Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, September 02, 2010

The Democrats are likely to lose 47 seats and control of the House of Representatives in November's elections, political analyst Larry Sabato says in a new forecast Thursday. "The numbers are eye-catching. Republicans are dramatically gaining in all categories," Sabato said. "It's generated by a rotten economy and a strong conservative reaction against President Obama."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Cant wait for the republicans to hand Barry a budget about 2 trillion less than he wants

"...strong conservative reaction against President Obama."

Sabato has gotten it wrong. It is not against obama, it is against obama's misbegotten policies.

I can't wait for Republicans to quit being the world's biggest economic hypocrites.

Tell us something we don't know.

How could anyone possibly expect anything other than a total smoking of Dems in the midterms? Every freaking thing the admin has jammed through was opposed by the majority of voters.

JM

That's a lot of fucking seats... I wouldn't count my chickens... Just take enough in both houses to shut shit down if need be, if you take the house great, if you make big gains in the senate even better. But don't set taking the house as the victory because its setting yourself up to fail.

I can't wait for Republicans to quit being the world's biggest economic hypocrites.

Why? You want the Democrats to hold that title exclusively? Personally, I'd like to see all elected officials quit being economic hypocrites

But I see your point. The Democrats don't hide their fondness for spending my $$$. They are quite open about tax, tax, tax.

Sure, Goatman, so long as you see that Republicans just like to borrow, borrow, borrow.

Republicans are definitely in favor of wealth redistribution -- from the middle class to the already rich.

Anything is possible.

I find political prognostication very entertaining.

Just for shits and giggles,whose life here on the Drudge has changed significately in the last 2 years? Who has directly been effected, not philosophically, but has experienced actual repercussions resulting from the current administration?

Sure, Goatman, so long as you see that Republicans just like to borrow, borrow, borrow.

I've no fondness for any pol who spends my money willy nilly. But for the last 18 months, it has been solely the democrats who control the Senate, House, and WH.

OOOPS. I forgot. Somehow the republicans are still responsible. LOL

90% of our nation's debt was acquired through budgets & appropriations signed by Republican presidents. Facts, history, and reality are not on the side of so-called conservatives.

It would be great if the newcomers would finally represent middle America and not allow the banksters to run the government along with the political prostitutes.

78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Okay, that's a joke, and Clancifer, I'm not doubting that Republican presidents have contributed to our debt, but 90%? Really? How does one arrive at a figure like that?

90% of our nation's debt was acquired through budgets & appropriations signed by Republican presidents. Facts, history, and reality are not on the side of so-called conservatives.

Blame, blame, blame. I hope this helps fix things. That seems to be all the dems --- all the way to the president --- have. I gues Cls this will help legislation to build a time machine, go back in time and shoot those evil Rs responsible.

Personally, I think the better approach is the fix the problem. The blame game gains us nothing. The house is burning. Do we try to put out the fire, or do we spend all our spare time blaming the evil man smoking in bed? Clearly the paleolibs want to hang the smoker and let the house burn.

Let's restore our tax rates to what the late, great Eisenhower Administration oversaw. 91% top marginal tax rate should start to help pay down this incredible debt of our country.

While of course being significantly old, if Eisenhower were alive today, he'd be driven from the Republican Party as a pinko commie RINO.

paleolibs--cool turn, Goat.

And in case I haven't said it yet, it's good to see you back. I'm glad your professional life has worked out. Of course, sitting on your ass getting paid is rather like a stereotypical union gig, no? : )

"The blame game gains us nothing. "

Sure it does. It warn us -- if we're wise -- not to let the same people get control again.

"The house is burning. Do we try to put out the fire, or do we spend all our spare time blaming the evil man smoking in bed?"

It's not an either/or. We can do both.

Thanks, prag.

re: The blame game gains us nothing.

When it's accurate, as your inability to counter a factual charge would suggest, it does gain us something:

Not listening to you and the people you voted for in their cynical efforts to "solve" the problems they have caused.

Sure it does. It warn us -- if we're wise -- not to let the same people get control again.

OK already. We've been warned. Over and over and over and over. We get it. Bush and the evil Rs are to blame. Point made ad nauseum

Now can we please put that phase of the solution behind and fix the problem?

Fuck

as your inability to counter a factual charge would suggest

???

Stupid as ever, boyd. Isn't it time for your first "goodnight blog"?

Sure, Goatman. How do we fix the problems? Perhaps more tax cuts and wars while not paying for either??

It's not an either/or. We can do both.

Well, we've done one of them for months. Now can we PLEASE move on to the other half?

That's what we can learn from the "blame game". We can learn that when busted, the guilty will start talking about how it's pointless to assign blame.

Sure, Goatman. How do we fix the problems?

If I knew, I would have run for president. The idiot you put in the WH said he knew how to do it. Ask the messiah you voted for, not me.

We can learn that when busted, the guilty will start talking about how it's pointless to assign blame.

Well, if that's all you got -- blame game -- then that's all you got. I wish he would have made it clear during his campaign that his solution was to keep blaming the Rs forever. Maybe so many people would not have voted for him.

Sad.

Thanks a lot for electing that idiot, boyd.

Goatman-
re: If I knew, I would have run for president. The idiot you put in the WH said he knew how to do it. Ask the messiah you voted for, not me.

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-02 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

You mean the guy who inherited a collapsed economy and two wars unfinished by the guys you voted for?

I can see why you don't wish to play the blame game.

And what is your solution, but to vote the same Party that you refuse to blame back in again?

PFFFT!

You mean the guy who inherited a collapsed economy and two wars unfinished by the guys you voted for?

No.

Idiot

No offense, boyd, but I prefer to keep in the present. You, king of the DR paleolibs (well, prince -- AU is king) may continue to live in the past and pretend this will solve the problem

And what is your solution, but to vote the same Party that you refuse to blame back in again?

???

I guess you missed my #25.

Idiot

"Now can we please put that phase of the solution behind and fix the problem?"

Not when the same ideas are being recycled by the same folks who caused the problem. Problems with jobs? More tax cuts for the rich. Wall Street meltdown? Too much regulation. Social security problems? Privatize. Can you name one new Republican idea other than OBAMA BAD...?

Goatman-
re: Well, if that's all you got -- blame game -- then that's all you got. I wish he would have made it clear during his campaign that his solution was to keep blaming the Rs forever.

I wish Bush had made it clear that he and his voters would quickly disavow any responsibility whatever as soon as they got half a chance. (and after leaving the economy in ruins and the US embroiled in two wars)

You get one vote like everyone else, danforth.

But judging by the polls, you are in an increasing minority. I'm not the only sick and tired of the blame game. You, boyd, and AU keep it as your mantra. More and more people are figuring out blame is not the solution.

I wish Bush...

And I wish you lived in the present.

"Can you name one new Republican idea other than OBAMA BAD...?"

Well, there's the "Obama Muslim", the "Obama not a citizen"; there's the "Obama terrorist sympathizer", the "Obama not a citizen" and the "Obama is a racist with a deep seated hatred for white people or white culture", all original takes on the Obvious That Can't Be Stated:

Obama is black.

You guys borrowed the car now it's time to bring it back.

..which is what this is about: white freakout. It's all about brown immigrants, and muslims, and black panthers, and welfare, and "WE" want our country back!

It's a frightening display, and what's more frightening is the good people like Goatman who are too stupid to see the very air they breathe.

"You guys borrowed the car now it's time to bring it back"

So you can drive it into the ditch again?

But so it goes...

So you can drive it into the ditch again?

#38 | Posted by Danforth

Maybe.

The Republican brand is fading to black. We be the Tea Party now.

...good people like Goatman who are too stupid to see the very air they breathe

I thought the reason I couldn't see the air I breathe is because it is transparent. But boyd sets me straight. It's because I'm stupid. LOL

Idiot

"Maybe."

What are your ideas? All I've heard is more tax cuts for the rich, privatize SS, deregulate Wall Street, and allow the insurance company to write the out-of-state regulations on insurance.

"We be the Tea Party now."

What are your solutions?

All I've heard is cognitive dissonance: folks complaining they're Taxed Enough Already, at a time of record high deficits and the lowest tax rates in two generations. Oh, that and a desire for a theocracy.

Oh, that and a desire for a theocracy.

This is a new one to me.

"This is a new one to me."

Sorry...that may have been a bit overboard. I'll retract it...my apologies.

The Tea Party plans on replacing all the losers in congress with winners. Once this is done these winners will enact laws that will lower unemployment and create a growing economy.

#47 -- they have my vote, then

"Once this is done these winners will enact laws that will lower unemployment and create a growing economy."

Like what? Specifically.

Like what? Specifically.

They'll blame Bush.

Oh wait, that didn't work

The Tea Party will eliminate waste which will save several Trillion Dollars and create or save a few million jobs.

"The Tea Party will eliminate waste which will save several Trillion Dollars "

How?

"and create or save a few million jobs."

How?

Specifically.

The Tea Party will eliminate waste...

BINGO!

Did anyone ever see the movie "Dave" that came out about 15 years ago with Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline? We need a shitload of Daves in congress and one in the WH

Only twice since the Civil War have the party in power not lost seats in a midterm. The last time was in 2002 when the country - Democrats and Republicans alike - supported Bush in our time of crisis. Nothing new here.

Did anyone ever see the movie "Dave" that came out about 15 years ago with Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline?

Great movie

But for the last 18 months, it has been solely the democrats who control the Senate, House, and WH.

Before 2006 it was Republicans, but you're willing to go back to entrust them with the responsibility once again. A lot of this countries problems can be traced back to our rewarding mediocrity.

Elections are no different.

This is a new one to me.

Really?

Sorry...that may have been a bit overboard. I'll retract it...my apologies.

I don't think that is necessary. Did you miss the big tea party rally that happened last weekend? The guy said it was for the purpose of restoring honor, but it turned out to be a huge come to jesus meeting. One doesn't even have to stretch to get from where we are right now to "putting god back in government".

Before 2006 it was Republicans, but you're willing to go back to entrust them with the responsibility once again.

That's the problem I am having with the up-coming mid-terms - just because the Dems are even bigger crooks is no reason to re-install slightly less crooked thieves.

"The Tea Party will eliminate waste which will save several Trillion Dollars and create or save a few million jobs."

The Tea Party will do exactly what their corporate sponsors tell them to do. Pretentious clowns who think the real power is listening to them instead of laughing at them.

#11 | Posted by clancifer
90% of our nation's debt was acquired through budgets & appropriations signed by Republican presidents. Facts, history, and reality are not on the side of so-called conservatives.

--------------
Congress writes the checks not the President.

90% of our nation's debt was acquired through budgets & appropriations under a Congress controlled by the Democrats.

If a President doesn't sign the budget the Federal Government shuts down. Not a good way to go.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ
That's the problem I am having with the up-coming mid-terms - just because the Dems are even bigger crooks is no reason to re-install slightly less crooked thieves.
-------
The lesser of two evils, not the best way to go.

"Congress writes the checks not the President."

The President writes and presents the budget to the Congress. The tax cuts which are bankrupting the government were passed by Republican controlled Congresses. The two wars which were ongoing when the Bush tax cuts were passed were begun by a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress. There is just no way to avoid the truth, the Republicans are mostly responsible for the huge debt this country has right now.

"just because the Dems are even bigger crooks

That is hilarious after Abramoff, etc. I'm surprised anyone would have the nerve to post such a ridiculous comment.

The Tea Party will do exactly what their corporate sponsors tell them to do. Pretentious clowns who think the real power is listening to them instead of laughing at them.
#58 | Posted by danni

A statement that's given enormous strength by virtue of two significant qualities: commendable brevity and balls-on accuracy.

Who has directly been effected, not philosophically, but has experienced actual repercussions resulting from the current administration?

#9 | POSTED BY MEMYSELFINI AT 2010-09-02 11:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

my work life has changed for sure. i'm seeing a lot of people who are thinking of selling assets before capital gains go through the roof; people who cannot get loans to refi commercial buildings because banks are cash-hoarding to see what will happen because of an uncertain business climate.

there are properties that nobody is paying for but still living in because the admin has put pressure on the banks to slow the rate of actual foreclosing to make the numbers look good. that has decreased the turnover of properties into income producing properties, and affected local govt.'s ability to collect taxes (i.e. defaults remain on taxes too) leading to cuts of local services.

know folks in industry who are seeing more atty-type regulators seeking fines rather than regulators working to solve problems. the list does, in fact, go on. some problems might have been there too with a more business friendly administration, but I don't think as bad.

it wont be a takeover.

it will be a full scale invastion and ROACH KILLING...

Cut payroll taxes by 50% for TWO years.

Allow expensing of new equipment purchases of 75 - Or - 100% for the same timeframe.

Leave the 'BUSH' tax cuts in place until the employment rate falls to 6.5 - 7% then phase them out over TWO additional years.

Pay 'Lump-Sum' distributions for Local, State, Federal employees (Including retirees of such). I.E.: Calculate pay increases utilizing current formula, divide that # by total employees, pay the amount calculated to employees - PRO-RATED over the 12 month period, the lowest paid receives the same payment as the chiefs.

Increase the BASE - AND - reduce Corporate tax rate to 23 - 25%, close most existing loop-holes.

Leave dividend and capital appreciation tax at 15% for the same two years. Remove savings from a taxable event.

Change unemployment benefit to be supplement to employment check, not a deterrent from such (eliminate taxes on these benefits)!

Beneficiary finds work at 80% of old salary, Employment Security office, on verification of income, pays an aditional stipend to 50% of difference for first year - OR - until promoted into higher paying position. Then subsidy is removed - OR - phased out as necessary!

Reduce ALL other Federal - State - Local programs by 5% per year for these same two years.

Suspend all Unnecessary regulations until employment rate recovers to 5.5 - 6.5%, remove all impediments to recovery! All Boards, Commissions, Delegates, Czars - unless directly involved in reduction of the Unemployment rate - SUSPENDED!

Pick it apart, add, delete, otherwise change it! But, DO SOMETHING besides BITCH!

#67 allow people to pull 401(k) money, tax it as income, but remove 10% penalty.

Sabato is a fairly smart guy and proven correct analysis in the past.

For the repubs to take over the House is monumental--it's never happened before that a party took over with 49 seats elected.

The senate could go to the repubs with one additional seat.

I will stay cautiously optimistic.

There will be October surprises and other tricks--dirty and otherwise still to come.

Repubs could still do something to screw it up.

I do believe they have learned from being in exile to quit the spending and get rid of the corruption. They certainly are not perfect and have a ways to go..

But anything is better than the Dems in control--that must change.

Pure partisan BS, Murphy. How about instead of worrying about the letter after someone's name, we look at each and elect people who don't play the fucking game? Of course, you don't know till they're in there, so maybe it should be about voting out people who appear to be playing the fucking game. I don't buy it that all Republicans are evil and corrupt or the other way round. Many people on both sides are full of shit on this one. Though it does appear that Dems tear each other apart better than Republicans do. Maybe the Republicans should just shut up and let the Dems fuck themselves up. There's a strategy. Of course, I'd love it if the Republican party leaders did more with ideas and less with naysaying.

Regardless, political prognostication is entertaining. And absurd. Only time will tell.

The tax cuts which are bankrupting the government were passed by Republican controlled Congresses.

Danni, the tax revenue to the govt is way to large a percentage of the GDP. The problem isn't tax cuts, it is out of control spending. If tax rates doubled (which is not possible, it would destroy so many jobs), congress would still find a way to run a deficit.

The two wars which were ongoing when the Bush tax cuts were passed were begun by a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress.

Yes, and the recession that Clinton left for Bush was tempered... and the economic impact of 9/11 was reduced. As for the wars... you may have thought Chamberlain did the right thing when he refused to confront Hitler, but history has judged otherwise. Maybe Saddam would have stopped after taking 1 country, or just supporting a few terrorist, or only using biological weapons on his own citizens (and the Iranians and the Kurds)... maybe not. Maybe more of the Iraqi citizens died in the war than would have been murdered by Saddam, maybe not... but the end result is a country that has the opportunity for freedom, something that would NEVER exist if Al Whore or horsey-face were in office.

There is just no way to avoid the truth,

But you sure the FUCK keep trying to ignore it.

the Republicans are mostly responsible for the huge debt this country has right now. by danni

Spending (and most of that is entitlements) is responsible for the economic problems in this country.

1Lib is in complete denial or is out of his mind. That post of yours is so full of shit I can't imagine you actually believe all that.

#70 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-09-03 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit

cedarcomm.com

If we get rid of medicare and SS who will take care of the elderly that have nothing?

futuresteve.files.wordpress.co
m

Here is a picture of the 2008 Federal budget. Where do we cut back?

If we get rid of medicare and SS who will take care of the elderly that have nothing?

We'll find out in a few years or so.

Here is a picture of the 2008 Federal budget. Where do we cut back?

We'll find out in a few years or so.

1Lib is in complete denial or is out of his mind. That post of yours is so full of shit I can't imagine you actually believe all that.
#71 | Posted by jackass

So what do you believe? Why?

Ray I am a hardcore socialist. I believe we go back to a 91% tax rate. We scale back the military so it is less that half the size of what it is now. We do away with tax exemptions. We have a means test for ss. We socialize our medicine 100%. We also get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

#69 | Posted by pragmatist

I didn't know criticising both parties was partisan BS??

I don't understand this partisan banter. Goatman explained precisely how Republican's will cure all that ails:

Did anyone ever see the movie "Dave" that came out about 15 years ago with Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline? We need a shitload of Daves in congress and one in the WH

#53 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-03 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

...'nuff said!

Goatman explained precisely how Republican's will cure all that ails:

???

I did? Please reference the post that supports that lie.

You can't? Wow. Color me surprised.

Is there a chance that you will ever grow up, boyd? Serious question.

Actually, I did. You saw a movie:

Did anyone ever see the movie "Dave" that came out about 15 years ago with Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline? We need a shitload of Daves in congress and one in the WH

#53 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-03 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's about as deep as I've seen you go.

Still waiting to see where I said that was the republican's solution.

Still floundering, I see.

Again, will you ever grow up? II just don't understand the big kick you get by putting words into people's mouths every night. Is is something I should try ? Is it really that thrilling?

You're on your own, boyd. I always feel filthy lowering myself to your level.

Have fun.

You're on your own, boyd. I always feel filthy lowering myself to your level.

What is it with you guys?

What is it with you guys?

boyd is a petulant, lying child. I put petulant, lying children in their place. I think that about sums it up

I guess Goatman likes feeling filthy.

The Tea Party plans on replacing all the losers in congress with winners. Once this is done these winners will enact laws that will lower unemployment and create a growing economy.

#47 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-09-03 12:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

#47 -- they have my vote, then

#48 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-03 12:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I stand in awe of your magical thinking, Goatman.

Stupid as ever, boyd. Isn't it time for your first "goodnight blog"?
#21 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-02 11:32 PM | Reply

"Diarrhea of the mouth" as ever, Goat. Unfortunately for the DR, our prayers for YOUR "goodnight blog" when unanswered...again.

#77: Murphy, you ended with this: "But anything is better than the Dems in control--that must change." If that's not partisan BS, what is? (Neither party has cornered the market on corruption or stupid decisions. This continues to be my point.) The extremely mild criticism of Repubs you had before that--"they're not perfect"--hardly amounts to "being critical of both parties." And are you gonna try to tell me that the dirty tricks was not about Democratic dirty tricks? Please.

Btw, the Goat-Boyd exchanges would be funny if they weren't so frequent. Say good night, Gracie! (I know, it's morning, but I had to go there.)

Unfortunately for the DR, our prayers for YOUR "goodnight blog" when unanswered...again.

WAAAAAH!

I hate seeing a grown lib cry. Poor li'l Sammie

here is the question for gop...any lib who actully believes that gop wont make more than significant gains is a liar..
the real question for gop is.
do they keep the old saying about never help the oppenent as they are drowning on thier own...or keep up the pressure with more ads and shit like that.
I think they HAVE TO KEEP THE TONE hot and heavy...THAT TONE gave us govs in NJ and VA and even put the GOdgiven and divine RIGHT TO the senate seat to a kennedy to the "R" side of the aisle..dont change a thing now.

AND KEEP TELLING THE public the truth..there is NO SUCH THING AS a conservative democrat during the 'reign of terror'

"here is the question for gop...any lib who actully believes that gop wont make more than significant gains is a liar.."

No, it means they see the world differently than you do. Why does it have to be about lies, Afk?

"THAT TONE gave us govs in NJ and VA and even put the GOdgiven and divine RIGHT TO the senate seat to a kennedy to the "R" side of the aisle..dont change a thing now."

Yeah, that Scott Brown sure plays the party line, doesn't he, Afk? How'd that Wall Street bill work out for ya. I think you might find he's more independent than you'd like. At least I hope so.

"AND KEEP TELLING THE public the truth..there is NO SUCH THING AS a conservative democrat during the 'reign of terror'"

What does that even mean? You gonna tell me Ben Nelson is a far left radical? And to be conservative, does one have to buy into the bullshit rhetoric that brought us the Iraq war? (Hell, our supposedly radical lefty president still has us embroiled in what is likely an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, and has continued much of the Bush policies regarding American empire. Why don't you like that in him, Afk? He's playing your game.)

I am on record as agreeing with the pres on afghanistan and I am sure that he knows that and appreciates my support .. :)...but thats not enough to allow him to destroy the economy in order to build it in the image of george soros and others who are ON RECORD as saying just that...capitalism must be destroyed.

and anyone who voted FOR OBAMAcare and cap and TAX and govt takeover of this and that IS A radical leftist
BUT just like the 'beautifull lisa'...you have become more and more adept..Or lucky..at getting on here just as I have to leave.

my main point is that if gop BACKS OFF The tone, they are stupid.
you dont STOP the attack when you are winning.

",....but thats not enough to allow him to destroy the economy.."

Sorry, that was "Mission Accomplished" long before he took office.

" am on record as agreeing with the pres on afghanistan and I am sure that he knows that and appreciates my support .. :)..."

Yeah, big time. Okay. Glad to hear you support it. I think it's shit, but it is consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

"but thats not enough to allow him to destroy the economy in order to build it in the image of george soros and others who are ON RECORD as saying just that...capitalism must be destroyed."

Blah blah.

"and anyone who voted FOR OBAMAcare and cap and TAX and govt takeover of this and that IS A radical leftist"

Ben Nelson voted for those things? Really? I'd be surprised.

"BUT just like the 'beautifull lisa'...you have become more and more adept..Or lucky..at getting on here just as I have to leave."

I have a camera installed in your brain. It alerts me to when you're coming on Drudge. It automatically turns off at all other times.

"my main point is that if gop BACKS OFF The tone, they are stupid.
you dont STOP the attack when you are winning."

I expect you're right. Of course, much of their "tone" is based in utter bullshit and lies. Ooooh, socialism! Ooooh, communism! Scaaaaaary.

But see, I don't engage in political prognostication, as you do. I will wait and see what happens. But you're right about strategy in this: softshoe doesn't work; neither does logical appeal. If so, Kerry would have won; Gore would have won. In politics, emotion and fear generally take the day--or at least rhetoric (see: Barack Obama).

AU...MUST we go back there...

congress..DEMOCRAT since 2006.

sure we can argue war being paid for with deficits all day long...but remember NOW dems tell us that deficits dont matter or that pretty much ...

gore was softshoe..even after proven to try everything he could to ONLY COUNT votes from dem counties in florida....you may have a point about kerry but that just proves he didnt have a good enough campaign ..what with all those pics of him wind surfing and 'hunting'...

bullshit lies..OH like the "N" word attack that was a lie...or any of the other liberal media lies and bullshit about the gop???

anyway...

MUST GO...dont drink too much monday

Bush's veto pen was all shiny and new until Dems took office, then his first veto ever was over insurance for kids. This after doubling the national debt before 2007 instead of paying it off.

Debt and deficits didn't matter to the GOP until they no longer controlled Congress and the WH. Then, the systemic deficits they created all by their lonesomes suddenly became an issue.

You know it, I know it.

#91 | Posted by pragmatist

Prag-- I have been harsher on the repubs--hated the spending --I sent emails to Bush and Cheney to stop it or ruin the party.

And the party got punished--hard...

Have they changed the tune--Yes!

Will they follow through? That's the real question.

And we are going to find out because congress--maybe both houses are going GOP in November.

And I suspect there will be dirty tricks from both sides of the aisle. The dems are better known for it that's all.

but remember NOW dems tell us that deficits dont matter or that pretty much ...

Sorry, no one's said that on the left, or acted like that either.

"Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

Now, THERE'S someone who believed it!

I'll agree with you, AU... in that when Reps ran everything we didn't seem to care as much about red ink.

It's governing like that which ultimately cost those Reps... and put them in the minority.

This upcoming possible electoral tsunami the Dems are facing is fueled by so many folks, both Rep and Dem, who see that when Dems run everything the spending is even worse.

By the way, when a POTUS gets a bill from Congress he doesn't have a line item veto ability. Obama will wield that same sort of pen when/if Reps win congressional majorities and we tack on some Rep goodies to an otherwise bipartisan bill.

To use your phrasing... you know it, I know it.

Have they changed the tune--Yes!

In words only. When Mitch McConnell was repeatedly pressed to answer how he'd pay for extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest he finally blathered: "who says we have to pay for it?".

I'll agree with you, AU... in that when Reps ran everything we didn't seem to care as much about red ink.

"As much"? They didn't care AT ALL. Heck, half the deficit is debt service.

if they dont think deficits matter, why is it that they have added to deficits in record amounts..AND the debt will SOON EQUAL OR SURPASS THE GDP....and thats not GOP who did THAT...........

and I saw the interview with mconnel and he stonewalled with the best DEM...thats for sure and I even said that here the monday after..

BUT dems going after gop for not paying for shit..THATS FUNNY

what happened to the DEMOCRAT PAYAS YOU GO law????????????

This upcoming possible electoral tsunami the Dems are facing is fueled by so many folks, both Rep and Dem, who see that when Dems run everything the spending is even worse.

Hardly. Voters take out their frustration on the party in power when times are tough. Fact. In only two elections since the Civil War have the party in power not lost seats. Fact.

Y'all can try to spin this into an anti-Dem election all that makes you feel better, but it isn't. Ask Ronald Reagan about 1982.

come on now...I KNOW that you have seen all the date about how the situation is MUCH worse today than it was in 1994.
but its okay, we know that leftists HAVE to try and paint that rosey picture...

THERE IS one point that I and plenty of others from the right have said here.
THIS HAD better not be a case of the dog who chases the dog all the time and finnaly catches it and doesnt know what to do then.

IF they dont do right, there WILL BE a viable and successfull third party

"bullshit lies..OH like the "N" word attack that was a lie...or any of the other liberal media lies and bullshit about the gop???"

Are you referring to the Tea Party nigger stuff? You people keep saying that the Tea Party and the Republican party are not the same thing. Please make up your mind.

"anyway...
MUST GO...dont drink too much monday"

Thanks for your concern. I probably won't drink at all, though.

+++++

#100--Thanks for clarifying, Murphy. That post was much more measured than the one to which I responded with "partisan BS." I still don't engage in predictions, though yes, history shows that the party in power loses seats in midterm elections. I don't agree that the Dems are better known for dirty tricks. I'm also with AU in that no tune has changed. The arrangement has changed, but not the actual melody. The Republican party seems to be clinging harder to old ideas, not letting go and embracing change in any serious way. (And Obama didn't live up to his hope and change either. He might have tried, but he didn't succeed. I am disappointed by the man.)

Afk, I thought you were leaving. Jesus, go already. : )

AU - As much as they do now. Which 'still' might not be enough, in all honesty.

Ray I am a hardcore socialist. I believe we go back to a 91% tax rate. We do away with tax exemptions. We have a means test for ss. We socialize our medicine 100%.
#76 | Posted by jackass

The ideology of weak minded immoral individuals who see advantage over their betters by means of force.

The ideology of weak minded immoral individuals who see advantage over their betters by means of force.

#111 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-04 01:35 PM | Reply |

Betters? Who the fuck told you you were better than anybody? Having money makes you better than other people? A rich woman (say, for example, Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman) is better than, say, Mother Theresa? Libertarians seem to blur the distinction between amoral and immoral.

And as far as force is concerned, members of an organization (say, a country) have to pay dues for the maintenance of the organization. This is always done by "force" in that if you don't pay you can't remain a member. I think the tax shirkers are lucky the government can't revoke their citizenship.

Who the fuck told you you were better than anybody?

Better in the sense that a victim is better than a thief.

A rich woman (say, for example, Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman) is better than, say, Mother Theresa?

To my knowledge they didn't steal or advocate stealing under the umbrella of some high minded ideology.

Libertarians seem to blur the distinction between amoral and immoral.

Nature is amoral. On what grounds is fraud, thievery and violence moral?

On what grounds is fraud, thievery and violence moral?

if it is done in the name of a liberal cause.

And as far as force is concerned, members of an organization (say, a country) have to pay dues for the maintenance of the organization. This is always done by "force" in that if you don't pay you can't remain a member. I think the tax shirkers are lucky the government can't revoke their citizenship.
#113 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Thank you for that candid admission of your own immorality.

On what grounds is fraud, thievery and violence moral?
if it is done in the name of a liberal cause.
#115 | Posted by eberly

I'm not sure how you mean that. If you mean it literally, labels don't the nature of the immorality. Once a society gets into the habit of penalizing the productive efforts of individuals and rewarding the shirkers and the schemers, it sinks into poverty as this nation is now in the process of doing.

And as far as force is concerned, members of an organization (say, a country) have to pay dues for the maintenance of the organization. This is always done by "force" in that if you don't pay you can't remain a member. I think the tax shirkers are lucky the government can't revoke their citizenship.
#113 | Posted by WhoDaMan

In essence, you advocate the doctrine of might-makes-right. That worked real well in communist societies. Didn't it?

I'm not sure how you mean that. If you mean it literally,

Ray, I was being sarcastic.

I thought so.
WhoDaMan has a real barbarian streak in him. That kind of shit give me the chills.
Anyway, I'm gone for the weekend.

When Mitch McConnell was repeatedly pressed to answer how he'd pay for extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest he finally blathered: "who says we have to pay for it?".

#103 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Maybe--just maybe-- when Mitchy boy is up for re election--some tea party person might run against him and he'll be thrown out in the primary.

And before folks jump up and say the tea party will die before 2012--just to remind you that no one thought the tea party would have lasted 2 months when they rose up during the town hall meetings August 2009.

The tea party is having an impact--not only with voting out democrats in November--but also the dialogue within the repub party. Not to mention that repubs are losing their primaries too--what 4 out of 7 incumbants are repubs??

I wish that when the house goes to the repubs--they don't put in Boehner.

He's less than ok and the repubs need some new leadership--like Cantor or Pence or Ryan.

Mitch should not be the leader if the senate goes GOP either.

August 2008--wasn't it??

What is immoral in expecting those who have benefited from and continue to benefit from the existence of an institution having to pay for the support of that institution? Have you never benefited from being a US citizen?

Murphy, here's a question I've asked before: If the Tea Party is a viable force, and if you (as an apparent Tea Party adherent) are critical of the Republican party, why don't you push for the Tea Party becoming a viable third party power in this country? Why doesn't the leadership of the Tea Party (if there is such a thing) push for that? If the Tea Party is made up of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, as I keep seeing asserted here, why not have all these people give up those memberships (or non-memberships) band together and destroy the duopoly? I would love to see a shift in the political power structure of America.

PRAG-
Third parties only splinter one of the existing parties, thus handing the election to your opponent. So from a practical (dare I say PRAGMATIC) standpoint it makes much more sense to affect change within an existing party.

Oohrah, that implies that this supposed amalgam of disaffected Republicans, Democrats and independents sees itself as closer to the Republican party than the Democratic party, no?

Funny parenthetical, Oohrah. But my point is close to Who's. If this party criticizes both and is made up of folks from both and is so powerful (as some claim it is or will be), why is it not acting to solidify itself? If it is so big and represents so many different types, it should splinter both. If it is not that, then its adherents should simply admit that the Tea Party represents a certain subset of the Republican party and/or folks who would go there if they would just realize that's who represents their best interests. If they want to take back the Republican party, I'd have more respect (for those who speak--I know there's no real recognized leadership) if they just admitted that. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert on Tea Party politics, but mine is a sincere and serious question. And I have an interest in a nation that has more than two parties, each of which is largely governed by greed and lobbying anyway. So yes, this might not be my living up to my handle. But as I've said for years, I'm a cynical optimist--and I can hold two opposing ideas in my head at the same time without going insane. : )

WHO-
Yes, in my view. I think it brings in some Reagan Democrats... and a good many fiscally conservative Republicans who've felt abandoned by the big spending ways of Republicans. They see the growth and power of government under Obama as the wrong direction for the US.

As for social conservatives, as I mentioned earlier today, people who are socially conservative are virtually all also fiscally conservative. So fiscal conservatives want accountability in government... and social conservatives want leaders to be of moral character. Both Reps and Dems have had their share of scandal.

PRAG (and WHO),,, make no mistake. The Tea Party is very, very largely comprised of disaffected conservatives who felt the Rep party had left them.

To that group, I think you can add in some fiscally conservative Dems and Indys who don't like the direction we're headed.

Perhaps in time, if the Rep party doesn't sufficiently embrace the TP, then you'll see a third party. But those things take time, I suspect. I do think we've seen a shift toward more conservatism overall in most elections the past year or more. It's not just an anti-incumbent fervor... it's a return to more conservative values (predominately fiscal).

Oohrah, I think you and I are basically in agreement on this. That's why I asked Murphy. I wanted her response. But she's apparently not around. And there are lots of people, here and otherwhere who make the claim I say they make. I would love some honesty on the part of those Tea Party adherents in this regard. (NOTE to all shouters: I am speaking only of this regard. I'm not suggesting general dishonesty.)

And I don't know about a shift in conservatism, Oohrah, but I would like to see wiser spending and less of it. I'd like to see fewer gov't employees. But I don't know how to reconcile this with my belief in the potential role of gov't in social programs and safety nets. And unfortunately, some of the social conservatism comes in the form of anti-this and anti-that socially. And moralizing. My father (age 70) is fiscally conservative and socially liberal (or inclined to leave those issues alone). He is what I consider a true conservative, for that reason and many others. He is in the style of Eisenhower, not of the neocons of today (warmongering, procorporate, etc.). If I saw a conservative like that running for office, I might even listen and consider casting my vote that way. But when I see "patriotic" fools who shout about "socialism," when I see people who want that endorsement from Sarah Palin (whom I do not hate but would not vote for), when I see religiosity and moralizing, I am disinclined to even listen. I may get tagged as a liberal, but in many ways I am barely left of center. I am far from alone in this country--both in beliefs and in not knowing how to reconcile.

But I digress. : )

"And there are lots of people, here and otherwhere who make the claim I say they make. I would love some honesty on the part of those Tea Party adherents in this regard. (NOTE to all shouters: I am speaking only of this regard. I'm not suggesting general dishonesty.)" PRAG

I don't follow you. What do you mean? "this regard"

"This regard"=the bit about claiming that the party is made up of people from all over the spectrum--independents and democrats as well as republicans. I hear it a lot: We're not just Republicans; we're everybody! Which goes back to my first post: If they are everyone, and not just Republicans, then they should be able to form a viable third party.

Sorry if any of this has been confusing. I think they are really what you say: mostly disaffected conservatives and/or Republicans, with a few conservative Democrats and independents thrown in. So 'fess up and be that, I say.

And again, part of this frustration on my part resides in my wish for a real third party to emerge. If the Tea Party could be that, I would find that very... interesting.

PRAG,
It is made up of those across the spectrum, though I think the percentages lean very, very heavily toward disaffected conservatives and/or Republicans. Look at the Tea Party gatherings... you see people of other races, people of all ages. But yes, for someone to assert theTP is somehow an equal mix of parties would be false. Are TPers really making that claim? Some may be, though I suspect most would catagorize it like I have.

"It is made up of those across the spectrum, though I think the percentages lean very, very heavily toward disaffected conservatives and/or Republicans. Look at the Tea Party gatherings... you see people of other races, people of all ages."

Really? Not in any video I've seen--not all races and not all ages, though probably 30s and up. I've not seen a video yet with blacks or Asians present at a Tea Party rally--a variety of skin shades of white, but no greater than the small New England town in which I grew up. (I'm not implying racism, just observing what I've seen. In my admittedly limited exposure. I've not been to a rally.)

" But yes, for someone to assert theTP is somehow an equal mix of parties would be false. Are TPers really making that claim? Some may be, though I suspect most would catagorize it like I have."

I hope so, but the loudest voices I've heard, in my admittedly limited exposure, keep insisting it is not Republican and is a mix. What can I say? If most would categorize as you have, then most are sincere, in my ever so humble. : )

All races are there. But certainly it's heavily conservative/Republican.
Here's a five minute video. Please watch it:
www.youtube.com

The video depicts blacks at a TP event. Should have mentioned that in my prior post.

Thank you, Oohrah. Very informative. I really like the black woman he's interviewing--she cracks me up. I was waiting for "I'm a big bold beautiful black woman and Keith Olberman can kiss my ASS!" But she was so much cooler than that.

That said, the POOP sign in the back, with the Obama symbols for Os, doesn't help the "Tea Partiers don't hate Obama" rhetoric. But no, it's cool. This video showed some smart well-spoken folks, and I'm glad to know that such people are in this group. Now, I'll ask what people always ask of the other side, the other representations: What hit the editing-room floor? : ) I'm sort of just being contrarian, but it's as valid a question to ask of this video's producer as of the producer of the video made of the Glenn Beck rally interviews. This guy apparently interviewed only smart people of color; the other guy apparently interviewed only ignorant crackers. : ) Of course, it may simply be a different audience. This was a Tea Party event. The other was a Glenn Beck event. There's overlap, but the two are not the same, right? Right?

Thanks again, Oohrah.

Oh, and it makes me want to do my video even more--at a New England event. But I went to Tea Party Express and found only a few still-image endorsements. Anybody have links to rally dates? Or are the rallies on hold?

Sure, a fair question (editing room floor)... I don't have an answer. What I wanted to show you was a video depicting blacks at a TP event. There are other videos of the same sort of thing.

And sure... maybe these blacks are among the 10% who don't vote Dem.

As for overlap, I haven't followed Beck and his leading up to the event. My quasi-edumacted guess is that his crowd was comprised of his listeners... with a good bit of overlap.

There is genuine frustration and anger out here. My hope is that such feelings will manifest themselves at the ballot box. Time will tell.

I don't have an answer to the editing room floor question either. I just think it's fair to ask of both--'cause I don't see a mix of respondents in either video I looked at. I like to think I'd allow for the mix of responses if I were to make mine, but maybe I'd lose control of myself. : )

The woman who opens the video clearly doesn't vote Dem--she refers to her people following Dems for forty years and remaining enslaved.

I too hope that the frustration in the country manifests itself at the ballot box--and gets rid of asshole politicians from both sides of the aisle. But then that anger has to manifest itself in primaries to do any good. And/or we have to get sane candidates from opposing parties to oust incumbents. I'd love to see Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi gone, but I can't say I'd want them replaced with the sort of Republicans who get the most press these days (Boehner, McConnell, Joe whatshisname, the doctor guy who "rebutted" Obama's healthcare/State of the Union). But if we could get some actual centrist-type conservatives in, that might be interesting. What I'd like to see is a Congress that actually talks and hammers shit out, rather than the alternating nos that get us nowhere and lead majorities to ram shit through that really is no good because it doesn't represent the will of the people. The will of the people would be best reflected in compromise. The people of the country are neither overwhelmingly conservative nor overwhelmingly liberal. My best guess is that most of us are a mix, not easily labeled as one or the other. I know that I have a few conservative edges... And libertarian edges... : )

And I still think that some proportion of the anger is based in misinformation. Just an afterthought. : ) (No, I'm not saying one side is smarter than the other or more easily "gets it"--I try not to play that game. I'm saying that we are all of us manipulated. I include myself in that, though I fight and rail against such manipulation. If we are, each of us, to be honest, we should all admit that. No one is free of being played to and with.)

@#2...
Sabato has gotten it wrong. It is not against obama, it is against obama's misbegotten policies.

do really believe that's not what he said. well, hey, you wwre thinking about it.

do = do you...

@#140, two party system sucks. nobody is true to anything.

we need multiple parties, you elect their ideology and you go with it. we, our needs, have evolved that much.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable