The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[larrymcg421]

Really not liking the way Democrats run elections in the post-Dean era. Emanuel hates Dean, partly because he thought Dean got too much credit for the 06 midterms, but this is not a good way lend any credence to that. If the Dems get trumped in '10, it might be time to call the good doctor back.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Two new polls out. Pajamas Media poll shows a 10 point lead for Brown.

Roger L. Simon » Sunday PJM/CrossTarget Poll: Brown up 9.6% among likely voters

Politico poll shows a 9 point lead for Brown.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM13...mass_poll.html

For the record, the Pajamas Media poll has little credibility according to Nate Silver. It's a far right group behind it that uses an unknown polling firm that has massive ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Might end up being right but I doubt they even polled a soul.

[Buccaneer]

Results of a new Washington Post/ABC poll tell us 58 percent of Americans want a less government and fewer services. Only 38 percent want more.

There is still hope yet.

[JPhillips]

That is until you actually cut something. Way too many Americans still want a robust government and lower taxes and you can't have both.

[panerd]

Results of a new Washington Post/ABC poll tell us 58 percent of Americans want a less government and fewer services. Only 38 percent want more.


Hmmm....

According to the most recent IRS statistics, about 45 million households -- a third of all filers -- owed no federal income tax after taking their credits and deductions in 2006. This year, with the profusion of new credits in the stimulus package, about 65 million households -- or 43 percent of all filers -- are likely to owe no income taxes, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.


Panerd's analysis: Those numbers seem very close to matching! Some people actually can have their cake and eat it too!!! Once that number gets over 50% its all over. Who wouldn't want unlimited government if they didn't have to foot any of the bill? I guess there is such a thing as a free lunch. No reason to ever think the 10+ trillion dollar debt will catch up with us. On to creating jobs. Let's throw some money at the problem, if people object to spending outlandish amounts of money they are against government. They are so wacky, they are against roads and the internet! (and are racist!) Continue spending! All those things your grandparents and parents taught you about saving and not spending more than you have... that was from the days of the milkman. Now we have unlimited credit!!! Hooray government!

Usual counter argument: Something about Republicans being just as bad. That's the best you can come up with?

[RainMaker]

The problem with that poll is that it's vague. This has been analyzed in the past.

If you ask someone if they want less government, they'll say yes. Ask them if they want to spend less on schools, roads, and security and they say no. Talking about spending less is easy when there are no details involved.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem with that poll is that it's vague. This has been analyzed in the past.

If you ask someone if they want less government, they'll say yes. Ask them if they want to spend less on schools, roads, and security and they say no. Talking about spending less is easy when there are no details involved.

Here comes the expected roads argument... (3%)

[panerd]

And that is 2008. I am sure 2009 saw a drop in "roads" spending during the bailout anything that contributes to the Democrats or Republicans or face Armageddon phase.

[RainMaker]

Roads isn't an argument, it's just part of the analogy. You could swap in hundreds of other things our government spends money on. It's the notion that people in general want less government, but when the details are laid out their opinion changes

So you want to cut spending. Do you think people want to see our defense and security cut? How about cutting back on Social Security and Medicare benefits? Or cutting back and removing some benefits for veterans? That's 66% of the budget accord to your graph. Do you really think the public supports cutbacks in those areas?

[RainMaker]

And I'm not arguing about spending because I think our spending needs to come down, especially in those areas listed above. I'm just saying that the general public would never put a person in office who comes out and says I'm cutting defense, Medicare, Social Security and Veterans benefits.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And I'm not arguing about spending because I think our spending needs to come down, especially in those areas listed above. I'm just saying that the general public would never put a person in office who comes out and says I'm cutting defense, Medicare, Social Security and Veterans benefits.

I hate to say it but unfortunately that is the problem. I have heard "I don't like either candidate but an independent vote is wasted so I will vote for the less of two evils" and "I am against spending too but it isn't going to happen" so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if 50% or more of the voting public actually feels this way. It's sad that so many people are manipulated into thinking that there are only two ways of thinking. And this isn't my usual Libertarian rant. There are millions of permutations of how one could think on the 20-30 or so “major” issues but I am hard pressed to find any politician that thinks outside their party's platform on even one issue. Sadly this also happens (see this thread) to the voters. Oppose the war until Obama doesn't. Oppose spending until Bush spends. You know somebody could be in favor of gay rights, stopping endless war in the middle East, and cutting the welfare state. (It would seem logical that quite a few would hold this view, right?) Show me one politician outside of Ron Paul who shares those three viewpoints. Its illogical!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

There are millions of permutations of how one could think on the 20-30 or so “major” issues but I am hard pressed to find any politician that thinks outside their party's platform on even one issue.

Umm ... huh?

Between the Blue Dogs & the RINO's, it really doesn't seem that tough to find 'em.

You know somebody could be in favor of gay rights, stopping endless war in the middle East, and cutting the welfare state. (It would seem logical that quite a few would hold this view, right?) Show me one politician outside of Ron Paul who shares those three viewpoints. Its illogical!

Now this one, with those specifics, I'll agree that's a tougher find. But it's a relatively unusual combination in the general public in my experience. Off hand I can't think of anyone I've ever heard put those three together outside of FOFC. Most of the social liberals on the gay rights issues tend to be, umm, well, socially liberal when it comes to welfare spending.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Panerd's analysis: Those numbers seem very close to matching! Some people actually can have their cake and eat it too!!! Once that number gets over 50% its all over.

Except that there is a major flaw in this line of thinking. Personal income taxes are not the sole source of revenue for the government. They were less than half of government revenues in FY 2007. Just because someone got a refund equal to the amount they paid in taxes doesn't mean they contributed nothing to the IRS coffers.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... huh?

Between the Blue Dogs & the RINO's, it really doesn't seem that tough to find 'em.



Now this one, with those specifics, I'll agree that's a tougher find. But it's a relatively unusual combination in the general public in my experience. Off hand I can't think of anyone I've ever heard put those three together outside of FOFC. Most of the social liberals on the gay rights issues tend to be, umm, well, socially liberal when it comes to welfare spending.

Seriously? The last two pages of this thread have been talking about an election tomorrow that will probably determine the future of government health care in this country. Why? Because there are 40 Republican senators and 60 Democrats/Quasi-Independents. So there isn't one person in either party that differs from the company line? Those blue dogs and RINOS really hold their ground. "I won't vote for anything without a public option... unless Obama tells me to" "I favored fixing health care and huge bailouts when I ran for president against Obama... now I have found Jesus and firmly oppose government spending". It's laughable and even more laughable that the partisans on both sides don't see the complete hypocrisy of almost every one of them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Except that there is a major flaw in this line of thinking. Personal income taxes are not the sole source of revenue for the government. They were less than half of government revenues in FY 2007. Just because someone got a refund equal to the amount they paid in taxes doesn't mean they contributed nothing to the IRS coffers.

Payroll tax is what 7-8%? I would bet that the people in Bucc's poll come pretty close to the people who pay almost no taxes. Sure there will be some celebrities like Bill Maher and Tim Robbins who hate capitalism and all the money it has caused them to make and there will be some dirt poor who get fooled by the religious zealots who promise to outlaw being gay but I would guess for the most part those are the same groups of people in both polls.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Seriously? The last two pages of this thread have been talking about an election tomorrow that will probably determine the future of government health care in this country. Why? Because there are 40 Republican senators and 60 Democrats/Quasi-Independents. So there isn't one person in either party that differs from the company line? Those blue dogs and RINOS really hold their ground. "I won't vote for anything without a public option... unless Obama tells me to" "I favored fixing health care and huge bailouts when I ran for president against Obama... now I have found Jesus and firmly oppose government spending". It's laughable and even more laughable that the partisans on both sides don't see the complete hypocrisy of almost every one of them.

Um, have you not been following the evolution of the health care debate at all? There almost certainly will NOT be a public option and that is because of those DINOs you say are apparently rolling over for it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Payroll tax is what 7-8%? I would bet that the people in Bucc's poll come pretty close to the people who pay almost no taxes. Sure there will be some celebrities like Bill Maher and Tim Robbins who hate capitalism and all the money it has caused them to make and there will be some dirt poor who get fooled by the religious zealots who promise to outlaw being gay but I would guess for the most part those are the same groups of people in both polls.

It's nearly 15% on everything under just over $100k in income.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, have you not been following the evolution of the health care debate at all? There almost certainly will NOT be a public option and that is because of those RINOs you say are apparently rolling over for it.

I don't know who is classified as a "RINO" but since 0 Republicans are voting for the bill I would assume they aren't the ones rolling over.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's nearly 15% on everything under just over $100k in income.

That doesn't seem right. After deductions I don't think anyone in the lower 60% is paying anywhere close to 15%.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't know who is classified as a "RINO" but since 0 Republicans are voting for the bill I would assume they aren't the ones rolling over.

I meant DINO. Fixed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Payroll tax is what 7-8%? I would bet that the people in Bucc's poll come pretty close to the people who pay almost no taxes. Sure there will be some celebrities like Bill Maher and Tim Robbins who hate capitalism and all the money it has caused them to make and there will be some dirt poor who get fooled by the religious zealots who promise to outlaw being gay but I would guess for the most part those are the same groups of people in both polls.

And this is part of the problem. You are just like those politicians. Maher and company don't "hate capitalism". They just want some regulations in place so that capitalism doesn't fuck over just about everyone in this country. It's this notion that if you want some kind of regulation you are against capitalism. If you want politics to change in this country you can't label everyone as the extreme on one side or the other because they have a viewpoint on it. Bush isn't Hitler and Obama isn't Marx.

And I love capitalism. I think innovation is great and the lure of money is a powerful too to advance society. But capitalism doesn't look out for what's in the best interest of society and sometimes needs regulations and rules to curb everyone from getting completely annihilated by a few people. For all the good that capitalism does, it put this country into a massive recession and on the brink of financial armagedeon (ironic that government saved capitalism in that case).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Payroll tax is what 7-8%? I would bet that the people in Bucc's poll come pretty close to the people who pay almost no taxes. Sure there will be some celebrities like Bill Maher and Tim Robbins who hate capitalism and all the money it has caused them to make and there will be some dirt poor who get fooled by the religious zealots who promise to outlaw being gay but I would guess for the most part those are the same groups of people in both polls.

Correlation does not imply causation.

There are certain things that most people agree on at a macro level. The splits start to happen on a micro level. Or there is a cognitive disassociation that occurs, with Congress being a prime example. Most polls have approval of Congress as a whole below 25%. Yet incumbents are re-elected at a rate above 85%. So the thinking is that Congress sucks, but only because of the morons that people in other areas elect, my representative couldn't possibly be a reason why things suck.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

That doesn't seem right. After deductions I don't think anyone in the lower 60% is paying anywhere close to 15%.

You pay the 7-8% and your employer pays the other half of that. That's 15%.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Seriously? The last two pages of this thread have been talking about an election tomorrow that will probably determine the future of government health care in this country. Why? Because there are 40 Republican senators and 60 Democrats/Quasi-Independents. So there isn't one person in either party that differs from the company line? Those blue dogs and RINOS really hold their ground. "I won't vote for anything without a public option... unless Obama tells me to" "I favored fixing health care and huge bailouts when I ran for president against Obama... now I have found Jesus and firmly oppose government spending". It's laughable and even more laughable that the partisans on both sides don't see the complete hypocrisy of almost every one of them.

Apparently I'm confused.

You said

I am hard pressed to find any politician that thinks outside their party's platform on even one issue.

And I said because of all the RINO's & Blue Dogs, they really aren't hard to find; i.e. "they" being politicians who go outside the party on even one issue.

And then you said ... something, although to be honest I almost wondered if you were replying to something other than what I said. That'd be the post I'm replying to now.

You said you were hard pressed to find any who went outside their party. I'd say look no further than Louisiana Rep Anh (Joseph) Cao of Louisiana (R).
Voted for Pelosi care (the only GOP House member to do so) voted to rebuke Joe Wilson, and so on & so forth. Meanwhile 39 (D) Congressmen voted against the health care bill, none to popular a move with their party comrades.

Or how about the GOP House response to the bailout bill? 91 (R) voted for, 108 (R) voted against. Now one bunch or the other had to be on the wrong side of that one.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And this is part of the problem. You are just like those politicians. Maher and company don't "hate capitalism". They just want some regulations in place so that capitalism doesn't fuck over just about everyone in this country. It's this notion that if you want some kind of regulation you are against capitalism. If you want politics to change in this country you can't label everyone as the extreme on one side or the other because they have a viewpoint on it. Bush isn't Hitler and Obama isn't Marx.

And I love capitalism. I think innovation is great and the lure of money is a powerful too to advance society. But capitalism doesn't look out for what's in the best interest of society and sometimes needs regulations and rules to curb everyone from getting completely annihilated by a few people. For all the good that capitalism does, it put this country into a massive recession and on the brink of financial armagedeon (ironic that government saved capitalism in that case).

Would Michael Moore work better? (The point was that very few people making tons of money like taxes and those who don't pay much don't mind the rich paying taxes) Your last sentence is open to a whole other debate but I can't do it tonight. (Not that you wanted to anyways ) But until somebody can explain why Lehman was not too big to fail and Bear Stearns was than you can't say we have true capitalism in this country anyways. The government is just as responsible for all of the financial problems. Would there be people who would try to run hog wild with no regulation? Sure. But we haven't been close to that since the days of the gold rush in this country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Most polls have approval of Congress as a whole below 25%. Yet incumbents are re-elected at a rate above 85%. So the thinking is that Congress sucks, but only because of the morons that people in other areas elect, my representative couldn't possibly be a reason why things suck.

One of the more interesting quirks of polls that always strikes me.

Then again, I'm right there in that bunch. I wouldn't give you a bucket of warm piss for Congress as a whole ... but I'm pretty damned happy with my Rep & tolerably content with my Senators.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Would Michael Moore work better? (The point was that very few people making tons of money like taxes and those who don't pay much don't mind the rich paying taxes) Your last sentence is open to a whole other debate but I can't do it tonight. (Not that you wanted to anyways ) But until somebody can explain why Lehman was not too big to fail and Bear Stearns was than you can't say we have true capitalism in this country anyways. The government is just as responsible for all of the financial problems. Would there be people who would try to run hog wild with no regulation? Sure. But we haven't been close to that since the days of the gold rush in this country.

Pure capitalism would have had every single major financial institution in this country go under. Most of us on this board would not have jobs and it would be decades before we came close to recovering. I'd rather bite my lip right now and save those companies than to watch this country completely destroyed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One of the more interesting quirks of polls that always strikes me.

Then again, I'm right there in that bunch. I wouldn't give you a bucket of warm piss for Congress as a whole ... but I'm pretty damned happy with my Rep & tolerably content with my Senators.

That's the other issue too. We all hate Congress and they have a horrible approval rating, but most of us like our own reps. It's why it's hard to cut spending. We all want the deficit to go down but we don't want other districts getting all this shit with our tax dollars while we sit and get nothing.

And that goes for Panerd's great Ron Paul who earmarked a boatload of bullshit projects just like all the other politicians out there. Do as I say, not as I do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's the other issue too. We all hate Congress and they have a horrible approval rating, but most of us like our own reps. It's why it's hard to cut spending. We all want the deficit to go down but we don't want other districts getting all this shit with our tax dollars while we sit and get nothing.

I honestly couldn't tell you a single dime that my Rep has brought to the district nor a dime that he's failed to bring back. That has pretty much nothing to do with my satisfaction with him, nor my dissatisfaction with a Rep I've had in the past.

Might be helpful here if I point out that my current Rep is Paul Broun while at another point in my life I lived in the district of Skydog's favorite Congresscommie Cynthia McKinney

[larrymcg421]

I do think the earmark thing is overplayed a bit. Saxby Chambliss can bring all the money to the state he wants and I'll still think he's a piece of shit.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Then again, Coakley has really run a piece-of-shit campaign. She was never my top choice in the primary, and she solidified my "meh" feeling about her in the general election.

Still...I can't imagine them blowing this...I'll have to abstain from watching political things on tv and visiting this thread for the next couple YEARS just to avoid all the crowing and haughtiness from the right.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

As far as the MA Senate race goes, I'm pretty excited to see how it ends up. Even Nate Silver referred to it as a "toss-up" earlier today. Still unsure which way I'll vote, but Coakley botched this terribly. She is not a particularly enthralling candidate in the first place and has acted like the seat is an entitlement. At the very least, it's nice to see the Dems actually have to fight for something up here.

Silver has moved it to 3/1 in favor of Brown. I'm shocked. Even after the horrible candidate and campaign by the Democrats, it'll be unbelievable. I probably would never have voted for Coakley anyways, but her non-campaign for 6 months then immediate jump into the negative deep end (Scott Brown wants to deny rape victims care) solidified my vote for Brown instead of going 3rd-party. I still don't understand why Meehan or Capuano didn't throw their hat in the ring, but I guess a Coakley loss allows them to jump in and win the seat for 20+ years next time.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

as I've tried to point out to people...if Brown were to somehow manage to win he wouldn't go into the Senate as a "moderate Republican" or anything. In order to get national GOP funding and not be tea-bagged in his next election he'd have to conform to the "standard GOP platform" on all those hot-button issues. So it wouldn't be electing a "moderate Republican" or an "independent-thinking Republican." It'd be much worse than that.

I disagree with this. Not necessarily on specific Brown positions, but on his being required to conform to a lockstep Republican line to win the next primary. Even if the GOP were dumb enough to go after a sitting GOP Senator from Massachusetts, it's a plurality Unenrolled (independent) state with open primaries. Voting against (mainly healthcare) spending while the Democrats still push it will be enough to make him the opposition candidate next election (presuming he wins today).

[SirFozzie]

I said this to SackAttack earlier via IM:

You cannot imagine how badly the Dems have handled this issue when:

A)The seat held by Ted Kennedy is probably lost when..
B)Losing the seat means that health care reform is dead in the water.
C)When Health Care Reform was the one thing Ted Kennedy wanted more then anything that he couldn't do while he was living.

Unfucking believeable.

[RainMaker]

My sophomore year in college I had moved off campus with some friends. One of the first nights in our new apartment we went and just got plastered on Tequila. Literally drank so much it's amazing I didn't die. I got home and had to take a shit and it was pure liquid diarrhea. Just an absolute mess. I was so drunk that I couldn't really clean myself up after because I had no balance and was fading in and out. Realized this and decided to jump in the bathtub/shower before I got shit all over the place (mind you I had not wiped). I felt another shit coming and just let it go in the bathtub with the water running (I couldn't get the shower to go on because I couldn't get up high enough to reach this switch). It is at that time I also started puking violently all over the tub. So there I was in the bathtub sitting in my own shit and vomit trying to get the shower turned on.

Well basically what I'm trying to say is that I handled that evening better than the Democrats have handled this election.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I said this to SackAttack earlier via IM:

You cannot imagine how badly the Dems have handled this issue when:

A)The seat held by Ted Kennedy is probably lost when..
B)Losing the seat means that health care reform is dead in the water.
C)When Health Care Reform was the one thing Ted Kennedy wanted more then anything that he couldn't do while he was living.

Unfucking believeable.

I can't think of a more appropriate end to Ted Kennedy's legacy.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by panerd

You know somebody could be in favor of gay rights, stopping endless war in the middle East, and cutting the welfare state. (It would seem logical that quite a few would hold this view, right?) Show me one politician outside of Ron Paul who shares those three viewpoints. Its illogical!

Joe Kennedy, which is why he just got my vote here in Mass.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I said this to SackAttack earlier via IM:

You cannot imagine how badly the Dems have handled this issue when:

A)The seat held by Ted Kennedy is probably lost when..
B)Losing the seat means that health care reform is dead in the water.
C)When Health Care Reform was the one thing Ted Kennedy wanted more then anything that he couldn't do while he was living.

Unfucking believeable.

seriously. i'm so pissed off i'm going to have to banish myself from any form of political discourse just to avoid the chaos that ensues.

it's fucking ridiculous. I want to move to Vermont or something.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I can't think of a more appropriate end to Ted Kennedy's legacy.

if i actually responded to this i'd probably get boxed for the things i'd call you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

if i actually responded to this i'd probably get boxed for the things i'd call you.

Probably so. I feel the same way about Ted Kennedy. Feel free to bash Claire McCaskill to get back at me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

seriously. i'm so pissed off i'm going to have to banish myself from any form of political discourse just to avoid the chaos that ensues.

Eh, you probably overestimate the chaos.

Personally I'll be too busy laughing my ass off to create much in the way of chaos.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, you probably overestimate the chaos.

Personally I'll be too busy laughing my ass off to create much in the way of chaos.

I'd agree. I think liberal politicians/supporters are far more fired up about this than anyone else. I'm personally still not that confident that, even if Coakley is elected, that the Democrats in Congress can find a way to make enough people happy to actually pass the health care bill. In that regard, Brown will provide a convinient whipping boy, but I'm not sure that his election changes that much in regard to whether a health care bill was going to happen.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd agree. I think liberal politicians/supporters are far more fired up about this than anyone else. I'm personally still not that confident that, even if Coakley is elected, that the Democrats in Congress can find a way to make enough people happy to actually pass the health care bill. In that regard, Brown will provide a convinient whipping boy, but I'm not sure that his election changes that much in regard to whether a health care bill was going to happen.

I just don't see that much emotion on the left over this race. Where are you getting them being fired up? I don't see too much talk about it on the left leaning sites and most of the news outlets are treating it as the 2nd or 3rd story. Flipping through the channels I know that Fox News seems to be on it 24/7 and it's been the big story on Drudge all week. It seems the emotion is on the right which is probably why Brown is winning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just don't see that much emotion on the left over this race. Where are you getting them being fired up? I don't see too much talk about it on the left leaning sites and most of the news outlets are treating it as the 2nd or 3rd story. Flipping through the channels I know that Fox News seems to be on it 24/7 and it's been the big story on Drudge all week. It seems the emotion is on the right which is probably why Brown is winning.

It's the second or third story because it's the last thing most networks want to focus on right now. I don't think there's any question that FoxNews is covering it merely for the humor that reactions like SirFozzie and DT had above for the GOP supporters. But in the end, there's little question that the Democrats have had PLENTY of time to get a deal done far before now. They have no one to blame but themselves for dragging out this process. I think that's where the true frustration lies.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I really can't imagine a less inspiring candidate than Coakley.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's the second or third story because it's the last thing most networks want to focus on right now. I don't think there's any question that FoxNews is covering it merely for the humor that reactions like SirFozzie and DT had above for the GOP supporters. But in the end, there's little question that the Democrats have had PLENTY of time to get a deal done far before now. They have no one to blame but themselves for dragging out this process. I think that's where the true frustration lies.

I don't think it's the last thing they want to cover, it's just not that important in the current news cycle. I mean they're talking about a quarter of a million people being dead in Haiti which is a rather huge story. I guess it's odd that a news network would cover a story for humorous reactions but someone should give them a buzz and let them know that there was an Earthquake in Haiti.

[JPhillips]

Let me preface this by saying I don't think this will happen because too many Dems are corporate slaves and/or too chickenshit to worry about much other than getting reelected.

But, Brown winning could be a good thing for 2010. HCR can still pass by the House voting for the Senate bill. After that Dems in the Senate could switch to a plan where they offer a number of small votes on very popular items and/or items that put the GOP in a bind, think bank regulations, bankruptcy changes, a small jobs bill, cuts to corporate welfare, etc. It would force the GOP to either give Obama several small victories or stand loud and proud for corporate interests. It would also make the obstruction of the GOP a more front and center message. It wouldn't be very beneficial from a policy standpoint as the big things like cap and trade would be history, but it could be good politically heading into 2010 and 2012.

Again, I don't think that will happen, and 2010 is going to be determined almost exclusively on jobs, but a 59/41 split in the Senate shouldn't mean surrender.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think it's the last thing they want to cover, it's just not that important in the current news cycle. I mean they're talking about a quarter of a million people being dead in Haiti which is a rather huge story. I guess it's odd that a news network would cover a story for humorous reactions but someone should give them a buzz and let them know that there was an Earthquake in Haiti.

And this is the response I would expect from a person who doesn't like FoxNews and is frustrated that the Democrats aren't accomplishing anything. It's perfectly understandable to be frustrated. FoxNews has reported on the Haiti earthquake and it's silly to imply otherwise. There's only so many ways that you can report that thousands are dead and Haiti is a mess with a dysfunctional government.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Let me preface this by saying I don't think this will happen because too many Dems are corporate slaves and/or too chickenshit to worry about much other than getting reelected.

But, Brown winning could be a good thing for 2010. HCR can still pass by the House voting for the Senate bill. After that Dems in the Senate could switch to a plan where they offer a number of small votes on very popular items and/or items that put the GOP in a bind, think bank regulations, bankruptcy changes, a small jobs bill, cuts to corporate welfare, etc. It would force the GOP to either give Obama several small victories or stand loud and proud for corporate interests. It would also make the obstruction of the GOP a more front and center message. It wouldn't be very beneficial from a policy standpoint as the big things like cap and trade would be history, but it could be good politically heading into 2010 and 2012.

Again, I don't think that will happen, and 2010 is going to be determined almost exclusively on jobs, but a 59/41 split in the Senate shouldn't mean surrender.

That's a very optimistic view of the situation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well basically what I'm trying to say is that I handled that evening better than the Democrats have handled this election.

LOL

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I can't think of a more appropriate end to Ted Kennedy's legacy.

That's the most honest post you've made in the entire thread.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But in the end, there's little question that the Democrats have had PLENTY of time to get a deal done far before now. They have no one to blame but themselves for dragging out this process. I think that's where the true frustration lies.

MBBF: This is what I mean. They dragged it out and screamed and cussed and fought each other so much that they killed the public view on it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's the most honest post you've made in the entire thread.

I made my thoughts on Ted Kennedy perfectly clear when he died in another thread. Anyone who read that thread should have already known what I thought of him. Restating what I already previously stated doesn't make it honest.

I've made plenty of honest statements in this thread. That's what usually gets me in trouble.