Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

EDIT: Brian is also right about the histrionic tone of that blogger.

OK, the guy is definitely a right winger. What the post illustrates however is the power of success. Whether it is justified or not, the right wing is gloating about the Prosser win. This success will keep the Tea Party types activated. Obviously, I don't know the mood in Wisconsin (although my in-laws are quite conservative), but I would be doubtful that any recall effort from either side being successful. The previous election was practically yesterday.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

OK, the guy is definitely a right winger. What the post illustrates however is the power of success. Whether it is justified or not, the right wing is gloating about the Prosser win. This success will keep the Tea Party types activated. Obviously, I don't know the mood in Wisconsin (although my in-laws are quite conservative), but I would be doubtful that any recall effort from either side being successful. The previous election was practically yesterday.

James50

I would be extremely surprised if none of the recalls was successful. Simple probability really, every senator in Wisconsin that's eligible has a recall petition going, and I believe two have already been completed (both GOP) with an excess of signatures. There's bound to be at least a few, especially in the districts that were close to begin with.

Many of the places that voted for Walker voted for Kloppenburg this time around, and those areas are highly liable to have successful recalls. Will we be ousting the Senators from the Waukesha area? Probably not, just as I doubt any of the Madison senators have any chance of being removed. But there will be changes, and I would guess that it will favor the Democrats by a seat or two.

Originally Posted by James50

OK, the guy is definitely a right winger.

The point is not that he's a right-winger but that his article is misleading and disingenuous. He spins a narrowly-averted disaster as a triumph, and presents an ongoing Tea Party movement as if it were something new. There is simply no honest way to present the events arising from Wisconsin and other states, together with the declining support for Republicans in Congress, as a good thing from the Republican PoV.

What the post illustrates however is the power of success. Whether it is justified or not, the right wing is gloating about the Prosser win. This success will keep the Tea Party types activated. Obviously, I don't know the mood in Wisconsin (although my in-laws are quite conservative), but I would be doubtful that any recall effort from either side being successful. The previous election was practically yesterday.

That's what makes this whole thing so amazing. The previous election may have been "practically yesterday," but it was also before Walker's attempt at union-busting and the subsequent protests. I don't think the "conservative" movement could have handed the left a better issue without going openly racist, and that's not going to happen.

Around 400,000 people voted in the February 15th primary for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In the primary, Prosser had 55% of the vote to 25% for Kloppenburg, who finished in second place. The primary took place only four days after Governor Walker revealed his budget repair plan.

Seven weeks later, Prosser barely squeezes out a victory over Kloppenburg (perhaps), and four times as many voters turn out as they did in February. The GOP should be breathing a sigh of relief, not gloating. A little-known lawyer in the Attorney General's office, using only public financing for her campaign (in fairness, so did Prosser), almost defeated a thirteen-year veteran of the court.

James, I would not underestimate these recall efforts. Kapanke is a done deal, and I'm pretty sure Hopper will be as well. The other two most likely on the bubble for the GOP are Sheila Harsdorf and Luther Olson. Possibly Alberta Darling as well, though her district does include part of reactionary Waukesha and Washington Counties. Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman are safe. I am also doubtful that Bob Cowles will be recalled, though Silifi might have some further insight into his district.

As for the Dems, I keep hearing more about Bob Wirch than any of the others, which is kind of curious since his district is pretty purple.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Seven weeks later, Prosser barely squeezes out a victory over Kloppenburg (perhaps), and four times as many voters turn out as they did in February.

Sounds like both sides became energized.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Sounds like both sides became energized.

James50

Well, I'm not sure the Tea Party ever really let up in the first place.

But I think the momentum was with Kloppenburg, and given another couple of weeks, she might have actually won (Walker & Co. are continuing to piss people off with the 2011-13 proposed budget).

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Bad news for Congressional Republicans

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....publicans.html

PPP's newest national poll finds that after a little more than 3 months in charge House Republicans have fallen so far out of favor with the American public that it's entirely possible Democrats could take control of the House back next year.

43% of voters think that House Republicans are doing a worse job now than the Democrats did, compared to only 36% who think the GOP has brought an improvement. 19% think things are about the same. 62% of voters thinking that the Republicans have either made things worse or brought no improvement to an already unpopular Congress does not bode particularly well for the party.

46% of voters say that if there was an election for Congress today they would vote Democratic, compared to only 41% who would vote Republican. That five point advantage for Democrats is only a hair below the margin Republicans won by in the national popular vote last year. A victory of that magnitude for the Democrats next year would at the very least result in the party taking back a large number of the seats it lost last year, and it could be enough to take back the outright majority- hard to say at this point without knowing how good a number the GOP can do in redistricting.

The key to this strong movement back toward the Democrats right now is the same as the key to the strong movement away from the Democrats last year- fickle independents quickly growing unhappy with the party in power. Exit polls showed independents supporting the GOP by a 19 point margin last year at 56-37. Now only 30% of those voters think that the Republican controlled House is moving things in the right direction, compared to 44% who think things were better with the Democrats. Given those numbers it's not much of a surprise that independents now say they'd vote Democratic for the House by a 42-33 margin if these was an election today, representing a 28 point reversal in a span of just five months.

These poll numbers also point to the reality that Republicans taking control of the House may have been one of the best things that could possibly have happened for Obama's reelection prospects. Although we found the President with slightly negative approval numbers on this poll, when asked whether they had more faith in Obama or Congressional Republicans to lead the country in the right direction 48% of voters picked Obama to only 42% who went with Congressional Republicans. Voters may not love Obama as once they did but they're finding him to be more reasonable than the alternative and that means it will be hard for the GOP to knock him off next year without a top notch nominee.

One thing is very much for certain- it's not 2010 anymore.

Germane details:

Q1 If there was an election for Congress today,
would you vote for the Democratic or
Republican candidate from your district?
Democrat .................................................. ...... 46%
Republican........................................ .............. 41%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 13%

Q2 Do you think the Republicans are doing a
better job than the Democrats did while in
charge of the House of Representatives, a
worse job, or is it about the same?
Better job .................................................. ...... 36%
Worse job............................................... ......... 43%
About the same.............................................. . 19%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 2%

Q3 Do you have more faith in Barack Obama or
Congressional Republicans to lead the country
in the right direction?
Barack Obama............................................. ... 48%
Congressional Republicans ............................ 42%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 10%
Q4 If there is a shutdown of the federal
government do you think members of
Congress should continue to receive their
salaries or not?
Should continue to receive their salaries ........ 5%
Should not............................................... ........ 90%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 5%

Q6 Would you describe the Democratic Party more
as mainstream or extremist?
Mainstream........................................ ............. 46%
Extremist......................................... ................ 39%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 15%

Q7 Would you describe the Republican Party more
as mainstream or extremist?
Mainstream........................................ ............. 40%
Extremist......................................... ................ 48%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 12%

I can almost see President Obama taking a whistle stop tour of America as he runs against Congressional Republicans (although he would more likely go by aircraft due to the different technology of 64 years later). Hint: Harry S. Truman was born in the second year [1884] that Howe and Strauss attribute to the last Reactive generation to have entered elderhood (the Lost), and Barack Obama to the first year [1961] of a Reactive generation (Thirteenth), and Republicans took back at the least the House in both 1946 and 2010. Both had nasty wars to deal with as the result of bumbling (partitioning Korea at the 38th parallel, or failing to heed intelligence reports or tell the truth) of the previous Administration.

There are obvious differences in that America in 1948 was clearly post-Crisis, and 2012 will surely be Crisis; furthermore, if the Republicans see a 1948-style defeat, then they will see it coming. It's unlikely that the President will see a fresh defection from segregationists or their successors because those are now Republicans. Above all, President Obama does not live in the shadow of a much-admired predecessor.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Kapanke is a done deal, and I'm pretty sure Hopper will be as well. The other two most likely on the bubble for the GOP are Sheila Harsdorf and Luther Olson. Possibly Alberta Darling as well, though her district does include part of reactionary Waukesha and Washington Counties. Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman are safe. I am also doubtful that Bob Cowles will be recalled, though Silifi might have some further insight into his district.

I'd have doubt about Cowles, although he's actually not my rep, as I live on the Green Bay campus, which is actually Dave Hansen's district. I say that mainly because Cowles controls places like De Pere and Ashwaubenon, basically the suburbs of Green Bay, as opposed to the downtown area and the college campus (although the campus isn't a very significant source of votes, it's mostly a commuter school and we've had dismal turnout from residents) where you'd expect more Democrats.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Bad news for Congressional Republicans

Well isn't this just great. The polls are going in our favor! Go team!

This isn't high school (and I should know ), we shouldn't cheer for our team just because they wear our colors.

IMO what's really going on is that Americans are feeling buyers remorse no matter which party they pick. In other words, something's wrong in the state of Denmark.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Well isn't this just great. The polls are going in our favor! Go team!

This isn't high school (and I should know ), we shouldn't cheer for our team just because they wear our colors.

IMO what's really going on is that Americans are feeling buyers remorse no matter which party they pick. In other words, something's wrong in the state of Denmark.

Bingo. Between now and say, 2014, we'll re-align back to the pseudo-left, get pissed off with them, and then what?

It's a stupid pendulum and people are starting to realize it. The result will either be centrism or radicalism.

Originally Posted by Silifi

The result will either be centrism or radicalism.

Depends on who has influence.
If it is Boomers and Jonesers then it will be radicalism. If it is younger Xers and Millies, then centrism.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Well isn't this just great. The polls are going in our favor! Go team!

This isn't high school (and I should know ), we shouldn't cheer for our team just because they wear our colors.

IMO what's really going on is that Americans are feeling buyers remorse no matter which party they pick. In other words, something's wrong in the state of Denmark.

Yup. I predicted during the 2010 elections that elections would swing wildly back and forth until one party gets serious.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Depends on who has influence.
If it is Boomers and Jonesers then it will be radicalism. If it is younger Xers and Millies, then centrism.

Depends on what you mean by "centrism", I associate that term with the "corporatist lite" policies of mainstream Dems of the last 25 years.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Well isn't this just great. The polls are going in our favor! Go team!

This isn't high school (and I should know ), we shouldn't cheer for our team just because they wear our colors.

IMO what's really going on is that Americans are feeling buyers remorse no matter which party they pick. In other words, something's wrong in the state of Denmark.

Exactly! Now, what do we do about it? We don't seem capable of creating more than two viable parties at a time. Neither of the current parties is about to collapse, because it isn't in the interest of the powers-that-be. The only outsiders entering the fray (Donald Trump?) are more whack than the insiders.

Maybe we can start the Fusion Party, and all run for office. For those not interested in actually fixing anything, please consider joining he the opposition Confusion Party.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Maybe we can start the Fusion Party, and all run for office. For those not interested in actually fixing anything, please consider joining he the opposition Confusion Party.

Sounds like something Stewart and Colbert would come up with.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Well isn't this just great. The polls are going in our favor! Go team!

This isn't high school (and I should know ), we shouldn't cheer for our team just because they wear our colors.

IMO what's really going on is that Americans are feeling buyers remorse no matter which party they pick. In other words, something's wrong in the state of Denmark.

We used to have far more wishy-washy politicians, the sorts who took a swing on the merits of legislation instead of whether it fit some pre-packaged ideology. We are now stuck between Scandinavian-style social Democrats (not too bad, at least if you like Scandinavian countries except for their weather) and people who would like a corporatist-fundamentalist fusion. The first is alien; the second is 100% American in that it would offend anyone who isn't 'fully' American. Maybe we just miss GI-style politics even if we are Boomers.

Many of us wanted politicians to be more decisive and consistent. Now we have many who are decisive to the extent that they carry a rigid ideology with them.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We are now stuck between Scandinavian-style social Democrats

lol what

Democrats are about as far from Scandinavian politics as Justin is from Stalin.

Democrats would be considered the right-wing in Scandinavia, even after they've adopted free market reforms in recent years.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We don't seem capable of creating more than two viable parties at a time.

This is because we have a winner-take-all Legislative system.

Originally Posted by Silifi

lol what

Democrats are about as far from Scandinavian politics as Justin is from Stalin.

Democrats would be considered the right-wing in Scandinavia, even after they've adopted free market reforms in recent years.

You got that right!

From the Free Library:

Looking after everyone: social policy in Scandinavian countries, in particular, is far more progressive than North American models. The system is universal (dependent not on contribution but on need), and has earned a reputation for providing superior public services that reduce class and income differences.

As I thought he wouldn't Obama didn't completely sell out his base by throwing social security, medicare, and medicaid to the wolves. It looks like he is using the fact that the Republican plan would essentially eliminate medicare for seniors as a way to distinguish the democratic position from the Republican one. It is an intelligent strategy from a political point of view.

That being said, the plan he released really only constitutes an acceptable comprise in a bad political situation. I wish it included something like a Carbon tax, an additional tax bracket on extremely high earners, an increases in the capital gains tax rate or the treatment of capital gains as ordinary income, or a financial transaction tax in order to raise additional revenue and mitigate the need for cuts. I also wish it didn't include any commitments, triggers, or freezes. I think they are dumb because they hamper the ability of the government to respond to changing conditions and are easy to work around through legislative or accounting tricks.

With that said, though, while the deficit is a long term problem that needs to be dealt with in the long term, in the short term the energy of the government and the political debate should be focused on creating jobs and boosting the economy back to full employment. That means more stimulus and no cuts. Right now the unemployment rate is almost 9 percent. The budget deal just enacted will cause it to go higher unless underlying economic growth compensates. It is unlikely, if not impossible, for our economy to return to full employment before the next recession.

What that means is that not only will more people go without jobs than otherwise would, meaning they both won't be able to contribute their skills and labor to the economy and will suffer the loss of income and self esteem that comes with unemployment, but that individuals joining the labor market and already employed will be less secure in their jobs and be able to demand less in salaries. That weak position of employees comes at a time when young people are graduating college with record levels of student debt which they will struggle to pay off, which means not only hardship for themselves but a drag on economic activity as the portion of their salaries that goes to pay their debt is not spent on other goods and services.

Here is a link to a pretty succinct yet nonetheless powerful description of what Obama is (wrongly) giving up. The author, Brad de Long, is a professor in the economics department at Cal Berkley and former treasury department official under Clinton. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/0...framework.html

I'll post a list of what he (Brad de Long) thinks are the major "concessions to the technocratic idea" - in other words, concessions that will make our society poorer relative to what it could be were the correct coarse of action taken- in case people don't want to read through the link.

Brad de Long
This framework already includes major, painful concessions relative to the technocratic ideal. Obama has already made these in order to try to start this framework. They include:

• The United States now really needs the government to be spending an extra $3T on infrastructure over the next 12 years--other Pacific nations are planning to do so. Obama is giving up.
• The United States now really needs--and Ben Bernanke recommends--an additional ARRA-sized fiscal stimulus over the next three years of $1T or so. Obama is giving that up.
• The United States really needs failure to meet budget-balance targets to trigger high-bracket tax increases. Obama is giving that up.
• The United States really needs to deal with the greater fiscal needs of an aging America by either (a) opening the borders, or (b) implementing a VAT. Obama is giving that up.

Personally, I really wanted the spending to go towards infrastructure, specifically rail and other measures aimed towards making our cities livable, k-12 education, especially now that states are cutting back funding, and renewable and nuclear energy, which truly would make our society richer since it cuts or eliminate our dependence on foreign energy sources such as oil. I also wanted a program aimed towards making college and professional school affordable again. I liked Obama's idea during the election of money for college in exchange for time spent in a national service program.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Well isn't this just great. The polls are going in our favor! Go team!

This isn't high school (and I should know ), we shouldn't cheer for our team just because they wear our colors.

IMO what's really going on is that Americans are feeling buyers remorse no matter which party they pick. In other words, something's wrong in the state of Denmark.

I think people are scared and fearful of the future. They just lived through a decade during pretty much every major institution in this country lied to them and failed them in some way. The Republicans under Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War, a lie which was facilitated with the help of a compliant press. A bi-partisan failure to properly regulate the financial industry dating back to the second Clinton term resulted in a catastrophic economic collapse, which at best threatened and at worst destroyed their wealth and livelihoods. Even at the beginning of the decade, they saw that the dot com boom was rife with fraud and malfeasance. Now they live in an uncertain economy with high unemployment, declining salaries, increased threat of job loss, and bleaker prospects for the futures of both themselves and their children.

In addition, they've seen time and time again during the past decade the conventional wisdom proven wrong. All the serious commentators on foreign policy lined up behind the Iraq War, only to have it later revealed that the war was waged under false pretenses and the occupation devolve into a long, expensive, and bloody quagmire. All the serious commentators on economics insisted that there was no property bubble, and that we had reached a new era in financial knowledge which made regulation unnecessary and economic crash impossible. They were proven disastrously wrong in 2008 with the financial crisis. People are primed for disaster now. Primed to listen to every doomsayer with a convincing narrative about how the next crisis is going to unfold.

Ironically, many of the same voices of conventional wisdom who led us into the Iraq War and missed the housing bubble are now preventing our economic recovery by scaremongering over the deficit. They play into the fears and experiences that people draw from the own lives about debt and cause them to erroneously project them onto the government. There will be no significant recovery in employment, no improvement in the living standards and prospects of the average American, while this state of affairs persists. Republicans will only cause more pain by cutting programs like medicare and medicaid that people depend on, either now or in the future when they retire, while Democrats will merely fight for the status quo.

What to do?

As a progressive, here is what I think (and plan). Ignore the presidential election. Vote for Obama, but don't spend much energy campaigning for him or even worrying about him. He will probably get elected due to the advantages of incumbency and the historic weakness of the Republican field of presidential candidates. Instead, focus on house races, senate races, and local races in your own state. Get to know the candidates in the primaries of whichever party you belong to. Let them know that you will only support someone who is committed to building an economy that works for people, and not just a privileged few that can buy influence. That means that they will get tough on Wall Street. Let them know that you will only vote for someone that will spend money here, on creating jobs, building infrastructure, educating kids, and making new scientific discoveries, and not on someone who is just going to cut spending as an excuse to cut taxes for the well off and corporations. Let them know you will be watching, and that you will hold them accountable for these things. Personally, as a Democrat, I think that we need to make sure that people like Joe Liebermen, Harold Ford, and Andrew Cuomo are not the people we nominate. Beyond participating in elections, become involved outside of elections. Join a political advocacy group that advances causes you believe in. Work to organize between elections, and not just wait until elections are held. Become involved and stay involved.

Right now, the only groups that are organized politically in this country are corporations. As a result, their wishes and desires, and the desires of the wealthy and powerful individuals who run them, are the only voices that are heard. Unions once provided a counterbalance to this voice, but their power is greatly diminished through a combination of globalization, technological change, and a successful war waged by the right wing for the past thirty years. The wage earning middle class, as well as the poor, who compromise 95 to 99 percent of the people in this country, desperately need to organize in some way in order for their needs to be addressed by the political system. Until they do, this country will become more corrupt and unlivable with each passing year.

The dirty little secret is that Presidents compromise or they fail. Such is true even if the Other Side wants failure.

The Hard Right, as exemplified by the Tea Party, wants a Christian and Corporate America even if such requires another Great Depression and a dictatorial regime to make it possible. The wisest course for the President -- if he doesn't want to become an abject puppet -- is to do what is necessary to keep the system from breaking down while he waits for the political failure of the Hard Right. These fellows do not play fair. They want their ban on abortion (and maybe even contraception!), the elimination of environmental protection, more rapid exploitation of resources, more dependence on petroleum and coal, NPR off the air, and deregulation of the financial industry even if such is contrary to the wishes of most Americans. Never mind that such is failure; these people believe that Americans will still come to JEE-Zussss as they understand Him (no thanks -- their Jesus isn't the One who gave the Sermon on the Mount but instead a good friend of tycoons, executives, and big landowners) by 2012 at the latest.

There won't be any new stimulus until at least 2013 even if the economy melts down again. The Republicans, if anything, would shift taxes onto working people so that the super-rich "can invest more". Sure. They will bid up luxuries that most of us will never see unless we are to become the domestic servants of those plutocrats, big landowners, and their retainers. America needs more investment in quality education at the K-12 level so that people who go to college are better prepared for it and those who aren't college material can still find decent -paying work -- but who needs good pay when the cheap-labor interests can get an abundant supply of cheap, disposable, cowed labor.

The 112th Congress has thrown away two years of possible progress; countries elsewhere are catching up with us while we debate whether global warming is a phantom because some special interests want us to act as if it were a phantom or at least a triviality. But we must remember: the wolf-sheep hybrids (wolves toward real and imagined enemies, sheep toward leaders) that are the American people, or at least its Right Wing, have their view of a good life, and that is a life dedicated to Pie in the Sky When You Die.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The dirty little secret is that Presidents compromise or they fail. Such is true even if the Other Side wants failure.

The Hard Right, as exemplified by the Tea Party, wants a Christian and Corporate America even if such requires another Great Depression and a dictatorial regime to make it possible. The wisest course for the President -- if he doesn't want to become an abject puppet -- is to do what is necessary to keep the system from breaking down while he waits for the political failure of the Hard Right. These fellows do not play fair. They want their ban on abortion (and maybe even contraception!), the elimination of environmental protection, more rapid exploitation of resources, more dependence on petroleum and coal, NPR off the air, and deregulation of the financial industry even if such is contrary to the wishes of most Americans. Never mind that such is failure; these people believe that Americans will still come to JEE-Zussss as they understand Him (no thanks -- their Jesus isn't the One who gave the Sermon on the Mount but instead a good friend of tycoons, executives, and big landowners) by 2012 at the latest.

There won't be any new stimulus until at least 2013 even if the economy melts down again. The Republicans, if anything, would shift taxes onto working people so that the super-rich "can invest more". Sure. They will bid up luxuries that most of us will never see unless we are to become the domestic servants of those plutocrats, big landowners, and their retainers. America needs more investment in quality education at the K-12 level so that people who go to college are better prepared for it and those who aren't college material can still find decent -paying work -- but who needs good pay when the cheap-labor interests can get an abundant supply of cheap, disposable, cowed labor.

The 112th Congress has thrown away two years of possible progress; countries elsewhere are catching up with us while we debate whether global warming is a phantom because some special interests want us to act as if it were a phantom or at least a triviality. But we must remember: the wolf-sheep hybrids (wolves toward real and imagined enemies, sheep toward leaders) that are the American people, or at least its Right Wing, have their view of a good life, and that is a life dedicated to Pie in the Sky When You Die.

I agree. A compromise became pretty much inevitable once the Republicans took the house. I'm just afraid that Obama is giving away too much with his present compromises so that he will be boxed in, both practically and politically, should the political situation turn more to his advantage. He has a pattern of doing that, and it cost him, especially with the stimulus. Had the stimulus been the correct size the recovery would have been stronger and unemployment lower, so the Democrats likely would not have received the drubbing in 2010 that they took.

Similarly, had Obama pressed harder on health care and financial reform, his base might not have been as demoralized as is ended up being, so there might have been more energy to get out the vote for Democrats during the mid-term. Unfortunately, I think significant elements of the Democratic party compromised on these issues due to their reliance on campaign donations from the health insurance and financial services industries.

I've actually kind of given up on his next term, to be honest. I just want to mitigate the damage as much as possible. I want to see the Democrats retake the house, not lose the senate, and build a progressive base within the party capable of enacting a stronger set of reforms going forward. I think at this point its important just to stay involved, and work at a grass roots level to strengthen reform oriented elements within the Democratic, and if possible even the Republican party. Unfortunately, too many people, I think, pay attention only to the Presidential election. They don't pay attention to the mid terms, don't vote in the primaries, and don't stay active when campaigns are not officially running. Unfortunately for them, lobbyists do.

Originally Posted by btl2283

... I've actually kind of given up on (Obama's) next term, to be honest. I just want to mitigate the damage as much as possible. I want to see the Democrats retake the house, not lose the senate, and build a progressive base within the party capable of enacting a stronger set of reforms going forward. I think at this point its important just to stay involved, and work at a grass roots level to strengthen reform oriented elements within the Democratic, and if possible even the Republican party. Unfortunately, too many people, I think, pay attention only to the Presidential election. They don't pay attention to the mid terms, don't vote in the primaries, and don't stay active when campaigns are not officially running. Unfortunately for them, lobbyists do.

I wonder whether mitigating the damage is the right approach. So far, we've followed a pattern of one step forward and two steps back. The one step is always demagogued as extreme liberalism, so the "sensible" two steps back needs to be a bit bolder to compensate. All this has done is to plant the political center pin further to the right every year. Has this produced any gains? After all, Bill Clinton is the one who signed-off on killing the Glass-Steagle Act, yet Democrats continue to praise the Clinton Years as the model to move us forward. Why?

I'm seriously considering sitting on my hands during the next election cycle. In my part of Virginia, we have conservative Dems and hyper-conservative Reps. Functionally, the Dems are less-bad, but why should that endear them to me? They tend to facilitate bad behavior rather than actively pursue it, but the results are the same: bad behavior. Having the Dems fingerprints on the result only reinforces the view that the policy is bipartisan. That may be OK with the Dems, but it's not OK by me.

I went a few rounds with PW on this prior to the 2010 debacle, and the point still holds. Why should the public elect a faux Rep when real ones are in the running? Harry Truman made the same point 60 years ago. The policy results continue a slow but steady movement to the right. Both parties are on-board. When, not if, the next disaster occurs, who's left to pick up the pieces?

Since it appears we are going to try the insane approach, perhaps we should let the insane get the blame for it ... just this once.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I went a few rounds with PW on this prior to the 2010 debacle, and the point still holds. Why should the public elect a faux Rep when real ones are in the running? Harry Truman made the same point 60 years ago. The policy results continue a slow but steady movement to the right. Both parties are on-board. When, not if, the next disaster occurs, who's left to pick up the pieces?

Since it appears we are going to try the insane approach, perhaps we should let the insane get the blame for it ... just this once.

David:

I want to stop the insanity in its tracks. We don't have any more time to play the blame game. The GOP is in full-blown crazy (Ryan, Walker, Priebus --- meh on Xer Republicans from Southeastern Wisconsin and I apologize to the country for them ) and anyone with half a brain can take them down. NOW.