Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, October 31, 2010

Resurgent GOP closes in on House victory

October 31, 2010

Advertisement

— Resurgent Republicans appear poised to capture control of the House if not the Senate on Tuesday in elections midway through President Barack Obama’s term, reaping a rich harvest of voter discontent with the economy and profound public skepticism about the future.

Drawing strength from the clamorous tea party movement, the GOP also is in line to wrest governorships from Democrats in all regions of the country, according to political strategists in both parties and public opinion polls. Big-state races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois and California remain intensely competitive into the campaign’s final hours.

Republicans must gain 40 seats to win control of the House and 10 to take the Senate. A victory in either case would spell the end of a two-year stretch in which Democrats controlled the White House and held comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress.

With unemployment at 9.6 percent nationally and economic growth anemic, as many as 100 seats appeared competitive or ripe for turnover in the 435-member House — a list that included two dozen or more already given up for lost by the Democrats.

After absorbing thrashings at the hands of voters in 2006 and 2008, Republicans guarded against public displays of overconfidence. In private, though, their debate was not whether they would win a House majority, but the size of the victory margin.

“Ladies and gentlemen, your government hasn’t been listening,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican in line to become speaker of the House. “Your government is disrespecting you, your family, your job, your children. Your government is out of control. Do you have to accept it? Do you have to take it? Hell no you don’t. That’s what elections are for!” he said at a late-campaign rally in Ohio.

Publicly, Democrats betrayed no expectation that their House majority was at an end. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., turned aside any and all questions about the possibility of a night that would end her four-year tenure as the first female speaker in history.

But there was nothing bullish about the Democrats’ late-campaign pronouncements.

“While there is some evidence that the Democrats’ efforts are starting to pay off, the party still has ground to cover,” said an Oct. 27 memo from Anzalone Lizst Research, a Democratic polling firm.

The ubiquitous polls were maddeningly inconsistent on many points. But most agreed that voters preferred Republicans over Democrats in hypothetical matchups, one key indicator of voting behavior, and also that independents were swinging back to the GOP for the first time since President George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004.

An Associated Press-GfK poll taken Oct. 13-18 found 59 percent of voters thought the country was heading in the wrong direction.

Republicans campaigned as advocates of tax cuts to stimulate the economy and promised at the same time to cut federal spending, tackle the deficit and reduce the reach of the government in general, though they offered few specifics.

In rebuttal, Democrats said Republicans had wrecked the economy once and were promising a return to the same policies they had pursued before.

Whatever the outcome, the election was the costliest at any midterm in history — and one of the coarsest.

The incomplete tab was $3.6 billion and growing, with final disclosure reports not required until after Election Day. That included spending by candidates, the political parties and independent organizations, including one, Crossroads GPS, with a sterling Republican pedigree that raised tens of millions from anonymous donors and spent it attacking Democratic candidates.

Comments

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

I can't believe how much money the Koch brothers and other anonymous, mostly-foreign-owned, multi-national corps are putting into this election. I just watched six anti-Steve Six commercials mixed in with seven for Brownback, two for Jenkins, four anti-Biggs commercails and none for any of the Democratic candidates. Since it was the Republicans who shipped all the jobs to China and Mexico and caused the recession, it is amazing that people are such mindless robots that they will now vote for candidates being bankrolled by the very banks and corporate interests that stole their retirement funds, caused the value of their homes to plummet, and now have plans to steal their Social Security and Medicare. Watching corporate fascism take over in America has made me better understand what went down in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

HMcMellon, in your studies of Nazi Germany you may want to consider what the word "Nazi" stands for. It's the first two syllables of the word "Nationalsozialismus," as pronounced in German, which itself is the first German word in "National Socialist Workers' Party," or NSDAP. It's Obama's attempts to inflict his own fascist brand of national socialism on America that will be causing a whole lotta folks to be going to the polls on Tuesday.

By the way, I don't pay any attention to TV commercials of the sort of which you complain, and my strong opposition to Obama's own brand of fascism will not prevent me from voting for Steve Six, who has done a fine job as Attorney General and deserves re-election by his fellow Kansans.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

It is clear I have a better understanding of Nazi Germany than you. Although they called themselves "socialists," Germany, Italy and Japan were fascist. Contrary to your smokescreen, fascism is defined as a political system where corporations run a country, which is exactly what the Republicans support and is exactly why the world's big multi-national corporations, including those in China, are putting a billion dollars into these horrible campaign ads so they can have complete control of our Congress.

You can labor under the delusion that a certain degree of socialism such as we see in Europe is fascism, but socialism and fascism are on the polar opposite ends of the scale. It was European countries, with their somewhat socialist political structures, that fought both fascism and later communism. At the time, Americans, including Republicans, were against fascist ideas, and we rushed to their aid in defeating Hitler.

I have never heard anyone in the democracies of Europe propose exterminating homosexuals like Brownback's roommate and good friend, Engle, has done. The use of torture, reading our emails and listening to our phone calls are all items on the Republican agenda. In fact, the Republican agenda is one that supports big-brother government controlling many of our personal decisions regarding our bodies and all manner of interference in the private and personal lives of our people. The agenda of Brownback and the other Repubicans in Name Only (RINO) is getting closer and closer to the agenda of Nazi Germany,. You can claim Hitler's anti-homosexual agenda was socialism if you want, but if it was socialism, then that clearly makes you and all other RINOs socialists, too.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

HMcMellon, good to hear back from you. In my book, government control over our health care, the kinds of light bulbs we can use, what radio entertainment will be available to us, the kinds of cars we can drive, the kinds of appliances that we can buy, how much energy we can consume and even what we can eat (that's the short list) is absolutely consistent with what went on in Nazi Germany under Hitler, something that I never thought I would ever see in America. You state: "In fact, the Republican agenda is one that supports big-brother government controllling many of our personal decisions regarding our bodies and all manner of interference in the private and personal lives of our people." You've got it backwards, bub: What you describe is exactly what Obama and his pals have revealed that they have in store for all Americans. If you doubt what I say, you may find out tomorrow that a good number of our fellow citizens, who have seen enough, agree with me.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

Government control of health care? Are you intentionally lying or is it that you have heard these lies so often you actually believe them? The so-called healthcare reform is everything but that. Except for a couple of minor changes, the same crooked healthcare monopoly is still in charge. Even with the "reform", we are no where near a European or Canadian style healthcare system. The healthcare monopoly still is in control, not the people. That's the reality; yet, the crazy hyperbole continues.

The government is taking greater control of our lives because of sell outs in both Parties. What does it matter whether it is government or corporations who decide what we are allowed to see or hear. They are increasingly both the same. What matters is individual freedom and escape from tyranny from either government or corporations.

What difference do regulations make when both the government and corporations are all owned by Rupert Murdock, the Koch Brothers, BP, the Saudi Royal Family and other members of the plutocracy? It doesn't matter whether government regulations exist or not when when the government is owned by the people it is supposed to regulate.

If this unregulated corporate money continues to be allowed in our elections, we might as well not vote. Research shows that people are unaware of how these horrible repetitive ads brainwash them.. Clearly, the only reason the plutocracy choose Obama to win in 2008 was to create a scapegoat in 2010. They needed a distraction for all the damage their blind greed they caused and continues to cause.

FOLLOW THE MONEY! The people who have been profiting from our misfortune are brainwashing and manipulating you. A multi-national world corporate plutocracy is stealing your assets and plans to steal more. They don't give a damn about you.

It will be fun to watch all the brainwashed senior citizen robots line up today to vote for candidates who want to steal all the money they paid into Social Security and Medicare. They are so gullible. They are unable to make the obvious connection that the same people behind the candidates with all the commercials are the same people that stole half the value of their IRAs and homes.

The money for all those horrible ads is coming from the same people who stole our assets and plan to steal more. They are laughing at our gullibility.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

Just as I'm laughing at yours, pal. Your desperate comments clearly reveal how upset you are that all those stupid fellow citizens of yours who aren't nearly as smart as you are will be voting today to reject your Fuhrer's plan for their country. A word of advice: Take off your tinfoil hat and live with it. You'll be much happier.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

Your assumption that anyone who is against fascism is pro-Obama is laughable. I could care less about Obama or any of the Democrats. Obama is just a stooge the RINOs put up to be the scapegoat for stealing my retirement funds and an excuse to now go after all that I paid into Social Security and Medicare. You spit on the graves of the brave Americans who fought to give you the freedom to support an ideology that is pretty much the same as that of the Third Reich, including ideas like eliminating "undesirables," which, just like the Third Reich, includes anyone who is not rich and white. As they say, the best defense is a good offense and by saying that those who support democracy and freedom are fascists, it provides cover for the REAL fascists to pursue their anti-American, big-brother government objectives.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

Obama a stooge put up by RINOs? Really? Checked your meds recently?

As far as retirement funds are concerned, do you have a 401(k)? Do you know what Barack wants to do with it? Check that out sometime - you'll find that you're misdirecting your sophomoric rants, bud.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"Even with the "reform", we are no where near a European or Canadian style healthcare system."

One small thing to be very, very grateful for.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

You need to slow down. If you had taken the time to read the thread, you would know that I made that statement because cato_the_elder said the government now runs healthcare. I realize you didn't mean to it, but by confirming my statement to be true, you made cato_the_elder look like a completely uninformed and ignorant fool.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

It seems to me that a "completely uninformed and ignorant fool" would clearly be someone like you who would accuse me of having said "the government now runs healthcare," when I said no such thing. What I did say was that government control over our health care is consistent with what went on in Nazi Germany and something that I never thought I would see in America, not "the government now runs health care." Obama has made it quite clear that a single-payer system is what he wants. Unconstitutional laws like forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a fine are quite consistent with that and in fact constitute a species of government control over our health care. This election is about taking the first step to stop your Fuhrer by defunding and then repealing Obamacare after his (or Hillary's) defeat in 2012. Live with it.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

I'm glad you made that clear. If you read what you said the first time, it certainly did sound like you were confused and were saying that healthcare had been nationalized. I have no problem with the freeloaders being forced to buy health insurance. In fact, that is one aspect of the reform that I totally support. My health insurance company has justified some 500% increase in my premiums during the last decade on people who refuse to buy insurance and who use emergency room care and don't pay their bills. To me, those who refuse and/or are too cheap to pay their fair share for healthcare are the welfare queens of this generation.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"My health insurance company has justified some 500% increase in my premiums during the last decade on people who refuse to buy insurance and who use emergency room care and don't pay their bills."

[sigh]

Too bad you listen to the Democratic talking points instead of the facts.

The uninsured are the only group who use a smaller portion of emergency room services than they make up of the population. The worst offenders, those who use the ER the most in relation to their share of the population? Those with Medicaid - you know, the group that's about to be expanded with your tax dollars.

So congratulations, melon. You just took a bunch of people who used ER services the least, added them to the group that uses them the most, and you're paying for it!

Just

frikkin'

brilliant.

(Oh, BTW, melon - if you think 500% over ten years is a lot, wait 'til you see how much they go up now, 'cause thanks to the "reform" package, the only way insurance companies can make a bigger profit is by inflating health care costs and premiums together.)

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

Um, no. I said they didn't make our system anything like Europe's or Canada's. I did not say they didn't create a system with too much government interference. Perhaps if you slowed down and took the time to read my post, and responded to what I said, not what you think I was trying to say.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"I can't believe how much money the Koch brothers and other anonymous, mostly-foreign-owned, multi-national corps are putting into this election."

Just a thought, melon: How, pray tell, do you know the identity and/or nationality and/or corporate structure of these anonymous donors?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

Madkow, Herr Olbermann, and Jane Mayer from the New Yorker. [chuckle] And the looney left says the Republicans are influenced too much by Beck and Limbaugh. Really amusing, melon.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

You asked for proof that Koch is the source of money. I provided it. All four video clips show Koch standing before his worshipers stating clearly that he is the money behind them, and then you obfuscate by making the ridiculous claim that Koch did not say these things because the clip of him saying it was not shown on Fox News. Did you expect Beck, Palin or one of the other neo-fascists at Fox News to roll a clip that makes one of their sugar daddies look bad?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"You asked for proof that Koch is the source of money. I provided it."

Um, no, I didn't. I commented on your use of the word "anonymous" leading into your supposition of who those "anonymous" people were. As a matter of fact, your original statement that I quoted said "the Koch brothers and OTHER anonymous, mostly-foreign-owned, multi-national corps" [emphasis mine], which tends to imply (well, actually, it doesn't imply, it overtly says) that the "anonymous" people you were speaking of were someone else, not the Koch brothers. Perhaps if you slowed down and read the thread, particularly what you wrote yourself?

But since you brought it up, the Mayer article in the New Yorker (did you actually read that, BTW?) started off by mentioning that the Koch's also donated tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars to, among other things, the American Ballet Theatre, the Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Guess that pretty much "proves" the existence of some evil plot for our culture, arts, and medical system to be taken over by "mostly-foreign-owned, multi-national corps", right?

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

Sure, the anonymous donors who put in $1.5 billion in attack ads were my neighbors down the street ,and the Koch brothers are wonderful people who would never do anything nefarious.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

Please list the other "mostly-foreign-owned, multi-national corps" that put all this money into the election anonymously, melon. I'm sure it will be a fascinating list.

0

Liberty275 3 years, 11 months ago

"What happened in Iraq was atrocities!!! "

Whatever happened to the antiwar protests, hypocrite?

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

It's not Republican or Democrat. It is personal freedom. It is freedom from tyranny. It is being loyal to the Constitution and our values as a Nation. It is standing up and speaking out on behalf of the brave men and women who fought and sometimes died for the freedoms that are now being stolen by a plutocracy consisting of the major players in the major world corporations and monopolies. Whether a politician claims to be Republican or Democrat is irrelevant. All that matters is who owns them.

Its no secret that Murdoch, who owns Fox News and a big chunk of all media hates George Soros, but Soros is the opposite of "far-left" or "American-Hating." The only reason the plutocracy hates Soros is because he favors things like wealthy people paying their fair share. They hate him because his was against the Supreme Court decision that gave Chinese corporations a million times more voice in American politics than individual American citizens.

Those who buy into this treasonous crap put out by Murdoch and the other neo-fascists are nothing but anti-American suck ups to Saudi Arabia, British Petoleum, Rothchild and all the other world plutocrats who are buying this election. .

.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

Oh, thanks for the stock response that you are known to always use when you get backed into the corner. LOL

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"but Soros is the opposite of "far-left" or "American-Hating.""

Soooo, when mega-billionaires dump tons of money to influence elections favoring the candidates you agree with, that's okay, but if it's to finance the opposition, that's bad for America. Got it, thanks.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

The fact that you call anyone who doesn't agree with the billionaires who fund Fox News to be "far-left" and "American-Hating" is exactly what those of us who still have some sanity left are talking about. To claim that someone who has made billions in the capitalist system is a "far left" or communist is so crazy and delusional that I don't know where to start.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"The fact that you call anyone who doesn't agree with the billionaires who fund Fox News to be "far-left" and "American-Hating""

While we're on the subject of "facts", melon, perhaps you could point out where I said any such thing?

As far as it being some kind of impossibility that a billionaire could have leftist leanings, perhaps you'd like to explain the three-quarters of a billion dollars that Obama spent on his campaign? It all came from the pennies saved up from the lunch money of disadvantaged schoolchildren, presumably? Or maybe you'd like to take a look at the 2008 exit polls and see who most of the people in the top income brackets voted for?

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

The point is that anyone who uses terms like "far left" to describe what used to be considered moderate positions is not playing with a full deck.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

The federal government buying two of the three biggest auto manufacturers is what used to be considered a "moderate" position, melon?

The federal government spending billions of dollars to put people to work on temporary government jobs and/or to pay them to stay on unemployment for a year or so used to be a "moderate" position, melon?

The federal government mandating that every person in the United States has to purchase a financial product, whether they want it or need it or not, used to be a "moderate" position, melon?

Moderate compared to whom? Karl Marx, or Mao Tse Dung?

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

All those things have been done before by both Republicans and Democrats. Are you calling Eisenhower a Marxist? Bush actually gave out much more money to private banks and insurance companies than Obama and there were no strings attached. Obama at least recovered most of the money to auto companies. Bush recovered nothing. Does that make Bush a bigger Marxist than Obama? Unemployment benefits and government jobs goes back to 1776. Are you saying George Washington was a commie? Everyone has to buy auto insurance. Are you saying that is a communist conspiracy. The only thing that is hard to explain is your ridiculous hyperbole.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"All those things have been done before by both Republicans and Democrats."

When, exactly, is the last time the federal government used tax dollars to buy stock in the auto companies? (And then gave it to the unions?)

"and there were no strings attached"

And do you understand the difference there, skippy?

"Bush recovered nothing."

Wanna' try again?

"The U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than they could have made buying 30-year Treasury bonds -- enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades."

"The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That beat U.S. Treasuries, high-yield savings accounts, money- market funds and certificates of deposit."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-Street-Bailout-Returns-bloomberg-2879796906.html?x=0&.v=1

On the other hand, GM just made another payment - bringing the total of what they paid back to about 20% of what they got from the taxpayers. But don't let a few facts spoil your delusions.

"Everyone has to buy auto insurance."

Oh my god, that old (baseless) comparison.

Um, junior?

1) Nobody has to buy auto insurance because nobody has to drive.

2) Nobody has to insure themselves with auto insurance (i.e. you don't have to carry comprehensive coverage, only liability), you have to insure against losses you might cause to someone else.

You really need to get a clue.

But thanks for playing.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

At first I wasn't going to respond to this condescending bunch of nonsense, but I will say this: Regarding Obama spending money to do what had done to keep the depression from deepening (which Bush did too), I happen to be one of those "Skippies" who thinks the depression should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Imagine that!

Regarding the comparison with auto insurance, you would have a point if those without health insurance were not allowed into emergency rooms and were denied service by every health care practitioner. Otherwise, you are full of it (and yourself).

Anyway, like I said below, I don't want to play games where you cherry pick and nit pick in an effort to find excuses to insult me. If you have such a strong need to take our your repressed hostility on someone, please limit to your neighbors, wife and kids and leave me out of it.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"Regarding Obama spending money to do what had done to keep the depression from deepening (which Bush did too)"

You yourself pointed out the difference between what Bush did and what Obama did. And there was nothing in the TARP bill about the government buying majority ownership in private industry. In any event I mentioned three specific actions taken by the government under Obama. You said all those things were done before by Democrats and Republicans. You didn't say things like that, or similar things, you said all those things. So yes, I asked you to back that up. (And you couldn't, because they hadn't.)

And you made the statement that "Obama at least recovered most of the money to auto companies. Bush recovered nothing." This is patently false. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're lying. The banks have already paid back much more than the car companies, and they're on track to make a profit, while most experts agree we'll never see all the money back from GM and Chrysler.

"Regarding the comparison with auto insurance, you would have a point if those without health insurance were not allowed into emergency rooms and were denied service by every health care practitioner."

Um, Skippy? Was there supposed to be a point in there somewhere?

First off, it was your comparison. As I said, it is not a valid one. Have someone explain the difference between liability and personal loss insurance. For there to be any comparison between mandated auto coverage and the health care industry, it would be something like mandating health care providers to carry malpractice insurance.

Second, and I guess I can't fault you for not knowing what you're talking about in this case, since it's a common misconception, but ER's have to let you IN, yes, they do not have to provide care. They have to provide an examination and any stabilizing care - that is, they only have to make sure you'll live until you can get somewhere else. And they don't have to do that for free - they can and do send you a bill, and most hospitals will pursue legal action to collect. Oh, and BTW, all that only applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare. If you want to be able to turn people away from your ER, you can, as long as you don't take the fed's money.

"Anyway, like I said below, I don't want to play games where you cherry pick and nit pick in an effort to find excuses to insult me."

Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the false claims you're making in your posts, you wouldn't have to feign such shock that someone points out how foolish it was to make them.

0

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes.

Preventing this whole mess would have been the best option. We seem to be a very "reactive" nation.

0

Liberty275 3 years, 11 months ago

"It's not Republican or Democrat. It is personal freedom. It is freedom from tyranny"

Seeing a liberal mouthing the words "personal freedom" is sickening. Your philosophy is the opposite of personal freedom.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

Who are you calling a "liberal?" When an obviously out-of-touch, irrational ideologue calls me a liberal because I don't support your anti-American agenda of turning our government over to mostly foreign-owned multi-national corporations that have shipped American jobs to China, I very much question your credentials to call anyone anything except the need for you to call a psychiatrist.

I happen to be a lifelong Republican who is against America haters like you who have destroyed my Party. You have apparently bought into Murdoch's plan to destroy our country from within through polarization and fanatical support of multi-national corporations owned by totalitarians like the Saudis and Chinese from whom the fiscally-liberal Bush borrowed four trillion dollars (1/3 of our current National Debt).

For you to use the word "Liberty" in your name when you support totalitarianism and fascism and hate small business, open discussion and respect for the opinions of others is sickening to a patriotic Republican like me. From reading your posts, the only liberty you support is the liberty of of totalitarians and fascists to polarize American and destroy democracy and freedom for those of us who still believe in the Constitution and the American values of respect and consideration for the opinions and views of others.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

I was in Tea Party in the beginning when it supported limited government and decreasing military spending, but after that, the Koch brothers and all the war profiteers got behind it (along with Palin, Beck and other nut jobs.), and I no longer could support making America even more polarized than Murdoch had already made us.

At first Tea Party welcomed Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens and Libertarians. Now, if you are not a right wing nut job, you are instantly labeled as being a "liberal." You can see that kind of irrational, nutty thinking here in this thread. Most active members in Tea Party are now complete wackos and obscene liars.

After being the Party of personal freedom, limited government and privacy, my Republican Party has now become the supporter of destroying privacy and working against the middle class in favor of the multi-national corporations, war-profiteers, and the military-industrial-pharmaceutical-energy complex.

This new-found Republican loyalty to foreign corporations and war profiteers is despite the great Republican and Kansan, Dwight Eisenhower, warning that these kinds of corporate interests were poised to take over our government.

Starting with Viet Nam, the war profiteers and other multi-national corporations have been gaining greater and greater control of Congress. Now, the Supreme Court gave them total control by giving them more rights than American citizens.

We are screwed as a country. Thanks to the fiscal liberalism of Reagan, Bush and Obama, the Chinese and Saudis now own us and can foreclose on all the money we owe them at a moment's notice. A Second American Revolution to free ourselves from foreign rule and the rule of anti-American Fox News traitors is increasingly our only recourse.

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

That's true for the racists in Tea Party, and they make up a very large percentage, but the ones who started it were not against Obama because he was black but because they perceived that some his policies greatly expanded the role of the Federal Government.

It is too bad that racists and big money interests like the Koch brothers sidetracked Tea Party and gave it such a bad name. It is also too bad that people who post here engage in such ridiculous hyperbole on behalf of Tea Party. It could have been a major force in American politics. Thankfully, almost all the crackpot Tea Party candidates lost tonight, which gives me hope.

The only reason Rand Paul won was because he wants to get out of Afghanistan (good), not because he wants to steal the money we paid into Social Security to give to his rich friends (bad).

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 11 months ago

It's rather amusing to me how much the right absolutely loathes George Soros. He is a traitor! A billionaire Democrat! Normally such a thing is an oxymoron. Even more of an oxymoron, though, is the fact that Soros is an ethical billionaire. What a strange duck indeed.

0

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Can you cite the book directly?

I did a quick search and found:

Soros is Jewish. He was a godson of someone who did, in fact, collect and remove possessions of Jewish people who had fled from the country.

He has a long and distinguished history of supporting various causes, including open societies, helping developing nations, etc.

He believes in the principle of "fallibilism", meaning that he things he can be wrong, and seeks to improve his understanding.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

Soros isn't an American citizen, is he? That would make it difficult to class him as a traitor to America. It's kinda funny to think of how much money he whizzed away trying keep Presdient Bush from being reelected. But, bash on, you'll need something to console yourself over the pounding the Democrats are getting today.

0

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

If the Dems take a pounding today, will you finally stop whining?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

I sit corrected. Georgie is an American citizen.

0

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes, he should go over very well with the Christian Right of the Republican party.

So, does your life have meaning now?

0

pfunk81 3 years, 11 months ago

It is sad when we let the people of Kentucky have a say in anything.

0

CreatureComforts 3 years, 11 months ago

CNN just announced Repubs take control of House...

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

What took them so long was that until this election, election funding was pretty much balanced. After the the Supreme Court ruling, everyone knew what was going to happen. We saw totally unqualified candidates getting 20 times more funds from anonymous sources than their more experienced opponents Everyone knew what the results of this election would be as soon as the Supreme Court made their ruling. The celebrations that the RINOs are having tonight remind me of when Saddam Hussein would go shoot off his gun after they announced he won re-election.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"What took them so long was that until this election, election funding was pretty much balanced."

I can't figure out if you're a liar or just clueless.

How much did Obama outspend McCain by, again?

And, um, you DID know that the Democrats raised (and spent) more than the Republicans in this election, didn't you?

0

HMcMellon 3 years, 11 months ago

Apparently, you haven't been following the news about the money for all the ugly attack ads coming from unknown sources who do not have to disclose anything about who is fronting the money or how much they are spending. All that was made possible by the Supreme Court decision..

The last I heard in widely reported news items was that estimated funds from these anonymous sources was running as much as 10 to 1 in favor of Republican candidates over Democrats. As I reported to start this thread, my own count showed about 20 pro-Republican ads for every one pro-Democrat ad on the local stations.

As a Republican, I guess I should be thrilled, but as an American patriot, I hate the idea that some Chinese company can now buy our elections without anyone ever knowing where the money came from or how much it totaled.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are ignorant and never noticed that these attack ads against Democrat candidates ran one right after another during every break for the past two weeks with very few, if any, ads in favor of the democrats. Certainly, my own research supports the nationwide research by the news media on this issue.

I would like to assume that except for a propensity for hyperbole and half truths, you are a decent and reasonable person, however, if you are aware of the widely reported news about all this and are just pretending to be ignorant, I really don't want to waste any more of my time playing childish games with you. I have already been down that road with insane, robotized dittoheads, who just spew talking points fed to them by the Fox News crackpots and who are unable to think for themselves or deal with logic or reason.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"Apparently, you haven't been following the news about the money for all the ugly attack ads coming from unknown sources who do not have to disclose anything about who is fronting the money or how much they are spending."

Apparently I've been following the news (the news you won't get from Madkow and Herr Olbermann, that is) a little better than you do. You might just want to check which side got a lot of that money if the past couple of weeks, melon.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

Feel sorry for the country - we're still stuck with Harry.

0

Jimo 3 years, 11 months ago

Travelling today in one of those states where a GOP upset was a given - until the GOP nominated the most extreme nutjob imaginable. (Hint: not the one with the witch that believe in human brains in mice.)

Auction Day turned out generally okay.

Jubilant Democrats are already chuckling at the quick efforts of "anonymous" donors calling in their purchased access and marking their calendars with key dates when the "Tea Party" people will lose their virginity: the day they put out a budget that doesn't balance, the day they realize there's little easy to cut (unless you want to become radioactively unpopular - only 700 days to the polls!), the ability of the Dems in the Senate to impede anything they don't like from coming to a vote, the cruel reality of a Presidential veto.

I'd like to think that all could set down and horse trade. $700B in more deficit to cover tax cuts for billionaires in return for $700B in more deficit to cover part of the missing stimulus that Pelosi won't be able to earmark for her special interest constituents. Maybe a modest program that trade unemployment checks for the long-term unemployed for paychecks by government direct hiring (here's a hoe, there's the national forest trail, get rid of the sagebrush for the next 2 miles). Sadly, extremists in either Party are unlikely to allow such moderation.

0

Jimo 3 years, 11 months ago

I note that Rasmussen's polling seems to have been grossly incorrect, consistently overstating GOP numbers on average by 3-4 points.

Indeed, in what is being dubbed already as "Worst Poll of the Year" Rassmussen's Hawaii Senate poll showed a 13 point Democrat lead. That was fairly close to the 51 point Democrat victory: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/hawaii/election_2010_hawaii_senate

Wonder if they'll note this on Fox News? If not, how will anyone know?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

It's most amusing that the voters in Illinois have scorned Barry's best bud and placed a Republican in the Senate.

0

Jimo 3 years, 11 months ago

Given the guy scandalously invented almost every part of his resume, he may have invented the "Republican" part too.

Given how Democratic trending Illinois has been for decades now, I'd expect him to be about as "Republican" as Snowe, Collins, and Brown (or Lieberman).

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.