Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

"rw" wrote in message news:WdLdh.7575 Get
a grip, Janik. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party isn't
"extreme left," any more than, say, John McCain, a very conservative
Republican, is "extreme right." The liberal wing of the Democratic Party
is slightly left of center. That's where I stand.

You've been brainwashed. You've been trained to believe that left = bad,
and that anything even slightly left to the Republican position is
"extreme." Poor, deluded soul that you are.

If Barry Goldwater were alive and in politics today his positions would be
considered "extreme left" by the likes of you. He was pro-choice and
pro-gay-rights. One of his quotes: The main lesson I learned from my
grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the
job that we entrusted them with–to run and govern our country efficiently
and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.”

That’s a message worth remembering today. That's how far down the rat hole
of political polarization and right-wing spin we've sunk.

Have you thought about hiring out as a left-wing spin meister?

Op

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

Opus wrote:

Have you thought about hiring out as a left-wing spin meister?

Maybe I should think about that. I could "spin" about how I don't like
being spied on, against the law, without a court order; about how I
don't like giving huge tax breaks to the richest .1% while the middle
class gets crumbs and their children get stuck with the bill; and how I
don't like being lied into a bogus, optional war that will cost
trillions of dollars and many thousands of lives. I could go on, but you
get the point.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

rw wrote:
wrote:
rw wrote:

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."


To be fair, it could have been this statement of yours....

"The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions"

Get a grip, Janik. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party isn't
"extreme left," any more than, say, John McCain, a very conservative
Republican, is "extreme right." The liberal wing of the Democratic Party
is slightly left of center. That's where I stand.

You've been brainwashed. You've been trained to believe that left = bad,
and that anything even slightly left to the Republican position is
"extreme." Poor, deluded soul that you are.

....and you say I need to get a grip. :-)

I think that the extremes of both parties are pretty clueless.
If you identify with the left of the left that's your choice.
- Ken

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

"Opus" wrote in
:

No, if you do so checking, the vote was a vote against the Repubs. and
not a vote for the Dems, as you did.


Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they
thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway
White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this
unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority. If the Dems
don't look at this and learn a real lesson, they're idiots, but I don't
think there's much of a risk of this, based upon the language I hear them
using.

Even if the Republicans can manage to take back the Senate next go around,
I can't see them not learning the lessons of this election. The country is
better off now than it was two months ago.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Opus wrote:

Have you thought about hiring out as a left-wing spin meister?

Maybe I should think about that. I could "spin" about how I don't like
being spied on, against the law, without a court order; about how I don't
like giving huge tax breaks to the richest .1% while the middle class gets
crumbs and their children get stuck with the bill; and how I don't like
being lied into a bogus, optional war that will cost trillions of dollars
and many thousands of lives. I could go on, but you get the point.

Yeah I do.

So only Republicans voted for all of that?

Op

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they
thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway
White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this
unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority.

I'm not sure what the objective political scientists are saying ('cause
we never see them on tv), but my sense is that's only a small part of
the wave. Because both the Dems & Repubs in DC have lost the trust of
Mr. & Mrs. Average, I think more and more voters no longer align
themselves as firmly with either party. Rather than Reps losing their
base (which also happened to some extent), I think the mandate was a
belated realization by the complacent masses that the party in power
had eff'ed up America so badly that they to go.

Joe F.

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Opus" wrote in
:

No, if you do so checking, the vote was a vote against the Repubs. and
not a vote for the Dems, as you did.


Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they
thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a
runaway
White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this
unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority.

"Third, there are few signs that the Republican base deserted the party."
http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=91

If the Dems
don't look at this and learn a real lesson, they're idiots, but I don't
think there's much of a risk of this, based upon the language I hear them
using.

I have never seen that either party, really, learned lessons from election
results. Over time they settle right back into their old habits of taking
care of their cronies and special interests.

The Democrats had basically 4 decades in which to improve the living and
health standards of the average American, and they ****ed everything away as
long as they were able to get pork-barrel monies for their buddies at home.
Teh Clinton admins. fiasco with universal healthcare--putting Hillary in
charge killed any hope of progress on that front. Clinton waited 'til the
few days before he left office to enact executive orders on environmental
restriction . He had eight years in office and Al Gore, and waits 'till he
is leaving office to act?

Year after year, a Democratic controlled Congress passed pay raises for
itself, but failed to recognize the needs of the average American and
minimum wage. No work on Medicade or Medicare. But all of a sudden, it
became an important issue, when they thought they could gain votes to oust
the Republicans.

I don't see them doing anything different than they have in the passed. All
they have to do is not get us into another "illegal" war and they are home
free, as far as they are concerned.

I predict a jump in independent/unaffilliated voter registration in the
coming years. More and more people are losing their political
identification with both parties. Hispanics immigrants, who are not
politically socialized to either of the parties, like most native born
Americans are registering *independents*. You might like to peruse some of
the Pew Hispanic Centers research findings:

"...the Hispanic electorate is growing much faster than the non-Hispanic
electorate. Between the 2000 vote and the election this November, the number
of eligible Latino voters will have increased by about 20% to about 16
million people. The rate of increase is about six times faster than for the
non-Hispanic population." http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/8.pdf

Even if the Republicans can manage to take back the Senate next go around,
I can't see them not learning the lessons of this election. The country
is
better off now than it was two months ago.

I'd say that remains to be seen.

Op

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

On 7 Dec 2006 06:51:43 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:
Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they
thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a runaway
White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this
unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority.

I'm not sure what the objective political scientists are saying ('cause
we never see them on tv), but my sense is that's only a small part of
the wave. Because both the Dems & Repubs in DC have lost the trust of
Mr. & Mrs. Average, I think more and more voters no longer align
themselves as firmly with either party. Rather than Reps losing their
base (which also happened to some extent), I think the mandate was a
belated realization by the complacent masses that the party in power
had eff'ed up America so badly that they to go.

Joe F.

FWIW, there wasn't really anything special or different about the 2006
midterms as far as the vote numbers go - something like 70ish million
people voted, and they voted something like 32.5ish million GOP to
37.5ish million Dem, with the vast majority of all races not even close
- i.e., the incumbent candidate (or in the few "open" races, at least
party), GOP or Dem, handily won reelection. Moreover, the party in
power tends to lose a bit of ground with midterms. As is typical, the
minority party tends to focus on the weak candidates or open races - the
races that voter turnout could effect. Add to this widely-covered
"crossover" results, where people voted for the opposition or against
their party's candidate, such as Lieberman, and the overall results can
appear as something significant. I'd offer that it had little to do
with Iraq.

For the most part, the numbers show a pretty typical, i.e.,
unremarkable, midterm, but some (on both sides of the aisle) wish to
portray it as some major shift, and if the media and pundits oblige, the
public (again, on both sides) will see it that way. IMO, the most
significant thing was the Clintonista Dems portrayal of the results as
some huge groundswell supporting them and their ideas. They've already
gotten burned, and when, not if, they really stumble, they'll take it in
the shorts. Unfortunately, just as they have for years, they'll get the
entire Dem party a good whack right along with them. I'd offer that the
GOP knew they were going to lose some ground, and they've made a shrewd
political move in setting up and/or allowing the Clintonistas to set
themselves up (and with them, the Dems) for that fall. I'd further
offer that many moderate Dems (those who aren't, and don't support the,
Clintonistas) realize this and that's why many are keeping a pretty low
profile right now (including - hint, hint - Obama).

TC,
R

Speaking of Cabin Fever
 

wrote in message
...
On 7 Dec 2006 06:51:43 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:
Not quite. The vote was a mandate from the Republican "base" that they
thought their party sold out their ideals and responsibilities to a
runaway
White House. Unfortunately for them, the only way to remedy this
unacceptable situation was to kill their party's majority.

I'm not sure what the objective political scientists are saying ('cause
we never see them on tv), but my sense is that's only a small part of
the wave. Because both the Dems & Repubs in DC have lost the trust of
Mr. & Mrs. Average, I think more and more voters no longer align
themselves as firmly with either party. Rather than Reps losing their
base (which also happened to some extent), I think the mandate was a
belated realization by the complacent masses that the party in power
had eff'ed up America so badly that they to go.

Joe F.

FWIW, there wasn't really anything special or different about the 2006
midterms as far as the vote numbers go - something like 70ish million
people voted, and they voted something like 32.5ish million GOP to
37.5ish million Dem, with the vast majority of all races not even close
- i.e., the incumbent candidate (or in the few "open" races, at least
party), GOP or Dem, handily won reelection. Moreover, the party in
power tends to lose a bit of ground with midterms. As is typical, the
minority party tends to focus on the weak candidates or open races - the
races that voter turnout could effect. Add to this widely-covered
"crossover" results, where people voted for the opposition or against
their party's candidate, such as Lieberman, and the overall results can
appear as something significant. I'd offer that it had little to do
with Iraq.

For the most part, the numbers show a pretty typical, i.e.,
unremarkable, midterm, but some (on both sides of the aisle) wish to
portray it as some major shift, and if the media and pundits oblige, the
public (again, on both sides) will see it that way. IMO, the most
significant thing was the Clintonista Dems portrayal of the results as
some huge groundswell supporting them and their ideas. They've already
gotten burned, and when, not if, they really stumble, they'll take it in
the shorts. Unfortunately, just as they have for years, they'll get the
entire Dem party a good whack right along with them. I'd offer that the
GOP knew they were going to lose some ground, and they've made a shrewd
political move in setting up and/or allowing the Clintonistas to set
themselves up (and with them, the Dems) for that fall. I'd further
offer that many moderate Dems (those who aren't, and don't support the,
Clintonistas) realize this and that's why many are keeping a pretty low
profile right now (including - hint, hint - Obama).

Well......gosh......sounds like ya got some chocolate......and some vanilla.

Um......you really DO believe that being transparent is the same as being
invisible......don't you? :)

Wolfgang
absinthe oprah absinthe latifah emeril absinthe.

Speaking of Cabin Fever