I agree about Patterson. He got in at the wrong time. Personally, I don't dislike him, but know that he isn't well liked, even though he did try. Haven't figured it out myself why people dislike him so much, but, as you said, with Silver in, nobody had a chance to do anything good.
Aside from some of the Governor's races, I was rather impressed with most of Tuesday's elections results which rejected Obama's liberal agenda. Fortunately it seems the UK is now too beginning to come to the same conclusion: Obama isn't the Messiah... as well as massive unrestrained Gov't spending and run away public entitlements need to be stopped. The midterms may have saved a superpower: Americans say no to US decline The midterms may have saved a superpower: Americans say no to US decline – Telegraph Blogs "Tonight’s emphatic conservative House victory in the US midterms is a powerful rejection of President Obama’s handling of the economy and his Big Government agenda, including his controversial healthcare reform plans. The conservative revolution has been largely spurred by disenchantment with the federal government, and a strong belief in limited government, lower taxation, and reduced public spending, as well as a Desire to return to America’s Founding principles…. It is also a powerful rejection of American decline, currently being fueled by massive debts at home, weakened defences and a defeatist foreign policy. The federal debt has jumped from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to 62 percent by the end of this year, the highest percentage since World War Two….. The overwhelming repudiation of the Obama administration’s failing policies sends a clear message to the world that the American people will not accept the decline of the world’s most powerful nation. Now the hard part begins, and a very top priority for the new Congress must be reigning in the ballooning national debt, which the Congressional Budget Office predicts could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent of GDP by 2035. While the Conservative-led government in Great Britain has already embarked upon a $130 billion austerity cuts package, shedding nearly 500,000 public sector jobs, the US administration has defiantly remained with its head in the sand, while still talking in terms of further stimulus spending. That position is unsustainable. Dramatic spending cuts (with the exception of national defence) must also be coupled with a pro-growth agenda of lower taxes, private sector job creation, free trade and economic freedom. After the immense damage of the last two years, the midterms have offered the United States an opportunity to reverse course and get back on its feet. The world needs a powerful, successful, dynamic and prosperous America, where individual liberty and freedom are the driving forces, rather than the overbearing deadweight of federal government. The American people have spoken, and the White House must be held to account."
Interesting take from across the pond. We'll see if anything changes after the first of the year. One thing I'm real curious about has to do with the Florida election. Do those of you familiar with that election think the guy won because he was a Republican or because he was a political outsider? I'd be real curious about that side of the election. In most parts of the country people have become disenchanted with political insiders and want someone different as their elected officials.
rdubnpk I think both reasons apply here. Intrestingly, one of his ads spoke of the government being broken. If he was referring to the state government, it is and has been dominated by Republicans for years. If it is broken, they are the cause.
Honestly I was surprised that the Republicans didn't do a lot better... you would have thought that with all of the disapproval and bad sentiment out there, and the solid two+ years of anti-Obama campaigning, that this election would have been a virtual cakewalk for the Republican party.. So really the question is why couldn't the Republicans take over both the House AND Senate or even manage to get a super majority in the House? Seem like a disappointing showing to me... when times are bad the opposing party should always have the political advantage..
The vast majority of the world's wealth is held by something like 1% of the population. They are pulling all the strings. They control the candidates, the media and pretty much everything else, other than the weather. And that may be too much of an assumption. You need millions of dollars to run a successful campaign these days. The "rules" are pretty much non-existent. There is no accountablility for out-right lies either supporting your bid or attacking your opponent. There is little to no accountability for not making good on promises made during the election or for introducing policies clearly not in keeping with the election platform, once you are in office. The only real accountability is that of the successful candidate to those that provided the financial backing to win the election. It's almost laughable that most politicians are brought down, not for corruption, but for sex scandals. It's ironic that we send delegates to oversee elections in third world countries, when in reality, our own systems are, in many ways, more broken or corrupt than theirs. In light of this, a "Tea Party" type organization of truly unbiased individuals may be the only way to reclaim our democracies. But where do you find that many truly unbiased people? How do you ensure the integrity of such an organization? We need factual information on which to base our votes. And we need a mechanism by which politicians are truly accountable to the people. Right now elections are just replacing them with new puppets. It is a discouraging picture but I fear quite true.
The irony for me is that Obama had the reputation of being the populist candidate while McCain was the "tool of big business." Obama spent $800 million and McCain spent $400 million. I'm sure that not all of that money came from the corrupt Service Employees Union or from Acorn. The old expression that money talks and bullsh*t walks should be changed to bullsh*t runs for office and money tells them how to vote.
rdubnpk Obama ran an internet campaign and at least some of the money came in the form of small donations from the average Joes via pleas from that source who were totally disgruntled after eight years of W and his Republican cohorts, thus the "hope and change" campaign slogans. Obama then bailed out the companies that caused the economic collapse, which I didn't agree with, followed closely by cramming health reform down our throats. Health care reform is needed but the timing and lack of any informational support explaining what (if any) good was to be gained by its passage caused most Americans to reject it out of hand. That being said, Obama has been given two years to correct what was handed to him after eight years of W spending like a drunken sailor getting shore leave for the first time in two years. How soon we forget.
In a kind of related rambling... Just for a laugh I was reading some of the comments on FoxNews.com stories... a lot of them are just nutty and they often have no bearing at all on the story they are attached to, but one common theme is that most people there seem to be in complete denial about the Bush presidency... everything negative from the wars, to government expansion, to the bailouts, to the economy in general started the day Obama took the office so far as they are concerned... in any event, back to the topic... it's very true that anyone who can even get their name on the ballot these days is already in favor with the unions, big business, lobbies, and so forth.. otherwise they wouldn't even get that far in the political ranks. The presidency IS for sale in the US as was said... so yeah.. it's pretty sad..
Life, I'm not sure which is worse the Bush Deniers or the Obama Bush Blamers. To me it looks like neither one had a monopoly on stupidity and overspending. I think the term culpability seems to fit on both sides of the aisle. Now, how do we change it for the future?
