Election Results: The most On-Topic off topic discussion for 99ers.

A few more .02-ers from me on the politics in general--And btw, I thought you took that long response from me rather well, sc4ram.

-- No, any one budget waste issue will not solve the problem of the deficit by itself, but some of the biggies can make big dents in it, if anyone in Congress would ever get enough political courage to tackle them. And I didn't read your heritage link on the other entitlements, but I kinda know what's in it anyway, since I agree (maybe not with all of what Heritage has to say) that SS and Medicare need to be overhauled in order to survive. But they don't need to be eliminated, as the lovely Ran Paul seems to think.

-- I don't let Obama off the hook for what seems to me too laissez-faire an attitude about unemployment and benefits and jobs bills. He might be completely sympathetic about everyone in his own mind, but a leader has to use the bully-pulpit to gather the political will of the people, in order to get Congress to do what he wants them to do. I don't think he's quite got his Presidential training wheels off yet, still seems to be working in Senator-mode. And it's a wasteful shame, because talent for meaningful rhetoric like his doesn't come along often in our presidents. Just because I spend months working to get someone elected doesn't mean that person is immune to my criticism!

-- I have a problem with the labels, always. Even though the "Blue Dogs" tend to vote en bloc, there are often very wide ranges of reasons why. I don't necessarily want to "fire all the Blue Dogs"--I want to get rid of the dreck, no matter what color, that tends to enter Congress when we're paying the least attention. (Wild generalizations to follow...) The dreck on the Republican side tend to be the absolute whackos on social issues, the dogma people. They're less inclined to be status climbers wanting to feed off the govt financial trough because they're usually filthy rich to begin with. Any corporate ties they use are just part of their general upbringing and habit. On the Dem side, there are just too many who get into a slot because they're opportunists looking for the networking connections to make them rich. Neither of these types has any right to a seat in Congress, but they flood in, either on the coattails of either party, or on waves of public ignorance.

-- I want fiscal conservatives who have a heart and a brain, but who understand that government, even federal government, has a very important role to play. I want people who legislate for all Americans, not just some little clique or some giant dogma. I want unemployment benefits for all who need them and a program to help them get jobs, but if the Repubs want to use unused TARP money or unused stimulus money to pay for it, why not consider that? It seems on this point the Dems were the ones guilty of giant dogma (and some stubborness). I want a pragmatic Congress that can take care of emergencies as well as the long haul. I like Joe Sestak, but I also have a lot of respect for Arlen Specter, even though there are issues where we would disagree. I would vote for Bill Nelson again, but I would also vote for Alan Grayson. Nelson is overly cautious, but has a heart. Grayson might seem a bit nutty to some, but he's brilliant, and a scholar. Does that make me a Blue Dog or a Leftie? Does it matter? Even the word "progressive" has rather quickly become a bit meaningless. I don't always agree with every single thing that MoveOn does, though I'm a member and have gone to meetings (and parties). I am pro-union, but they had to learn a lot, and still do. Or do I belong in the Tea Party because I'd like to see a fair hearing on the Fair Tax? I don't think so, thank you very much. Sara Palin makes me cringe.

-- I can't let the American public off the hook for our current mess either. I don't mean on the points people usually make about credit card debt and mortgages and stuff like that, much of which I believe is overblown for tv shows, and deliberately directs attention away from corporate responsibility. I'm talking about our centuries-long habit of ignoring stuff that doesn't affect us directly. By comparison, Britain was one of the most exploitive imperialist nations in history, but they are a curious and adventurous lot, who still look outward from their country with interest in other cultures, far more than we do.

I'm appalled on a daily basis by little things that add up. A current case in point--did anyone watch the Tyra show the other day, the one with the mothers who sent their little kids (ages from 2 to 11) to weekly manicures, pedicures, and massages? The sums they paid for all these "treats" for their little darlings and princesses were up in the six digits per year, $150,000 for one of them! Even assuming no negative effect on the kids, there's something really wrong with that in the situation this country (and the world, for that matter) is in. Of course the discussion revolved only around the parenting skills or lack of them or possible effects on the kids' character, but no one ever discusses the insane gap in incomes, when what one child was given for kiddy massages could stop hundreds of families from having to look for food in garbage cans. I'm quite convinced that show in effect recruited at least one more Al Queda member fed up with American culture. Muslims tend to be overly emotionally connected with the slightest insult to their religious brethren, anywhere in the world, whereas we Americans tend to care nothing at all or even try to be informed about something that doesn't affect us directly and imminently. Small wonder how so much of the public has no empathy for the unemployed. Other countries understand the Gulf Spill could have global effects, not just our coasts. But few here seem to get that what our own citizens do and think also has global effects, some of which have and will come back to haunt us.

sensibly put Nancy.

Fmr Rep Harold Ford Jr., (formerly from Tennessee) gives his views on this subject on Hardball.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#37625348

What kind of dog is this guy? Maybe those Deaniacs shouldnt knock on so many doors, you never know who is on the ther other side.............................

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-15-Greene_N.htm?csp=34

sc4ram wrote:What kind of dog is this guy? Maybe those Deaniacs shouldnt knock on so many doors, you never know who is on the ther other side.............................

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-15-Greene_N.htm?csp=34

Heh-heh. DFA volunteers don't just support any new candidates, that would be like everyone who's making those blanket statements about voting out all incumbents, no matter who's running. The DFA organization makes very clear choices about who they will support in big and small races throughout the country, and this guy is not on their list!

May I conclude that the DFA isnt making much of a impact if a relative nobody with a dubious background wins the Democratic party nomination for the US Senate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599199706100

sc4ram wrote:May I conclude that the DFA isnt making much of a impact if a relative nobody with a dubious background wins the Democratic party nomination for the US Senate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599199706100

Depends on what you mean by impact. Don't confuse what is now a relatively small organization with limited budget with the Democratic Party and the funds that were available to Dean when he was its chair. The mission of DFA, as I mentioned, is to chip away at the party to try to support more progressive candidates. They don't and can't afford to support all candidates in all states; members vote on who to support from a selected list of nominations in a few states and at a few levels of government.

And as for Greene, not even the national party noticed this guy, who seems to have come in under everyone's radar. That's why it seems so fishy. But if his "success" might actually stem from all those blindly voting out all incumbents, no matter who they are and no matter who the new guy is, then all I can say is be careful what you wish for!

Well Nancy,

Im confused again, (thats OK) . In any event the party fathers made it official today and named Mr Greene the nominee. (Sounds like the state party could of used the National party "get out of jail free" card with that super-delagate device to be used in case your own party faithful dont get their mind right)

I know you believe that there is a methodical national strategy there somewhere, from my view the recent headlines dont back that up . This election isnt shaping up in that dimension either. We'll see.

Have a good weekend.




http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=88697&catid=2

sc4ram wrote:

...I know you believe that there is a methodical national strategy there somewhere, from my view the recent headlines dont back that up . This election isnt shaping up in that dimension either. We'll see.

Have a good weekend.


http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=88697&catid=2

I never said there is a national strategy for the Democratic Party; I said there was a national strategy, i.e., the 50-state strategy. As far as I'm concerned, when Dean left the party chairmanship, there was no one to steer that ship as well.

Got it Nancy, that begs the questoin. If it was such a effective strategy what happened to it? Do the people who are now pushing the levers of power not have the best interests of the party at heart? I assume the present party management (i believe the former gov of Virginia is the Chairman) are Obama proteges. Why isnt was IS?

I dont know what color doggie this guy is but he is about to @^ss off the Pope here. The President (and many of his adoring supporters) made a big deal that his tax increase strategy would not affect anybody making less than $250K a year. Now the House Majority leader is putting out feelers about raising everybody's taxes (not to mention that there were tax increases that affected the middle class in the Health Care Bill).

Forget the poor merits of this for the moment, but they will never get agreement on spending for more EUC/TierV if their spoken plan is simply tax everybody (no matter who promised what) and spend.

I can hear my employed circle of friends now saying "I have to pay higher taxes to support your unemployment benefits?"
There will be a revolt.



http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/ap/hoyer-permanent-middle-class-tax-cuts-too-costly-96882209.html

More from the genus Mr. Hoyer............


http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/109897/middle-class-tax-boost-is-broached?mod=taxes-advice_strategy

I smell a tax increase here, it will be virtually impossible to pass a EUC extension or a new tier if this is what is lurking around the corner.


http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/market-overview/obama-says-hes-tackling-deficits/

These guys scantimonious attituded on taxes is amazing. I dont think VP Joe gained a constituent for a EUC extension with this exchange.........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2882

This doggie is a real piece of work, he certainly is lacking inspiratoin (to say the least) that the lost jobs are not going to be recovered. What were they put in office for??

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008924-503544.html

nancym wrote:A few more .02-ers from me on the politics in general--And btw, I thought you took that long response from me rather well, sc4ram.

-- No, any one budget waste issue will not solve the problem of the deficit by itself, but some of the biggies can make big dents in it, if anyone in Congress would ever get enough political courage to tackle them. And I didn't read your heritage link on the other entitlements, but I kinda know what's in it anyway, since I agree (maybe not with all of what Heritage has to say) that SS and Medicare need to be overhauled in order to survive. But they don't need to be eliminated, as the lovely Ran Paul seems to think.

-- I don't let Obama off the hook for what seems to me too laissez-faire an attitude about unemployment and benefits and jobs bills. He might be completely sympathetic about everyone in his own mind, but a leader has to use the bully-pulpit to gather the political will of the people, in order to get Congress to do what he wants them to do. I don't think he's quite got his Presidential training wheels off yet, still seems to be working in Senator-mode. And it's a wasteful shame, because talent for meaningful rhetoric like his doesn't come along often in our presidents. Just because I spend months working to get someone elected doesn't mean that person is immune to my criticism!

-- I have a problem with the labels, always. Even though the "Blue Dogs" tend to vote en bloc, there are often very wide ranges of reasons why. I don't necessarily want to "fire all the Blue Dogs"--I want to get rid of the dreck, no matter what color, that tends to enter Congress when we're paying the least attention. (Wild generalizations to follow...) The dreck on the Republican side tend to be the absolute whackos on social issues, the dogma people. They're less inclined to be status climbers wanting to feed off the govt financial trough because they're usually filthy rich to begin with. Any corporate ties they use are just part of their general upbringing and habit. On the Dem side, there are just too many who get into a slot because they're opportunists looking for the networking connections to make them rich. Neither of these types has any right to a seat in Congress, but they flood in, either on the coattails of either party, or on waves of public ignorance.

-- I want fiscal conservatives who have a heart and a brain, but who understand that government, even federal government, has a very important role to play. I want people who legislate for all Americans, not just some little clique or some giant dogma. I want unemployment benefits for all who need them and a program to help them get jobs, but if the Repubs want to use unused TARP money or unused stimulus money to pay for it, why not consider that? It seems on this point the Dems were the ones guilty of giant dogma (and some stubborness). I want a pragmatic Congress that can take care of emergencies as well as the long haul. I like Joe Sestak, but I also have a lot of respect for Arlen Specter, even though there are issues where we would disagree. I would vote for Bill Nelson again, but I would also vote for Alan Grayson. Nelson is overly cautious, but has a heart. Grayson might seem a bit nutty to some, but he's brilliant, and a scholar. Does that make me a Blue Dog or a Leftie? Does it matter? Even the word "progressive" has rather quickly become a bit meaningless. I don't always agree with every single thing that MoveOn does, though I'm a member and have gone to meetings (and parties). I am pro-union, but they had to learn a lot, and still do. Or do I belong in the Tea Party because I'd like to see a fair hearing on the Fair Tax? I don't think so, thank you very much. Sara Palin makes me cringe.

-- I can't let the American public off the hook for our current mess either. I don't mean on the points people usually make about credit card debt and mortgages and stuff like that, much of which I believe is overblown for tv shows, and deliberately directs attention away from corporate responsibility. I'm talking about our centuries-long habit of ignoring stuff that doesn't affect us directly. By comparison, Britain was one of the most exploitive imperialist nations in history, but they are a curious and adventurous lot, who still look outward from their country with interest in other cultures, far more than we do.

I'm appalled on a daily basis by little things that add up. A current case in point--did anyone watch the Tyra show the other day, the one with the mothers who sent their little kids (ages from 2 to 11) to weekly manicures, pedicures, and massages? The sums they paid for all these "treats" for their little darlings and princesses were up in the six digits per year, $150,000 for one of them! Even assuming no negative effect on the kids, there's something really wrong with that in the situation this country (and the world, for that matter) is in. Of course the discussion revolved only around the parenting skills or lack of them or possible effects on the kids' character, but no one ever discusses the insane gap in incomes, when what one child was given for kiddy massages could stop hundreds of families from having to look for food in garbage cans. I'm quite convinced that show in effect recruited at least one more Al Queda member fed up with American culture. Muslims tend to be overly emotionally connected with the slightest insult to their religious brethren, anywhere in the world, whereas we Americans tend to care nothing at all or even try to be informed about something that doesn't affect us directly and imminently. Small wonder how so much of the public has no empathy for the unemployed. Other countries understand the Gulf Spill could have global effects, not just our coasts. But few here seem to get that what our own citizens do and think also has global effects, some of which have and will come back to haunt us.

Thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking. Great post Nancy and well said.

Looks like the Prez is turning to the ultimate blue-dog. I would advise him to tread carefully, when you get in bed with the Clintons there is a good chance you'll wake up with a horse head............



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0715-obama-clinton-20100714,0,5431410.story

A trivial comment at the end of this video by columnist Tom Friedman, where he briefly conceptulizes a world where the US isnt the pre-emenent power in the world. I posted the link to the column he mentions at the bottom. Its not a pleasant thought. ..........




http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-mideast-peace-talks-george-will-roundtable-11563415

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

Looks like these doggies are getting off the Party train ..................



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100926/ap_on_el_ho/us_house_democrats_hide

Looks like Mr. Oreo's company has finally discovered politically correct labeling in the 21st century. Ben's physique and his pursuit of selling sweets to kids, wont get him a invite to Michelle Obama's healthy eating White House anytime soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ben___jerry_s_all_natural

A good book review on the Dean-iacs vs the Rham-boes doggie fight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#39553805

This is why the US needs to keep a core Defense second to none..............



U.S. Alarmed by Harsh Tone of China’s Military

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/world/asia/12beijing.html




Clinton, Gates Question Britain's Defense Cuts, See Added Burden for U.S.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-14/gates-questions-british-defense-cuts-sees-added-burden-for-u-s-military.html