Some election observations (long winded)

wcelliot wrote: I think he was in the Congress that did it... so it's true that he started them. The first one just happened to be during the Bush administration. But Congress writes the checks... And in fact until that Congress started writing the checks, the economy looked pretty good... kinda of the reverse of the awesome "Clinton" economy... which only because good once a GOP Congress took control. But both parties have been guilty of irresponsible spending... if that's not over now for the GOP they will go down in flames in two more years....

The economy started imploding well before TARP - that's why Bush and Republicans get the blame. But, you are spot-on that BOTH sides bear responsiblility and blame for policies and the current POTUS voted for it. He was a bit more than "present" on that issue.

If justice had prevailed, the FrankandDodd monster (and lots of others) would have been purged from the face of the earth.

Clinton and the Repub Congress looked good because were riding the up-tick of the dot.com bubble. It burst; Bush (43) and the Repubs/Dems recovered by riding the housing bubble. Both sides contributed to that particular surge, but one side got the blame when it blew-up.

And here we are - again....

oldsaw wrote: If justice had prevailed, the FrankandDodd monster (and lots of others) would have been purged from the face of the earth.

i'm sorry that my state, for reasons that completely fail me, couldnt exorcise the frank portion of that monster

neon4891 wrote: Just got back, and I'm not impressed with our new voting machine. Up till now we had the old school cabinet with levers, curtains and the big crank. Now we have a paper ballot that we mark with a little sharpie, and put thrue a scan machine.

I miss the old voting machines. You got a satisfying click with each candidate chosen so you felt like your vote was being counted. Today I was the sixth person to vote and one of the two scaners had already broken down.

As long as we continue to vote the same crappy candidates into office, we kinda get what we deserve.

wcelliot wrote: But both parties have been guilty of irresponsible spending... if that's not over now for the GOP they will go down in flames in two more years....

This seems like a given. I'm just curious of how vocal the Tea Party will be after they F it up.

gamby wrote:

wcelliot wrote: But both parties have been guilty of irresponsible spending... if that's not over now for the GOP they will go down in flames in two more years....

This seems like a given. I'm just curious of how vocal the Tea Party will be after they F it up.

Agree with both of you.

The tea party will be as vocal as

1. Their corporate backers allow them to be.. (I kid I kid)...

2. The strength of the economy will allow. I firmly believe that 90% of the tea party folks will go quietly back to work when their 401k's go back up and they get get jobs/go back to work.

To be honest, Reid, Boxer, Murkowski won. How strong are they?

You may be right... though I think the tea party actually represents a huge swath of mainstream thought in the US... that Government has grown too big, that both spending and taxes are too high, that the Constitution is being systematically ignored when it's inconvenient to a growing Government, and that individual liberties are being trampled on.

But the GOP brings along the "big Government conservatives" who not only like spending money, but like preaching to you as well. And this election cycle we've already seen a lot of big Government conservatives trying to usurp the message and ride the momentum.

It could be 2x as popular were it not tied to the GOP which a lot of people simply will not vote for on an emotional level, even if they agree with the vast majority of the stances. And the abortion and gay marriage issues (which tea party folks generally ignore but which Dems use to try and make the case that the GOP is anti-liberty, all while actively supporting a fascist leftist movement that attempts to control business, money, property, and speech itself through the power of Government.)

Had the tea party grown out of the Dems, it could have become an even more massive political movement to reset Government. But alas, all of the classical liberals/libertarians left that building long ago... and the combination of big Government leftists and big Government conservatives will likely be able to marginalize the liberal/libertarian resurgance and quickly resume business as usual.

people just aren't that angry when they are making money.

Now should the economy still be down after this election and into the next....... That's going to be wild.

ignorant wrote: Agree with both of you. The tea party will be as vocal as 1. Their corporate backers allow them to be.. (I kid I kid)... 2. The strength of the economy will allow. I firmly believe that 90% of the tea party folks will go quietly back to work when their 401k's go back up and they get get jobs/go back to work.

I think the Tea Party was a Carl Rove invention to motivate people to get out and vote republican. Its brilliant, really. Instead of inciting the religious nuts with standard playbook abortion and gay marriage issues... he went after the "I wish it was like the old days I remember but don't think too hard about" crowd. He managed to get people on Unemployment and Medicare to shout for no Govt. handouts. Talk about a king maker - he could get Nixon re-elected.

Except that Rove was very hositle to the tea party.

I think it was more an outlet for classical liberal/libertarian types (which I again maintain are a large swath of political thought in the US) that had nowhere else to turn.

The Dems have shed the last vestiges of even pretending to be "liberal"... they are completely and thoroughly leftist now with a vast majority no longer thinking that capitalism is the superior economic system.

The GOP by comparison is still split, but has been run by neocons and other big Government conservatives.

There simply is no political space left for classical liberals... the tea party has forced that space out of the GOP, but I don't think the establishment GOP is very happy about it.

If the classical liberals are able to completely take over the party (like the leftists did with the Dems), then I predict a third party of religious conservatives will split off.

But my actual prediction is that the "big government" GOP establishment will be able to render the movement irrelevant and we'll return to two parties both in favor of growing Government.

The Tea Party as a movement existed long before this election cycle, they just started getting some headway in the matters of press coverage that they hadn't before.

And I don't buy this idea that the Tea Party represents any hard leaning right wing element. I see them as a completely one issue movement.

In fact, I see the republican party assuming wayyy too much about tea party being in lock step with them. All it will take is a hard core democrat with an agressive fiscal agenda and history to back it, and I'm sure the tea party movement would drop the republicans like a hot potato.

Especially if republicans start running their mouths on social issues that the tea party has no organised interest in...

madmallard wrote: The Tea Party as a movement existed long before this election cycle, they just started getting some headway in the matters of press coverage that they hadn't before. And I don't buy this idea that the Tea Party represents any hard leaning right wing element. I see them as a completely one issue movement.

I agree with this to an extent if you lump "smaller government, lower Government spending, lower taxes, more individual liberties" into a "one issue" category... it sounds more like a complete platform more than a single issue.

madmallard wrote: In fact, I see the republican party assuming wayyy too much about tea party being in lock step with them. All it will take is a hard core democrat with an agressive fiscal agenda and history to back it, and I'm sure the tea party movement would drop the republicans like a hot potato. Especially if republicans start running their mouths on social issues that the tea party has no organised interest in...

100% in complete agreement... except there hasn't been a hard core democrat with a fiscal agenda that the tea party would even find acceptable in a number of years... those guys left the Dem building along with the classical liberals.

But as I posted before, had this libertarian movement come out the Dems vice the GOP, it would automatically be at least 2x as popular.

In reply to wcelliot:

More individual liberties?

That O'Donnell chick wanted to put an end to masturbation.

Excellent point, that's a great example of the "subjective" issue that people have with the GOP.

Despite her platform being libertarian (with no suggestion of anyone infringing on liberties) you find the fact that she is religious and has personal opinions about morality... means that she is anti-liberty.

While at the same time, a Dem who is completely ammoral personally and is anti-religion is considered pro-liberty, even as they take actual action using the force of Government to infringe basic rights (seize property, outlaw firearms, regulate speech, etc).

The public (and you apparently) seem to think that if a person finds some action "wrong" they automatically think it should be illegal. Ironically, that's much more true of the left vice the right (excepting the big Government right who have much in common with the big government left). An otherwise ammoral leftist will move to aggressively outlaw anything they find to be "wrong" while a classical liberal would accept the legality of all sorts of things they personally object to.

This isn't the best example to make my point because she's basically a nutcase (and in no way deserved to be elected)...

wcelliot wrote: ....except there hasn't been a hard core democrat with a fiscal agenda that the tea party would even find acceptable in a number of years... those guys left the Dem building along with the classical liberals. But as I posted before, had this libertarian movement come out the Dems vice the GOP, it would automatically be at least 2x as popular.

It will be interesting to watch Joe Manchin negotiate the halls of Congress; he threw the Dem's agenda under the bus to get elected. Is he a "classic" liberal or just another politician who sold his soul for access to power?

Glad you didn't capitalize the "L" in libertarian. That "party" probably reflects the prevailing philosophy of most Americans, but is as chock-full-o-nuts as the "other guys".

The "Tea Party" is a movement that (I, personally) hope has great and positive impact on politicians by forcing them to understand they answer to the people and the Constitution - nothing else.

It will be interesting to watch Joe Manchin negotiate the halls of Congress; he threw the Dem's agenda under the bus to get elected. Is he a "classic" liberal or just another politician who sold his soul for access to power?

An interesting case to be sure... he differs with the Dems on almost every issue.... fitting the profile of a big Government conservative more so than a big Govt Dem.

It will be interesting to see how he actually votes. I predict he'll be somewhat of a maverick, but still vote with big Government Dems the majority of the time.

Glad you didn't capitalize the "L" in libertarian. That "party" probably reflects the prevailing philosophy of most Americans, but is as chock-full-o-nuts as the "other guys".

Afraid we're in disagreement there... the Libertarian Party have FAR more than their "fair share" of nuts... ;-)

Unfortunately, as long as our system of government remains a 2-party system, nothing will really change.

starting with GPS's thread 7 up- what happened to the formatting?

I'm using IE8, and someone has a some tag that seems to be making the format crazy.

Same issue here

I think they're on to us!

Waiting for the black helicopters...

Ian F wrote: Unfortunately, as long as our system of government remains a 2-party system, nothing will really change.

It will remain two parties unless we all decide to radically change the constitution and move away from single seat electoral districts. When one person has to get more than half the votes to win a seat, people will naturally line up behind two major paties or canidates.

Type Q wrote: It will remain two parties unless we all decide to radically change the constitution and move away from single seat electoral districts. When one person has to get more than half the votes to win a seat, people will naturally line up behind two major paties or canidates.

Yup. The system is broken. And it will remain broken until we are far worse off than we are now. Even then, change will not come easy.

alfadriver wrote: starting with GPS's thread 7 up- what happened to the formatting? I'm using IE8, and someone has a some tag that seems to be making the format crazy.

The sheer truth of my post is shining through formatting designed to obscure it.

message board fail...