The 41st Senator

Post Reply New Topic

Yep, agreed on both counts.

Like I said, I lean left politically, but I hate both parties equally, and I respect the hell out of republicans because a.) at least they make no bones about the fact that they are a**holes and b.) they get things done.

I remember a couple years ago they found some supposedly legal way to bypass the congressional voting process entirely in order to get some horrible anti-abortion legislation passed (sorry, can't recall exactly what it was, maybe you recall what I'm talking about). My god did it piss me off, but objectively speaking their ingenuity in doing so was incredible.

Actually, Coakley ran an absolutely horrible campaign once she got the nomination. She was treating the general election like a victory lap and I think that alone rankled a lot of people....Can't really blame her on that score, since the Repubs nationally seeemed to agree with that assessment until a week or two before the general election. There was also the business of the Dem controlled legislature changing the rules on how a senator is replaced one way in 2004 and then changing them back in 2008, for purely political reasons. (Mass. had a Repub governor in 2004, and if Kerry had been elected, well, you see where this is going.) I know one very liberal person who was so disgusted by that bit of flim-flam he actually decided to sit this one out. (My dad.) Maybe there were others.

And to give Brown a bit of credit, he did what Coakley considered beneath her: actually got out and pressed the flesh.

===**===

But, I don't think this means very much in the long-run, personally. US demographics are tilting dramatically away from what they used to be, and Repubs have not made ANY in-roads among the groups in the ascendent, either Asian or Hispanic. Their reduction to a party permanently out of power is now just about guaranteed. Texas may in fact ALREADY be majority Hispanic, which means the last large state the Repubs could look to at having a very good shot to win in a presidential election is going and probably will be gone no later than 2020. Granted these groups can occasionally show some "social conservatism" (e.g. the gay rights law in Calif. being overturned BECAUSE of a large turnout of hispanics and African-Americans) but on most things they line up with the Dems, certainly in terms of congressional and presidential elections.

There will never be a party permanently out of power. Americans don't like the government and will vote them out after they overstay their welcome.

The Whigs haven't been doing too well recently.

The Whigs split up because they could not agree on the issue of slavery and were absorbed into the new Republican party(who were anti-slavery) and the southern Democrats(who were pro-slavery)

The point was that Americans have a tendency to turn on the party in power after they overstay their welcome and sometimes that's relatively quickly like the Democrats in the past year. It will never be a one party dominated system.

It was for several decades with the Democratic-Republican party.

And don't forget, since 1864 to 1932, America is actually divided into a solid Democrat belt in the South and an almost-solid Republican North (which is larger and hence, carries all except four presidential elections in the period).

Over the past year, the Republicans have been playing realpolitik, and they've been making gains in the public-relations front because of it. They've maintained a strict party discipline in Congress against all major aspects of the Democratic agenda. For example, Sen. Grassley stalled health-care–reform legislation while making Democrats think he was willing to negotiate with them; in the end, he said he'd never vote for the damn thing. I would take this to be a deceitful tactic to bide for time. Sarah Palin popularized the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about "death panels." Fox News has been fanning the flames of fear to seniors on Medicare.

I see no evidence that the Republicans want to work with the Democrats towards health-care reform. I see plenty of evidence that they're using a strategy of obstruction, fear-mongering, deception, and other scorched-earth tactics to:

• Make the Democrats look incapable of real reform to the progressive base (why bother to vote in 2010? or why not vote for a third party?)
• Make the Democrats look weak and incapable of governing in the eyes of independent voters

In other words, their only consideration is maneuvering for votes in the 2010 midterm elections. But I'm not really concerned about who wins or loses an election; what bothers me is how the well-being of the uninsured/underinsured is being sacrificed like this. It pisses me off.

What to do? The Republicans just want to stop money being poured in to a never-ending whirl hole... Called publicly-funded healthcare. It goes against 'free-market principles'...

In my opinion, all those healthcare regulations should be even stopped!

There will always be parties. But not necessarily the parties we currently have.

ruveyn

I do not know what will the parties are, but the setup remains the same after almost 150 years - one party thatis more friendly towards trade, and another one not so friendly towards trade.

My opinion of the Republican Party is that they manipulate populist angst about taxes, wasteful spending, overregulation, and occasionally religious piety (or bigotry, in many cases) so that they and their friends can personally profit off the deregulation and tax cuts. The "freedom" that follows will disproportionately benefit a small minority of the population (mostly those who already have secure wealth).

With the Supreme Court recently ruling that for-profit corporations and labor unions can spend unlimited money on political campaigns, I can actually start to envision a fascist state or formalized caste system take over.

If you hold off fixating on the Bread and Circuses you will find that this has already happened and a long time ago, at that.

ruveyn

Not sure if this is the place to say it, but i heard today that the little "Obama death camps" were actually written in the document they wanted to make pass by a Republican ^.- Which later Miss Palin got wind of and started scaring the elderly with.

Profit off deregulation is the norm in America, at least this is better than high 80+% taxes... To support 'Social welfare' that doesn't seem to bring equality in America.

If America wants to have true Scandinavian-like equality, it will have to impose a 90% tax so that it can maintain state and federal budgets on education, health, social security... and, defense around the world. Will the Americans like it? I think America will either tax higher for the overall well-being of the people (also lowering America's innate strength in self-help in the process)... or tax lower to enforce individual responsibility. America is different from other countries, even developed countries; and it should remain the way it is...

Since the taxes in Scandinavia (where I live) do not come anywhere near 90 % for the average citizen I wonder why US taxes would have to approach that percentage.