Hillarysworld

I'm glad Behar's tirade backfired. Joy is like the other so-called liberals who are intensely PC and claim to be so open-minded, yet they are so venomous and disrespectful in their treatment of those with whom they disagree.

In making the statements about Angle, Bahar, once again, revealed herself to be inarticulate, hyper-emotional, ill-informed, and so incredibly irrelevant.

Sanders, I too wish there were more moderates running against Dems. However, I still hope that the Dems lose (well almost all of them). A mega-loss will hopefully send a clear message to the Dems. They need to understand that their actions of 2008 were intolerable and resulted in major loss of support from a large segment of the party. They also need to pay the price for the mess they have made since Barack's coronation. With a Dem in the WH and Dem majorities in the house and senate, the current state of this country was the best they could do?! Apparently so, and they need to be held accountable.

I understand your position that a landslide win, giving Pub majorities in house and senate is not the ideal. At another point in time, I would totally agree. But, IMO, what's most needed now is a lesson. The coup which resulted in the theft of the nomination for Obama was meticulously planned and executed, and represented an all out assault on democracy by the progressives. They sought to position themselves to be able to ram their far left agenda down the throats of Americans, the majority of whom are moderate. It was not to be government of, by and for the people, but government of, by, and for progressives.

I believe the strategy to address the failures of both Dem and Pub pols has to be long term. Leaders of both parties need to know that Americans will no longer tolerate their unresponsiveness to the needs of this country. That strategy begins with throwing the Dems out of office. jmho.

-- Edited by freespirit on Wednesday 27th of October 2010 11:30:07 PM

If one's goal is truly to be a moderate then, even putting aside all ideologies, the current makeup of our government should tell you that it is not at all structured toward any sort of moderate/centrist governance. The problem right now isn't even ideological, it's structural. All three branches of our government are controlled by Democrats.

Now, if these Democrats were moderate, I'd be ok with it, but that is not the case.

So what recourse does a populace have, when faced with this? When the leaders fail you, then you have to fall back on the concept of divided government till some sort of sanity returns. Now, one can talk all they want about being centrist or try and claim the centrist mantle, but if all you are doing is just reinforcing an agenda for a group of people that aren't even espousing Democratic beliefs, and are not actually taking ACTIONS to make that moderation possible, or worse taking actions that are counterproductive to bringing about that moderation, then it's just words. It'd be nice then if people would stop advocating the lame aspects of Democratic agenda while trying to pass it off as moderate or centrist.

The first step right now I think is to neutralize both parties from thinking they run the show. That I think is one of the best arguments at this point for why we shouldn't be showing fealty to the Democrats right now. It's not like they are acting like Democrats in the first place, anyway...

I'm for Democratic ideals just as much as the next person, but the fact of the matter is, when the standard bearers of the Democratic party aren't even acting like Democrats, sometimes you have to remind them that they work for you, not the other way around....

-- Edited by Eminence on Thursday 28th of October 2010 12:22:39 AM

Sanders wrote:

---

 

VotedHillary wrote:

---

Here's the problem with the Democrats, free.  THEY NEVER LEARN.  In my lifetime, I watched Jimmy Carter one and done because of the attempt to promote the far-left agenda, Bill Clinton salvaged his presidency by moving away from the progressive agenda and back to a pragmatic center position.  Now we have Obama also trying to shove the far-left agenda and he is looking at a party wipe-out that may well exceed 1994.

Democrats simply refuse to understand that progressives are 1/3 of the electorate.  When you tick off 2/3rds of the electorate by passing legislation for the benefit of the 1/3rd....well, duh, what do you think is going to happen the next election?

This is why I wanted Hillary as our POTUS.  Hillary Clinton always learns from her mistakes.  I can't recall when she has made the same political mistake twice.

What we really need is for the Clintons to start a third-party called the PRAGMATIC party.  I would change from no-party to party-affiliated in a heartbeat if they did.

---

STAMP!! And, all of it! 100%! 

free, I think I may have said it in another thread... if both Houses go red, it makes the sitting POTUS more powerful and positions them better for 2012...  Repubs can line up bills in the House but keep it there in the queue and wait for the next POTUS term to pass it.  We would absolutely NEED Hillary to run... or most certainly a third party candidate who is not a conservative in the pocket of corporations...  Once again, to VH's point.. great if Pragmatic party happens with Hillary in the lead.

-- Edited by Sanders on Thursday 28th of October 2010 12:36:23 AM

---

That is why I am so glad that it looks like a wipe-out in the House...and I strongly believe this is direct smack at Pelosi...and gains in the Senate...but NOT TAKEOVER by the Republicans in the Senate.  The argument then becomes that the Dems had 2/3rds power and if it winds up all stalled, the voters can deduce that the Dems weren't willing to work with the other side....and Obama will be held accountable for it in 2012.

 

-- Edited by VotedHillary on Thursday 28th of October 2010 01:26:25 AM

VotedHillary wrote:

---

That is why I am so glad that it looks like a wipe-out in the House...and I strongly believe this is direct smack at Pelosi...and gains in the Senate...but NOT TAKEOVER by the Republicans in the Senate.


-- Edited by VotedHillary on Thursday 28th of October 2010 01:26:25 AM

 

---

That's the best case scenario I argued many months ago at another website, glad to see it is coming to fruition. My thinking at the time was I just didn't want the Republicans to have that much power, but you raise another interesting argument VH, that it still keeps the albatross of blame on Obama, with Dems holding 2/3 of the government. Very clever.

But if we follow arguments such as voting for people who voted for legislation we are fond of -- for instance, the Fair Pay act, a worthy piece of legislation to be sure -- then this will not happen. The House would not change hands. So let's hope people don't get swayed by such ideas, and the House does change hands.

Interesting to note that this is also a historical anomaly: Not since the election of 1930 has the House changed hands without the Senate following suit.

-- Edited by Eminence on Thursday 28th of October 2010 02:10:12 AM

VotedHillary wrote:

---

Sanders,

Obama has demonstrated a personality that is at best described as easily bored...if the House goes red and the Senate remains a slim blue, he will get bored with actually having to deal with both sides....and may do an LBJ rather than run in 2012.

and that is where the pragmatist Hillary steps in.

---

I agree.

I'd love it if Senate stays slim blue and House is Red.  The scenario you say is exactly what I was hoping for...

..... except in the past two-three weeks, it is increasingly looking like the Senate will go red as well -- couple days ago (or was it just yesterday), I saw Dem-47; Repub-47 Toss-6, hence the concern in that toss ups 50%-50%  

Advertisements and funding ources became all important.  So, I've been looking at the sources of funds and targets of ads.  I have seen some more advertisements that are yet to come, funded by American for Prosperity... etc... ads that are national level that are supposedly targeting Health care but funded by energy, oil, gas and chem sector companies via nonprofits. In one ad, the protogonist is a canadian. 

The ads are HIGHLY effective - especially if you have really not been following much of what is happening.. and there are a lot of people out there who are so busy they cannot follow nor delve deep.  There is cause for concern, I feel.

Today, I see net of Dem-49; Repub-45, Toss-6. 

Illinois - I think I still want to see Kirk win over Giannolis - Alex G is too much into the banking mess, it appears to me from all the articles I've read. Besides, Kirk has tremendously impressive qualifications and experience (albeit on the conservative side).

Nevada - It is a shame they didnt have a third party candidate - would have won handily.
Colarado - Shows as toss up.. but I think may go red.
Pennsylvania - likely goes red (Toomey).
Alaska - red and Murkowski may win.

Manchin is inching up which is good.
Washington is tossup with Murray advantage. Still shakey.

So, may be Senate MAY stay blue. I hope these two win.  So 51 Dems. That should be good.

[We have to help for 2012 some of Repub people like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - moderate Repubs who have voted on women's equality matters. They're going to need support very soon as they are already under fire from the Tea Partiers including some challengers emerging already.]


-- Edited by Sanders on Thursday 28th of October 2010 02:38:04 AM

freespirit wrote:

---

You guys make a good point. A number of people have opined Obama has not been concerned about the negative impact his actions or lack thereof might have on Dems reelection bids. They argue that takeover of both houses by Pubs would potentially provide Obama with an excuse for inaction and failed policies, placing him in a better position to win in 2012. No doubt there's merit to that argument. However, even if there is a pub takeover of both houses, my guess is that blaming failures on congress won't be as easy for this POTUS as it has been for others. The majority of Americans seem to support defeat of O's ultra-lib agenda. I think Americans will refuse to reelect him in 2012 because of the legislation he was able to get passed - not the legislation Republicans defeated.

---

freespirit, I agree that this POTUS cannot easily finger-point at anything anymore.
My concern is that if pubs takeover both houses, and [god forbid he gets the Dem nom and] Americans refuse to elect him in 2012 (as we likely will), we will end up with either a pub senate and pub POTUS and either a pub House or some in-waiting legislation from prior pub-House (the one we are electing now), and a Pub POTUS.  The outgoing House can leave in some legislation is my understanding - correct me if I am mistaken on that. Thanks.

===

added clarification re Pub POTUS possibility

-- Edited by Sanders on Thursday 28th of October 2010 09:57:04 AM