It was a Bloodbath!

[HerbieHeadley]

No, I didn't mean the House, where Republicans now have a majority. I mean the Senate, where Republicans have enough votes to prevent cloture. 47 Republican Senators is enough to stop all legislation.

As for principle over the lure of power? We'll see. I don't think you appreciate the level of anger at Washington politics as usual right now.

I'm sure the snideness is due to the world around crumbling.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Posted by Nathan Poe:

"Depends on what happens between now and 2012."

Much of the reporting on Tuesday is already along the lines that the election was a failure for the Republican party and the Tea Party specifically. What do you suppose the reporting will be in 2012, regardless of what is or is not acomplished?

A lot of whining from the Right about liberal media bias -- same as it always is.

The Tea party promised "change" -- so did Obama.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, I didn't mean the House, where Republicans now have a majority. I mean the Senate, where Republicans have enough votes to prevent cloture. 47 Republican Senators is enough to stop all legislation.

All hail the Party of No. Too bad they're being watched for the things they'll be doing, not the things they'll obstruct.

As for principle over the lure of power? We'll see. I don't think you appreciate the level of anger at Washington politics as usual right now.

I think that level will skyrocket once the Tea Party supporters see their heroes as no different from the bums they tossed out.

The problem with using anger as a political tool is how quickly it can turn on you. The Tea Party's been manipulating anger towards the very same system that they've been trying to break into. It's only a matter of time before their supporters wise up.

And then who will all that anger be directed towards?

 

[Gawron]

And Obama delivered. We see where that got him.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And Obama delivered. We see where that got him.

We'll see where the Tea Party gets us -- just don't get your hopes up; I hate to see a Conservative cry.

 

[brindisi]

All hail the Party of No. Too bad they're being watched for the things they'll be doing, not the things they'll obstruct.



I think that level will skyrocket once the Tea Party supporters see their heroes as no different from the bums they tossed out.

The problem with using anger as a political tool is how quickly it can turn on you. The Tea Party's been manipulating anger towards the very same system that they've been trying to break into. It's only a matter of time before their supporters wise up.

And then who will all that anger be directed towards?

It will be directed at whoever is in Washington playing politics as usual at the time.

You understand, don't you, that the economic and cultrual system that we've prmitted to become reality is unsustainable? In not too many years no one here will have control over anything. The system will become unraveled in a hurry and we won't have choices. It's probably too late already to avoid this, but being an optimist, I hope we can.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It will be directed at whoever is in Washington playing politics as usual at the time.

Which now includes the Tea Party.

You understand, don't you, that the economic and cultrual system that we've prmitted to become reality is unsustainable? In not too many years no one here will have control over anything. The system will become unraveled in a hurry and we won't have choices. It's probably too late already to avoid this, but being an optimist, I hope we can.

Of course I realize this, in fact, I think it's already too late to avoid it.

But the Tea Party politicians have vaulted into power by promising their base that it's not too late, and furthermore, that they can fix the system. That gives people hope that they can change the course of this country off its self-destructive rails.

And if we've learned anything from contemporary American politics, it's that when you promise the people "hope" and "change," God help you if you can't deliver.

You say that the anger will be directed towards the politicians in Washington (which, as I noted, now includes the Tea Partiers), but there is, let's call it, a hierarchy of rage. If the Tea Party fails to deliver (and it will), then their supporters are going to be feeling mighty betrayed by their own candidates.

And nobody earns more anger than a betrayer -- just ask the voters who felt betrayed by the Dems.

 

[brindisi]

Which now includes the Tea Party.



Of course I realize this, in fact, I think it's already too late to avoid it.

But the Tea Party politicians have vaulted into power by promising their base that it's not too late, and furthermore, that they can fix the system. That gives people hope that they can change the course of this country off its self-destructive rails.

And if we've learned anything from contemporary American politics, it's that when you promise the people "hope" and "change," God help you if you can't deliver.

You say that the anger will be directed towards the politicians in Washington (which, as I noted, now includes the Tea Partiers), but there is, let's call it, a hierarchy of rage. If the Tea Party fails to deliver (and it will), then their supporters are going to be feeling mighty betrayed by their own candidates.

And nobody earns more anger than a betrayer -- just ask the voters who felt betrayed by the Dems.

We agree more than we disagree.

 

[katherine2001]

All hail the Party of No. Too bad they're being watched for the things they'll be doing, not the things they'll obstruct.



I think that level will skyrocket once the Tea Party supporters see their heroes as no different from the bums they tossed out.

The problem with using anger as a political tool is how quickly it can turn on you. The Tea Party's been manipulating anger towards the very same system that they've been trying to break into. It's only a matter of time before their supporters wise up.

And then who will all that anger be directed towards?

I can tell you who it will be aimed at. If President Obama starts vetoing all the bills that the Republicans manage to pass, they won't be able to get the votes to override the vetoes and will get very little passed. The American people will remember that and kick the Republicans and Tea Party people out. The Republicans are already backpedaling on the Tea Party--after all, they are going to vote for raising the deficit limit--so the defiicit spending is going to continue to rise--they aren't going to spend less.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I can tell you who it will be aimed at. If President Obama starts vetoing all the bills that the Republicans manage to pass, they won't be able to get the votes to override the vetoes and will get very little passed.

Assuming the Republicans can get anything passed -- between the infighting between the Tea Party and the "Rinos," and the Democrat control of the Senate, the Republicans are stuck with an agenda they can't advance -- and the Tea Partiers are stuck with promises they can't deliver on.

The American people will remember that and kick the Republicans and Tea Party people out. The Republicans are already backpedaling on the Tea Party--after all, they are going to vote for raising the deficit limit--so the defiicit spending is going to continue to rise--they aren't going to spend less.

And so it begins.

 

[St. Barnabas]

I don't get what's so difficult to understand

What's difficult to understand is that you think three races an election cycle make. There were at LEAST that many in which the polling was within the margin of error BEFORE the election. The armchair quarterbacking of the left is sour grapes.

 

[Pommer]

Huh...I just did? There is no single poll saying that the "GOP would retake the Senate", nor a single poll saying that they would retake the House. A summation of many polls from multiple seats leads, or doesn't lead, you to this conclusion. If the GOP had taken the three Senate seats I linked you, they would have had control of the Senate. The polls show that they should have taken those three seats (in the case of Delaware, if they'd run Castle).

I don't get what's so difficult to understand

And FYI, I don't "need" to be right. Whether the GOP had taken the Senate or not, nothing is going to be done, so it doesn't matter that much. The Republicans will obstruct Democratic legislation, and the Republicans will never overcome Presidential veto. So it's a stonewall either way. What does irritate me is people portraying this as the GOP ultimate victory when it quite clearly wasn't.

What's difficult to understand is that you think three races an election cycle make. There were at LEAST that many in which the polling was within the margin of error BEFORE the election. The armchair quarterbacking of the left is sour grapes.

Gee, "St", you get a lot of mileage out of that "angry conservative" meme you've adopted, but as the full quote shows Staccato was actually pulling for your (own) side.

If that's the way you treat "friends", to quote mine their posts so you can get in the last word, then all I can say is you are a heckova Tea Partier!

 

[St. Barnabas]

Gee, "St", you get a lot of mileage out of that "angry conservative" meme you've adopted, but as the full quote shows Staccato was actually pulling for your (own) side.

If that's the way you treat "friends", to quote mine their posts so you can get in the last word, then all I can say is you are a heckova Tea Partier!

I simply disagree with what was said. As they say in New Jersey, "You gotta problem with that?"

 

[Pommer]

I simply disagree with what was said. As they say in New Jersey, "You gotta problem with that?"

But you "disagree"d by implying Staccato is a lefty munching on sour grapes, which doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Tell you what though, I'll simply add you to the ignore list, (sub-100 posts! a new record), which is teh bad see, even Herbie I don't ignore.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Something like 70% of jobs are in small business.

I don't think Democrats would object to doing whatever it takes to get them going strong again.

 

[Gawron]

Hmmm.....

 

[corvus_corax]

O gee whizz, yay!
The Republicans are swimming in a bloodbath!!

Everything is fixed now, yes? The Elephants make it all okay for all of us yes, yes?

Yes?!?


YES?!?!?!?
All hail the Republican promise of "change" and dealing with the "broken system".

It's all fixed now after the bathing in democrat blood, is that correct republicans?

I'll hold my breath just as much as I did two years ago*.




*that is- not at all.

 

[Received]

Actually, if you look at the reasons why the Democrats were kicked out, it's quite contrary to the "America wants conservatives to lead the way" verbal parade we hear from a rightwing bedfellows. Glenn Greenwald sums it up best:

[Initially quoting Huffington Post]

Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election

Tuesday was a tough night for Democrats, as they watched Republicans win enough seats to take back the House in the next Congress and began to ponder life under a likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). But one group hit especially hard was the Blue Dog Coalition, with half of its members losing their seats.

According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, 23 of the 46 Blue Dogs up for re-election went down on Tuesday. Notable losses included Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), the coalition's co-chair for administration, and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the co-chair for policy. Two members were running for higher office (both lost), three were retiring and three races were still too close to call.

The Blue Dogs, a coalition of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House, have consistently frustrated their more progressive colleagues and activists within the party. . . .

"Half of the Blue Dog incumbents were defeated, and by themselves accounted for close to half of the Democratic losses. Some of us have been arguing for quite some time that the Rahm-engineered dependence on Blue Dog power is one of the many factors that has made the Democratic Party so weak, blurry, indistinguishable from the GOP, and therefore so politically inept, and would thus be stronger and better without them -- here's a 2008 Salon article I wrote making that case. Despite viewing last night's Blue Dog losses with happiness, I wouldn't point to this outcome as vindication for my argument, as there are many complex factors that account for last night's crushing of Congressional Democrats: widespread economic suffering, anxiety over America's obvious decline, the perception that Obama has done little to undermine destructive status quo forces and much to bolster them, etc. etc.

[...]

"On a related note, in The New York Times today, one finds the spectacle of Evan Bayh -- who gave up his Senate seat to a Republican while he frolicks around in the millions of dollars his wife receives from the health care industry -- demanding massive entitlement cuts for the poor and freezes on the pay for government workers, while also blaming the Democratic loss on the alleged fact that "we were too deferential to our most zealous supporters." Is he referring there to the escalation in the war in Afghanistan, the massive increase in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks, the virtually wholesale embrace of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties architecture, the defense of Don't-Ask/Don't-Tell and DOMA, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, the failure to stem the tide of the foreclosure crisis, or the elimination of the public option? Apparently, the lesson Evan Bayh -- and most pundits -- took from last night's results, and which they want the Party to learn, is that if only Democrats had suppressed the enthusiasm of their base just a little more, they would have won."

----

Is it really liberalism and leftism America is opposed to, or rather liberal-seeming politicians who essentially hide on the side of the right?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Gee, "St", you get a lot of mileage out of that "angry conservative" meme you've adopted, but as the full quote shows Staccato was actually pulling for your (own) side.

If that's the way you treat "friends", to quote mine their posts so you can get in the last word, then all I can say is you are a heckova Tea Partier!

Well, now that the elections are over, all that rage has to go somewhere.

You can't expect the Tea Party to keep lashing out against the government now that they're in it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Something like 70% of jobs are in small business.

I don't think Democrats would object to doing whatever it takes to get them going strong again.

You mean something like creating almost a million new jobs in the private sector?