Speaking of Cabin Fever

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

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


About three minutes last time I checked, but that was many years ago.

You might want to work on that, if you think that Jan. holds any real since
of change.

OK, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I'm "close minded." Perfect
hypocrisy on your part.

Not because you don't agree with me Steve, but because you know that the
Dems have been in the same position as the Repubs have been for the past 6
years and you still refuse to except that it will happen again under our
present two-party system. Nothing changes, for the good, under the
two-party system. There's no competition to check the *absolute* power of
the Dems and Repubs.

Baloney. It fits well with the Republicans (or at least it did a month
ago) because they've had (nearly) absolute power for six years. The
Democrats have had virtually NO POWER for six years. If by some chance
they get absolute power, which I hope they don't, I'll expect them to
become as corrupt as the Republicans have proven to be. Neither party has
a monopoly on virtue, nor would your mythical, magical third party if it
somehow came to acquire absolute power, but I confess that the prospect
doesn't keep me awake at night.

No, a third party wouldn't have the magical effect of bestowing virtue on
either the Dems or the Repubs. Not even Jesus H. Christ could do that.

Wow, you're really living in the past! Haven't you gotten any newspapers
down there in Nawth Cackalacky in the past 100 years?

What do yo think brought about an end to slavery and gave women the right to
vote.

Third parties Steve.

The Republican Party was formed to oppose the expansion of slavery. Only
after the Prohibition and Socialist parties began drawing support for
women's suffrage, did the Dems and Repubs finally see the light.

Child labor laws--third party

progressive income tax--third party

40 hour work week--third party

Social Security--third party


I don't want the people's business to be sidetracked and ignored because
of frivolous, ideological single issues like flag burning, prayer in
schools, capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action,
etc., etc. We have more important problems facing us. I just want some
leaders who are competent to deal with them.

No we certainly wouldn't want any of those frivolous Amendments to affect
the Dems or Repubs from enriching their buddies.

Op

"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

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.

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

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.

wrote:
fun stuff snipped

I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with. The
election results had little to do with Iraq? Both houses of Congress
changing hands is not a major shift? Losing almost every contested
election is merely a clever setup by the Republican Party to win by
giving up power? Obama is keeping a low profile? Stop it, yer killin'
me.

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
wrote:

fun stuff snipped


I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with. The
election results had little to do with Iraq? Both houses of Congress
changing hands is not a major shift? Losing almost every contested
election is merely a clever setup by the Republican Party to win by
giving up power? Obama is keeping a low profile? Stop it, yer killin'
me.

Joe F.


I'm sure that Dean also thinks the Iraq war is going just great.

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

rw wrote:
rb608 wrote:

wrote:

fun stuff snipped



I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with. The
election results had little to do with Iraq? Both houses of Congress
changing hands is not a major shift? Losing almost every contested
election is merely a clever setup by the Republican Party to win by
giving up power? Obama is keeping a low profile? Stop it, yer killin'
me.

Joe F.


I'm sure that Dean also thinks the Iraq war is going just great.


BTW, this clown has to be the most consistently wrong person I've ever
come across. I love to know his stock picks so I could short them.

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

On 7 Dec 2006 08:30:21 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
fun stuff snipped

I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with.

So you, then, are regular listener...I'm not.

The election results had little to do with Iraq?

No, it didn't. I'd offer that the Lieberman race was about a good a
signal to all as could be made - the voters didn't give a flock about
his position on Iraq, his political party or what "Dems" (or even real
Dems) outside of Connecticut thought or who _they_ supported, or
anything else other than what they perceive as what Lieberman has done
_for them_. I'd further offer that if straight-ticket/one-(quicker and
easier)choice voting were impossible, his margin would have been even
bigger.

Both houses of Congress changing hands is not a major shift?

No, it isn't, not when the "shift" is so slight, occurred in a midterm,
and was the result of winning "up for grabs" or "in jeopardy" seats.
IOW, there were few real surprises to careful observers. For example,
Lieberman could decide to caucus with the GOP (unlikely, but...), and
the Senate control goes to the GOP.

Losing almost every contested election is merely a clever setup by the
Republican Party to win by giving up power?

Er, VERY few contested elections resulted in a change. Look at a list
of results nationwide and you'll see that in many cases, the challenger
only got 1/4-1/3 of the votes, whether the incumbent was Dem or GOP.
What I suspect you mean to say is that in the Congressional races, a Dem
candidate was able to defeat a GOP candidate in the majority of a
relative few races where the GOP candidate was "weak" for one reason or
another or where the incumbent wasn't in the race. And you (and plenty
of others) have misinterpreted the meaning of the fact that "Iraq" was
successfully used to do so in _some_ of these races. Most of these had
to do with "local" issues and a huge effort to get out the Dem vote. And
this is among the reasons why I suspect certain GOP strategists might
have decided it was a good idea to let them go so far out on a limb to
do it.


You are letting partisanship cause you to look at the facts with a
jaundiced eye, and then, attempting to force them into meaning something
they don't mean in an attempt to "prove" your partisan view is the
correct one.

Obama is keeping a low profile?

Relatively, yes, as compared to the past months, although some of it is
(hopefully) due to wise counsel against over-exposure, and some is
possibly influenced by Hillary's "I haven't decided yet" bull****.

TC,
R

wrote:
You are letting partisanship cause you to look at the facts with a
jaundiced eye, and then, attempting to force them into meaning something
they don't mean in an attempt to "prove" your partisan view is the
correct one.

Yeah; that must be it.

Joe F.