts and minds if you want to have any sort of long term window to enact policy.

The Democrats rode into power in 2006 and 2008 because people hated Bush. Then they started passing stuff like health care, and people are like, "Oh $#@!, we didn't want that. We just wanted that Bush guy to leave."

This argument rests on two premises I think are pretty dubious: that people understand what "that" is, and that there's something like uniformity in public opinion of health care and "the Obama agenda" in general. On #1, we know what's popular (new rules limiting insurers' ability to fuck people over, subsidies for those who can't afford to buy their own coverage) and what isn't (the mandate, and stuff like death panels that isn't actually, y'know, in the law). On #2, my recollection of polling on health care is that the seniors--the folks who already get fully socialized medicine--hate it, while everyone else is neutral to positive.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the opposition to "health care reform," like the stimulus, the continued prosecution of the Afghanistan war, the bank and auto bailouts and every other single thing the administration has done, comes more from the country's general pissiness at the economy and disappointment that Obama didn't magically make it all go away than well-informed, deeply reasoned disagreement with the policies themselves. Particularly since the health law was essentially Romney's policy and TARP began under Bush.

edit: I'm not saying that "the public" necessarily overwhelmingly supports all or even any of these things, or that no Republicans could mount a well-informed and articulate argument against these programs; obviously, many could and have. But I do think that if the administration had been more effective, or luckier, in its initial assessment of and response to the economy they found upon arrival, everything else would look different. Them's the breaks, though.

kopphanatic wrote:Yeah. I've been an Obama supporter from the beginning(I'm sure all of you have figured that out), but there was a sizeable portion of the electorate that jumped on his bandwagon without knowing jack about his policies. We have an increasingly stupid and willfully ignorant population and many of these people vote without paying attention to the issues at hand.

The people's willingness to hand back the keys to the same scumbags that got us into this mess shows how short our collective memory is.

then you also have an ignorant population that allows themselves to be lemmings that follow lock and step to what the party leaders tell them and fail to think for themselves. they also act like they are so self righteous yet display a prepubescent personality trait which of course includes name calling.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:But you need to win the hearts and minds if you want to have any sort of long term window to enact policy.

The Democrats rode into power in 2006 and 2008 because people hated Bush. Then they started passing stuff like health care, and people are like, "Oh $#@!, we didn't want that. We just wanted that Bush guy to leave."

This argument rests on two premises I think are pretty dubious: that people understand what "that" is, and that there's something like uniformity in public opinion of health care and "the Obama agenda" in general. On #1, we know what's popular (new rules limiting insurers' ability to $#@! people over, subsidies for those who can't afford to buy their own coverage) and what isn't (the mandate, and stuff like death panels that isn't actually, y'know, in the law). On #2, my recollection of polling on health care is that the seniors--the folks who already get fully socialized medicine--hate it, while everyone else is neutral to positive.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the opposition to "health care reform," like the stimulus, the continued prosecution of the Afghanistan war, the bank and auto bailouts and every other single thing the administration has done, comes more from the country's general pissiness at the economy and disappointment that Obama didn't magically make it all go away than well-informed, deeply reasoned disagreement with the policies themselves. Particularly since the health law was essentially Romney's policy and TARP began under Bush.

edit: I'm not saying that "the public" necessarily overwhelmingly supports all or even any of these things, or that no Republicans could mount a well-informed and articulate argument against these programs; obviously, many could and have. But I do think that if the administration had been more effective, or luckier, in its initial assessment of and response to the economy they found upon arrival, everything else would look different. Them's the breaks, though.

i think this is a fair assertion. i think the problem arose in not prioritizing the numerous problems with the country. it's like obama had a well planned agenda for health care and then cap and trade, but just threw money all over at the economy hoping it would change.

i don't mind the increased debt for bridges in disrepair. however, here in AZ i'm seeing a lot of beautification projects that mean little more than work-fare. if we are spending money, i want to see it spent on things that will have a lasting impact on our country, much like the TVA for roosevelt.

i believe a self-sufficient energy policy is as important to our national security as a strategic missile defense system. while obama has been pushing specifically solar, wind, and conservation, a little more must be done. we have enough coal reserves and the technology that has been around since the late 1930's to turn it into liquid fuel and do it relatively cleanly today. hopefully in the next 25 years, better advancements in renewables will wean us off of fossil fuel altogether. i especially have hope for algae as our new source of fuel. when we do this, we no longer have capital leaving our country and going to places like the middle east or venezuela. we can even start selling to china and india to get us out of debt. it's a plan an investment in america that would pay dividends years down the line.

Was curious if anybody saw this article from the NYT regarding homeless candidates on ballots in Arizona:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/po ... terstitial


Seems pretty sleazy to me. And I'm not just saying it because it is a Republican that is responsible.

traderdave wrote:Was curious if anybody saw this article from the NYT regarding homeless candidates on ballots in Arizona:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/po ... terstitial


Seems pretty sleazy to me. And I'm not just saying it because it is a Republican that is responsible.

sleaze is sleaze and whether it comes from the right or the left it should be exposed equally.

Here's a neat little storyabout "mad as hell" NY-GOV candidate Carl Paladino that offers a reminder of why we all should hope journalism somehow survives. (They did something similar a few weeks back regarding Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat and near-prohibitive front-runner, showing how he's taken large sums of campaign money from special interests he's pledged to fight when in the governor's mansion.)

Gallup back to even

So maybe we won't win 50 seats and I shouldn't hyperventilate about every polling result