Canis lupus hominis

Posted in Hitler Finds out, Politics | 6 Comments

6 Responses

1. on November 3, 2010 at 10:54 pm Christopher@BorderWars

   No one voted in Obama to pass health care. That’s the whole story right there. The wet dream of authoritarian libtards in government ruined it with their desire to be Sweden.

   And it was the Tea Party. This was a fiscal backlash and you saw what the Republicans did at the end of their House+Senate+Prez ownership.

   Unlike the branding of the Tea Party by both the media and the national Republicans and Dems… it’s not a social movement. It’s a fiscal movement.

   No one really gives a crap about prayer in schools, the pledge, abortion, or even gay marriage. None of those issues have a new swell of support. But the uncontrolled growth of government, spending and debt. That is the new issue. That is what has changed.

   Unlike the idiot Olbermanns…. it didn’t take America 2 years to come to the harsh realization that the President was Black and demand he be run out of town. Sorry, even race has nothing to do with this movement.

   
   
   • on November 3, 2010 at 11:03 pm retrieverman

     The tea party isn’t big enough to make that kind of sweep. The fact that it is fiscal movement tells you an inherent weakness it has. People do not understand fiscal issues.

     It’s the independent voters who threw the Dems out.

     If the Dem leadership had been effective there would have been no tea party or any alienation of independent voters.

     Dems did not do jobs. Jobs were the issue. Not health care. But the health care stuff is the holy grail for the party, so they had to do while they had the change.

     To be honest with you I think Obama kind of wanted this.

     This way he can track more to the center and actually have a real excuse for trying bipartisanship.

     Why do bipartisanship if you have 60 votes in the Senate?

     I guarantee you that Bush wouldn’t do that.

     
     
     • on November 4, 2010 at 12:51 am Christopher@BorderWars

       There’s a difference between the Tea Party _issues_ and the political machine of a “party.”

       Of course the Tea Party as a political operation doesn’t have the experience, size, money, infrastructure, bodies, property, ground game, etc. to push an election.

       Rather, the biggest reason the Tea Party is popular (no, not secret evil rich brothers) is the same reason the Republicans swept.

       And it’s hard to say “fiscal republicans” because the last session was anything but fiscally responsible. Republicans ruined their brand.

       People understand more fiscal issues than you’d guess. They understand taxes, but the truth is, MOST of the democratic base doesn’t even pay tax.

       Everyone understands two things (1) Healthcare is prohibitively expensive to buy on your own and (2) Obama wants mandatory purchasing of health care.

       People suddenly become very smart about their money when they have to pay. See the two recent articles about Lefties (college professor, etc) making $250k bemoaning Obama calling them rich.

       No one wanted Obama’s agenda. The left wanted stupid, symbolic things like closing Guantanamo and ballsy things like ending Don’t Ask, etc. No one wanted health care and the signs were everywhere that it was a poison pill. The “deem it passed” was the last straw. Democrats lost it that day. No doubt in my mind.

       Had they shrugged and compromised and ended up with some insurance company bitch slapping (and no, not pre-existing conditions, that’s fair) like deny-first, make them sue you to get their benefits while they are dying game… the rage would be limited to spending. And that’d probably be little enough rage to prevent the lowest number of Democrats in the house since your parents were born.

       The wishful thinking on Slate and other libtard rags that this is a “set back” not a repudiation of progressivism is hilarious to me. How much worse could it have been? Seriously, any more senate wins by Rs would have put the ball in the Republican court… now, it’s still in Obama’s hands and the Republicans can still be the party of No.

       That’s about as bad as it gets.

       
       
   • on November 3, 2010 at 11:05 pm retrieverman

     The Democratic leadership may blame the tea party for this.

     They need to realize that in a crisis like this, you take care of the crisis.

     But yeah, health care issues are part of the long term economic issues.

     But the vast majority of people don’t vote on that at all.

     
     
     • on November 4, 2010 at 1:02 am Christopher@BorderWars

       But the bill didn’t take care of the ballooning cost problems. It made them worse. Neither party has the balls to fix Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.

       And yes, fix means turning people away and reneging on promises.

       And extending benefits is idiotic. They should instead cut benefits, just like in those wacky socialist lite countries in Europe… when they cut benefits from 5 years (amazing! I’d take that option) to 3 years, the mean time to find work shifted from 5 years 1 month to 3 years 1 month! Amazing how that works.

       How many kids did you know in college who were essentially extorting welfare from their parents with their degree/post grad, etc? I know plenty. Incentivizing sloth works at all socio-economic levels.

       
       
2. on November 4, 2010 at 10:45 am Peggy Richter

   I can’t answer for anyone else but I sure voted based on budget and health care. I paid my mortgage dutifully for 29 years — didn’t get a “bail out” becasue I bought what I could afford and paid on time. I kinda resent folk who default getting that bailout. I’ve no problem with those who were defrauded getting help, but if you bought on spec, then if the market goes down, it goes down. Ditto on health care. I paid for insurance. I don’t care for subsidizing those who didn’t and now want help on their issues now they are sick. same on the rebates (gee, would have liked help buying a good car, appliance, etc). And in the west a LOT of folk are pretty fed up with the pandering by both sides for illegal aliens. In CA the republicans lost because they didn’t provide a decent candidate (gee, Governor moonbeam who at least is honest about what he intends or “I change my tune every other moment Whitman). The state senate race with Boxer was a lot closer than Boxer has ever had despite abysmal campaigning by her opponent. Mostly the props that passed show the rather fiscally conservative and “hang the legislature” mood in CA.
   People like “bread and circuses” — until they are asked to actually PAY for them. I expect that in 2012 even CA will be more “conservative” still if a decent candidate can be found.
   No, I’m not a “tea party” member — But I sure accept some of their concepts about the economic issues.
   Peggy Richter

   
   

Comments are closed.