A recoil against liberalism

[Little-Acorn]

One of Will's best columns. The Nov. 2010 election was a rebellion by the American people against the overarching big government the Democrats have tried to impose.

And the best news? Democrats don't believe it. And so they will keep trying to impose more and more Big Government... paving the way for an equally disasterous (for Democrats, but good for America) electoral crushing in 2012.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will110410.php3

A recoil against liberalism

By George Will
Nov. 4, 2010

Unwilling to delay until tomorrow mistakes that could be made immediately, Democrats used 2010 to begin losing 2012. Trying to preemptively drain the election of its dangerous (to Democrats) meaning, all autumn Democrats described the electorate as suffering a brain cramp, an apoplexy of fear, rage, paranoia, cupidity - something. Any explanation would suffice as long as it cast what voters were about to say as perhaps contemptible and certainly too trivial to be taken seriously by the serious.

It is amazing the ingenuity Democrats invest in concocting explanations of voter behavior that erase what voters always care about, and this year more than ever - ideas. This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama's idea of unlimited government.

The more he denounced Republicans as the party of "no," the better Republicans did. His denunciations enabled people to support Republicans without embracing them as anything other than impediments to him.

He had defined himself as a world-class whiner even before Rahm Emanuel, a world-class flatterer, declared that Obama had dealt masterfully with "the toughest times any president has ever faced" - quite a claim, considering that before the first president from Illinois was even inaugurated, seven of the then-34 states had seceded. Today's president from Illinois, a chronic campaigner and incontinent complainer who is uninhibited by considerations of presidential dignity, has blamed his difficulties on:

George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Supreme Court, a Cincinnati congressman (John Boehner), Karl Rove, Americans for Prosperity and other "groups with harmless-sounding names" (Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" redux), "shadowy third-party groups" (they are as shadowy as steam calliopes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, finally, the American people. They have deeply disappointed him by being impervious to "facts and science and argument."

Actually, as the distilled essence of progressivism, he should feel ratified by Tuesday's repudiation. The point of progressivism is that the people must progress up from their backwardness. They cannot do so unless they are pulled toward the light by a government composed of the enlightened - experts coolly devoted to facts and science.

The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers.

Of course the masses do not understand that the only flaw of the stimulus was its frugality, and that Obamacare's myriad coercions are akin to benevolent parental discipline. If the masses understood what progressives understand, would progressives represent a real vanguard of progress?

Of course the progressive agenda must make infinitely elastic the restraints imposed by the Founders' Constitution and its principles of limited government. Moving up from them - from the Founders and their anachronistic principles - is the definition of progress.

Recently, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decided, as the president has decided, that what liberals need is not better ideas but better marketing of the ones they have: "It's a sign of how poorly liberals market themselves and their ideas that the word 'liberal' is still in disrepute despite the election of the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow."

"Despite"? In 2008, Democrats ran as Not George Bush. In 2010, they ran as Democrats. Hence, inescapably, as liberals, or at least as obedient to liberal leaders. Hence Democrats' difficulties.

Responding to Alter, George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux agreed that interest-group liberalism has indeed been leavened by idea-driven liberalism. Which is the problem.

"These ideas," Boudreaux says, "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else's contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments." Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."

This was the serious concern that percolated beneath the normal froth and nonsense of the elections: Is political power - are government commands and controls - superseding and suffocating the creativity of a market society's spontaneous order? On Tuesday, a rational and alarmed American majority said "yes."

[Palin Rider]

Either Mr. Will is overthinking the issue, as he's often done, or he's just trying to fill up his column space.

The vast majority of the American electorate truly does not give a "hoot" about conservatism or liberalism, and I suspect Will knows it. Last Tuesday, they did what they have ALWAYS done: when things are going badly for them, they retaliate against whichever party is in power. Ideology is of no consequence to them in these situations. I hate to be so cynical, but the voting trends are just too overwhelming to deny it.

[fj1200]

No, he pretty much hit it right here:


In 2008, Democrats ran as Not George Bush. In 2010, they ran as Democrats. Hence, inescapably, as liberals, or at least as obedient to liberal leaders. Hence Democrats' difficulties.

[Palin Rider]

No, he pretty much hit it right here:

None of which has anything to do with the electorate. Right or wrong, that statement is something that only wonks and political junkies like us would care about.

[fj1200]

None of which has anything to do with the electorate. Right or wrong, that statement is something that only wonks and political junkies like us would care about.

I disagree, your position does not explain the tea party and its revolt. Nor does it explain the '94 election when times were good (better than '92 at least) and voters revolted against HC reform.

[Palin Rider]

I disagree, your position does not explain the tea party and its revolt. Nor does it explain the '94 election when times were good (better than '92 at least) and voters revolted against HC reform.

Of course it does: both the tea party and the HC reform arose during very difficult economic times.

[fj1200]

Of course it does: both the tea party and the HC reform arose during very difficult economic times.

No, then they would have simply ran to the arms of the Republican party, but instead the Tea Party came around and even challenged incumbents in their own party, not just the party in power.

And '94 was not "very difficult economic times."

[Palin Rider]

No, then they would have simply ran to the arms of the Republican party, but instead the Tea Party came around and even challenged incumbents in their own party, not just the party in power.
Doesn't appear that the tea party did so wonderfully on Tuesday, given the dismal showing for Angle and O'Donnell.


And '94 was not "very difficult economic times."Lots of jobs were lost in the '91 downturn, and their recovery wasn't complete by '94.

[fj1200]

Doesn't appear that the tea party did so wonderfully on Tuesday, given the dismal showing for Angle and O'Donnell.

You are in serious denial. Paul, Rubio, Lee, Toomey... and those are just the Senate. :laugh:


Lots of jobs were lost in the '91 downturn, and their recovery wasn't complete by '94.

:laugh: People weren't upset at the economy back then. I thought you were old enough to know better.

[Palin Rider]

You are in serious denial. Paul, Rubio, Lee, Toomey... and those are just the Senate. :laugh:No denial; I'm just a realist.



:laugh: People weren't upset at the economy back then. I thought you were old enough to know better.

Oh no? Clinton got elected because of the economy (remember Carville's "stupid" quote?) and by '94 he still hadn't done that much to stimulate job creation.

[red states rule]

Doesn't appear that the tea party did so wonderfully on Tuesday, given the dismal showing for Angle and O'Donnell.

Lots of jobs were lost in the '91 downturn, and their recovery wasn't complete by '94.

I see your time off did not improve your debate and fact check skills. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party did very well

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSU8z2G6U" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSU8z2G6U" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[fj1200]

No denial; I'm just a realist.

You have been watching the news haven't you? Because you should check the election returns. :rolleyes:


Oh no? Clinton got elected because of the economy (remember Carville's "stupid" quote?) and by '94 he still hadn't done that much to stimulate job creation.

"Stupid" quote? Yeah, that was in '92. Voters don't throw out the Dems just over a growing economy. You do remember them losing the House after 44 years right? 54 seats iirc.

[fj1200]

I see your time off did not improve your debate and fact check skills. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party did very well

But in Magic Liberal World actual results don't count. :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

I see your time off did not improve your debate and fact check skills.

You critiquing me on debating and fact checking is like Carrot Top critiquing Sir Laurence Olivier on acting. :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

Voters don't throw out the Dems just over a growing economy. You do remember them losing the House after 44 years right?

No, they throw out the Dems (and the pubs) when they don't have jobs. They don't care whether the economy is technically growing or not. The Dem margin in the House was thin since the 80s, anyway; it was only a matter of time before the balance started flipping back and forth.

[SpidermanTUba]

There's no real "recoil against liberalism" if by "liberalism" you mean as defined by the teabagger right.

68% of Americans polled do not want major cuts to the two largest entitlement programs we have - Medicare and Social Security.

http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2010083211/deficits-and-economic-recovery

There are also a sizable number of Americans also think that the healthcare bill didn't go far enough:


A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/27/poll-40-believe-health-care-law-didnt-go-far-enough/

Only 1/3 of America bothered to vote this past election. The Republican victory is only representative of how the extreme elements feel right now - after 2 years of doing nothing Americans will demand more and the folks who voted for Obama in 2008 but stayed home in 2010 will show up at the polls.


Just like the "Reform Party" of Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, the Teabagger party is only a fad.

[fj1200]

No, they throw out the Dems (and the pubs) when they don't have jobs. They don't care whether the economy is technically growing or not. The Dem margin in the House was thin since the 80s, anyway; it was only a matter of time before the balance started flipping back and forth.

Spin it out how it makes you feel better. Voters didn't like them libs.

[Palin Rider]

Spin it out how it makes you feel better. Voters didn't like them libs.

Thanks for admitting that you've got nothing to address the argument with.

[fj1200]

Thanks for admitting that you've got nothing to address the argument with.

I've already destroyed your argument, I'm just chuckling at your refusal to admit it.

[Palin Rider]

I've already destroyed your argument, I'm just chuckling at your refusal to admit it.

You "destwoyed" it, but you won't explain how. Yeah, sure.

[fj1200]

You "destwoyed" it, but you won't explain how. Yeah, sure.

Step 1: PR rereads thread.
Step 2: Repeat as necessary.

[Palin Rider]

Step 1: PR rereads thread.
Step 2: Repeat as necessary.

Fact 1: You've got nothing.
Fact 2: You had nothing at the start of this thread.
Conclusion: By the looks of things, you'll always have nothing.

We'll talk again if by some miracle you ever get something... :talk2hand:

[red states rule]

You critiquing me on debating and fact checking is like Carrot Top critiquing Sir Laurence Olivier on acting. :laugh:

As usual hot shot you ignore how well Ms Palin and the Tea Party did in the election

That is about all you can do since you cannot refute the facts

[red states rule]

There's no real "recoil against liberalism" if by "liberalism" you mean as defined by the teabagger right.

68% of Americans polled do not want major cuts to the two largest entitlement programs we have - Medicare and Social Security.

http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2010083211/deficits-and-economic-recovery

There are also a sizable number of Americans also think that the healthcare bill didn't go far enough:


http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/27/poll-40-believe-health-care-law-didnt-go-far-enough/

Only 1/3 of America bothered to vote this past election. The Republican victory is only representative of how the extreme elements feel right now - after 2 years of doing nothing Americans will demand more and the folks who voted for Obama in 2008 but stayed home in 2010 will show up at the polls.


Just like the "Reform Party" of Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, the Teabagger party is only a fad.

Libs were hoping the Tea Party would go away but they are only getting warmed up

People just "love" liberalism and the Obama agenda

•58% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law

•31% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

•Voters Give This Congress Failing Grades

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

[Palin Rider]

As usual hot shot you ignore how well Ms Palin and the Tea Party did in the election

That is about all you can do since you cannot refute the facts

How could Palin have "done well" when she wasn't running for office?!

You're being even sillier than usual.

[red states rule]

How could Palin have "done well" when she wasn't running for office?!

You're being even sillier than usual.

She did very well with the candidates she endorsed hot shot

[Palin Rider]

She did very well with the candidates she endorsed hot shot

Anyone can endorse candidates with strong leads in the polls and "do well." Think about it.

[red states rule]

Anyone can endorse candidates with strong leads in the polls and "do well." Think about it.

She was backing them before any polls were taken. After she did, the libs sneered and said what a waste those candidates were

The liberal media did their best to smear the TEa Party but they did very well on Tuesday and the libs are depressed, fustrated, and lashing out at the voters

[Palin Rider]

She was backing them before any polls were taken.How do you know?


After she did, the libs sneered and said what a waste those candidates wereYou mean candidates got attacked during an election? What a shocker!


The liberal media did their best to smear the TEa Party...The tea partiers did a great job smearing themselves, actually.


...but they did very well on Tuesday and the libs are depressed, fustrated, and lashing out at the voters
How would you even know? You obviously try to isolate yourself from "liberals" completely.

[fj1200]

Fact 1: You've got nothing.
Fact 2: You had nothing at the start of this thread.
Conclusion: By the looks of things, you'll always have nothing.

We'll talk again if by some miracle you ever get something... :talk2hand:

Fact 1: You impersonated Elmer Fudd
Fact 2: I win

You also seem to think that voters change their minds about Congressional control every time there's a recession, yet the Dems controlled Congress for 44ish years through umpteen recessions without changing Congressional control.

Fact 3: See Fact 2

[LuvRPgrl]

There's no real "recoil against liberalism" if by "liberalism" you mean as defined by the teabagger right..

Define "real"


68% of Americans polled do not want major cuts to the two largest entitlement programs we have - Medicare and Social Security..

Define "major"


http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2010083211/deficits-and-economic-recovery.

DEFINE totally and completely biased towards liberalism


There are also a sizable number of Americans also think that the healthcare bill didn't go far enough:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/09/27/poll-40-believe-health-care-law-didnt-go-far-enough/.

Define "sizable"


Only 1/3 of America bothered to vote this past election. The Republican victory is only representative of how the extreme elements feel right now - after 2 years of doing nothing Americans will demand more and the folks who voted for Obama in 2008 but stayed home in 2010 will show up at the polls..

Define "1/3 of America,,,"

Is that "American voters", or "American Adults", or "Americans, all"





Just like the "Reform Party" of Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, the Teabagger party is only a fad.

Define "fad"

Considering the vagueness of your statements, your post is pretty much meaningless.

[red states rule]

It is refreshing to see liberals say what is reply on their minds. Here we have a lib saying we need a terrorist attack and people dead for Obama to "connect" with the people

Of course the other libs present say nothing about the comment - in fact they appear to agree

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUkUkUpr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUkUkUpr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[Palin Rider]

Fact 1: You impersonated Elmer Fudd
Fact 2: I win

You also seem to think that voters change their minds about Congressional control every time there's a recession, yet the Dems controlled Congress for 44ish years through umpteen recessions without changing Congressional control.

Fact 3: See Fact 2
Re-read post #2, Elmer. Not one word about Congress in it.

You still got nothing.

[red states rule]

Obamanomics 101

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/main_375/cartoons/asay_20101105.jpg

[fj1200]

Re-read post #2, Elmer. Not one word about Congress in it.

You still got nothing.

You do realize that every House seat was up for election and 1/3 (plus some) of the Senate LAST TUESDAY and then you spent multiple posts discussing Congress... All that means you were discussing Congress.

It's sad really.

[Palin Rider]

You do realize that every House seat was up for election and 1/3 (plus some) of the Senate LAST TUESDAY and then you spent multiple posts discussing Congress... All that means you were discussing Congress.

It's sad really.

What's sad is that you're still trying to come up with an argument after you declared victory. You don't believe your own propaganda. :laugh:

[fj1200]

What's sad is that you're still trying to come up with an argument after you declared victory. You don't believe your own propaganda. :laugh:

:facepalm:

[LuvRPgrl]

Of course it does: both the tea party and the HC reform arose during very difficult economic times.

According to that logic, then anything that occurs during difficult times can be blamed on the economy.

[Kathianne]

Either Mr. Will is overthinking the issue, as he's often done, or he's just trying to fill up his column space.

The vast majority of the American electorate truly does not give a "hoot" about conservatism or liberalism, and I suspect Will knows it. Last Tuesday, they did what they have ALWAYS done: when things are going badly for them, they retaliate against whichever party is in power. Ideology is of no consequence to them in these situations. I hate to be so cynical, but the voting trends are just too overwhelming to deny it.

In general I think your first sentence is correct, most people don't like labeling themselves. On the other hand, there was more than 'revenge' to last Tuesday's results.

It wasn't just the economy or health care that resulted in tea parties, though they were the focal point of change. No, it started when the economy was much better and Bush was in office. The stirrings began with his administration and the legislature's attempt to force through 'immigration reform.' If they had persisted in pushing it through, same results would have occurred. Like the British long ago with the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, they backed off. Obama? Nope, total Tea Act, though intrinsically a much more deleterious act.

It's only a beginning. The districts are going to be redrawn and 2012 is going to be even more historic in real change.

I don't think 'conservative' is necessarily the right adjective for the American people, but a nation of individuals comes pretty close. While there is a left core that thinks government is the solution, the country in the main disagrees.

[LuvRPgrl]

. Ideology is of no consequence to them in these situations. I hate to be so cynical, but the voting trends are just too overwhelming to deny it.

You admit to being cynical about it, is akin to admitting you are wrong.

Definition of cynical:
like or characteristic of a cynic; distrusting or disparaging the motives of others.
2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, esp. by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

[LuvRPgrl]

No denial; I'm just a realist.




Oh no? Clinton got elected because of the economy (remember Carville's "stupid" quote?) and by '94 he still hadn't done that much to stimulate job creation.

Wow, in just a few posts you go from being a cynic, to a realist. So which is it mr chameleon?

You mentioned JOBS. OK, unemployment means no job.
THe unemployment rate had peaked in june 1992 at 7.8%. PEAKED,

By 1994, it had steadily been declining until it was below, not 7%, but below 6%, and in nov. 92, it went down to 5.8% which was only .4 percentage points off the lowest rate the economy would see for about 2 more years.

[LuvRPgrl]

What's sad is that you're still trying to come up with an argument after you declared victory. You don't believe your own propaganda. :laugh:

After all the "chest beating", I see four points that can be looked at and proven as factual or false.

Tea Party, you claimed they didnt do well, yet you were shown that actually they did very well.

Palin, you claimed since she wasnt running, she couldnt win, yet RSR showed you how she could win, and did, by backing certain candidates.

Palin, then you claimed Palin basically supported the winners by not choosing to support them until the polls showed they were most likely to win, but RSR pointed out she supported them BEFORE those polls

Jobs in 94, you claimed JOB creation wasnt all that great from 92-94, yet Job creation in Clintons first two years was extremely successful,
check the figures
. http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1988-11&EndYear=2010-09&submit1=Create+Report

Post #2, you claimed you made no reference to congress in that post. But the post did refer to an election, specifically in our last one.
IT also didnt mention the Presidents office either, so if not mentioning it means it wasnt about that sector of govt. then what elections would apply?
Plus you did specifically refer to an election in which CONGRESS was the main topic, and not one election referring to a Presidential race cycle.

Sounds to me like FJ and RSR have you and tubby down 5 to nothing.

[red states rule]

After all the "chest beating", I see four points that can be looked at and proven as factual or false.

Tea Party, you claimed they didnt do well, yet you were shown that actually they did very well.

Palin, you claimed since she wasnt running, she couldnt win, yet RSR showed you how she could win, and did, by backing certain candidates.

Palin, then you claimed Palin basically supported the winners by not choosing to support them until the polls showed they were most likely to win, but RSR pointed out she supported them BEFORE those polls

Jobs in 94, you claimed JOB creation wasnt all that great from 92-94, yet Job creation in Clintons first two years was extremely successful,
check the figures
. http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1988-11&EndYear=2010-09&submit1=Create+Report

Post #2, you claimed you made no reference to congress in that post. But the post did refer to an election, specifically in our last one.
IT also didnt mention the Presidents office either, so if not mentioning it means it wasnt about that sector of govt. then what elections would apply?
Plus you did specifically refer to an election in which CONGRESS was the main topic, and not one election referring to a Presidential race cycle.

Sounds to me like FJ and RSR have you and tubby down 5 to nothing.

Bottom line is, liberals seldom admit when they lose elections. After Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984 the next day libs said the voters did not reject their polices

No, the voters were bought by slick slick marketing and packaging

Now they are spinning how Obama and the Dems had a messaging problem. IOW the voters were to damn stupid to understand their economic genius

Well, we did get the message. Yes Ms Pelosi you passed Obamacare so we could find out what was in it and we still hated it. You added trillions to the debt and we hated it. You grew government and we hated it. You want to raise our taxes and we hated it,

We got your message lound and clear. Now if only you would be adult enough to get the message we sent you on November 2

[Palin Rider]

After all the "chest beating", I see four points that can be looked at and proven as factual or false.

Tea Party, you claimed they didnt do well, yet you were shown that actually they did very well.

Palin, you claimed since she wasnt running, she couldnt win, yet RSR showed you how she could win, and did, by backing certain candidates.

Palin, then you claimed Palin basically supported the winners by not choosing to support them until the polls showed they were most likely to win, but RSR pointed out she supported them BEFORE those polls

Jobs in 94, you claimed JOB creation wasnt all that great from 92-94, yet Job creation in Clintons first two years was extremely successful,
check the figures
. http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=1988-11&EndYear=2010-09&submit1=Create+Report

Post #2, you claimed you made no reference to congress in that post. But the post did refer to an election, specifically in our last one.
IT also didnt mention the Presidents office either, so if not mentioning it means it wasnt about that sector of govt. then what elections would apply?
Plus you did specifically refer to an election in which CONGRESS was the main topic, and not one election referring to a Presidential race cycle.

Sounds to me like FJ and RSR have you and tubby down 5 to nothing.

:lol:
Considering that you first equate cynicism with being incorrect, and then you say that cynicism and realism are mutually exclusive, it's obvious that your consciousness is on some other planet. (That and I still have no idea who 'tubby' is.)

[NightTrain]

:lol:
Considering that you first equate cynicism with being incorrect, and then you say that cynicism and realism are mutually exclusive, it's obvious that your consciousness is on some other planet. (That and I still have no idea who 'tubby' is.)

LuvRPgrl is correct: they whipped your ass soundly. 'Tubby' would be Spidey-Lad, not too terribly difficult to figure out.

Own it like a man and move along.

[red states rule]

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/main_375/cartoons/gv110710dAPR.jpg

[Palin Rider]

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/main_375/cartoons/gv110710dAPR.jpg

Well, you're easily amused; at least you've got that going for you.

[red states rule]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/RogerR/2010/RogerR20101109_low.jpg

[fj1200]

Own it like a man and move along.

He's owning it like BO, accepting full responsibility and declaring that he will work with... never mind, he's just not "communicating" effectively.

[Little-Acorn]

Last Tuesday, they did what they have ALWAYS done: when things are going badly for them, they retaliate against whichever party is in power. Ideology is of no consequence to them in these situations.

These are the standard liberal talking points that they trot ouor whenever they suffer massive defeats at the hands of voters: They simply accuse those voters of vengefulness, blindness, and generally being too dumb to realize how good the extreme-left liberal programs will be for them.

Contrast this with Republican reactions to being tossed out of majorities in 2006: The Republicans responded that they had strayed off their normal path of fiscal conservatism, and needed to change their own ways - a theme we are hearing echoed more and more, four years later. (Whether Republicans' actions will match their words now that they are back in a majority, we have yet to see.)

When Ronald Reagan faced his first midterm election in 1982, the economy was as bad as it is today, and worse in some ways. But Republicans only lost 26 seats in the House, unlike today's Democrats who have lost 60-plus (and still counting).

The people do pay attention to ideology. And they don't just vote blindly against the party in power when they are hurting. The compare the programs of each party, and make reasoned judgements about which will help them (and the country) more... and vote accordingly.

And the result is what we have seen: A HUGE rejection of Democrats and their extreme-left programs.

Democrats, of course, are in total denial. Nancy Pelosi will run for the Dem leadership post in the next Congress, and has vowed to carry on the fight for her extreme-left Big-govt programs.

I hope she succeeds. For two reasons:

1.) She will no longer be in a position to ram her plans down people's throats as she did for the last two years, thanks to the wisdom of the voters.

2.) As voters rejected her destructive ideas in Nov. 2010, if she keeps pushing the same thing, they will reject them again in 2012. Democrats will suffer further defeats, and will have much more difficulty implementing their socialistic programs. And that will be VERY beneficial to the country, and the American people.

So, go Nancy go! Grab that Minority Leader position, and push for your fanatic-left programs as much as you can! You will help America tremendously by doing so. Consider it your DUTY! :salute:

[Little-Acorn]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk111010dAPR20101109084540.jpg

[Palin Rider]

These are the standard liberal talking points that they trot ouor whenever they suffer massive defeats at the hands of voters: They simply accuse those voters of vengefulness, blindness, and generally being too dumb to realize how good the extreme-left liberal programs will be for them.
The above aren't my talking points (as a re-read will show you).

My argument was only that the voters this time around cared for nothing beyond throwing out the bums - as they often have before. What kind of bums they picked to replace them was not a question that most of them thought about.


The people do pay attention to ideology.And your objective evidence to support this is what, exactly? Remember that unless you can show that a majority of voters care about ideology, your statement is empty.

[Kathianne]

The above aren't my talking points (as a re-read will show you).

My argument was only that the voters this time around cared for nothing beyond throwing out the bums - as they often have before. What kind of bums they picked to replace them was not a question that most of them thought about.

And your objective evidence to support this is what, exactly? Remember that unless you can show that a majority of voters care about ideology, your statement is empty.

You need to recall the primaries, where many Republicans lost their reelection bids, then the person replacing them won the general election. O'Donnell was one that failed in the final, you know they one they are hooting about. 1 out of how many total at local, state and federal levels?

[red states rule]

The above aren't my talking points (as a re-read will show you).

My argument was only that the voters this time around cared for nothing beyond throwing out the bums - as they often have before. What kind of bums they picked to replace them was not a question that most of them thought about.

And your objective evidence to support this is what, exactly? Remember that unless you can show that a majority of voters care about ideology, your statement is empty.

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BrancJ/2010/BrancJ20101104_low.jpg

[Palin Rider]

You need to recall the primaries, where many Republicans lost their reelection bids, then the person replacing them won the general election. O'Donnell was one that failed in the final, you know they one they are hooting about. 1 out of how many total at local, state and federal levels?

All that tells me (unless I'm missing something, in which case do fill me in) is that Republicans were mad enough to throw out even their own "bums" this time around. It doesn't say anything about the swing voters, at least not directly.

[red states rule]

The above aren't my talking points (as a re-read will show you).

My argument was only that the voters this time around cared for nothing beyond throwing out the bums - as they often have before. What kind of bums they picked to replace them was not a question that most of them thought about.

And your objective evidence to support this is what, exactly? Remember that unless you can show that a majority of voters care about ideology, your statement is empty.

Here are the numbers from the 2010 election




» Independents comprised 28 percent of the electorate and supported Republican congressional candidates by a margin of 56 to 38 percent. That represents a 36-point turnaround from the last midterm election, in 2006, when independents supported Democratic congressional candidates by 57 to 39 percent. In addition, independents trust Republicans to do a better job than Democrats by a margin of 23 points on jobs and employment, 23 points on the economy, 27 points on government spending, and 31 points on taxes.

» Voters support repealing/replacing ObamaCare by 51 to 42 percent. Democrats oppose repeal by 80 to 16 percent — but both independents (by 57 to 31 percent) and Republicans (by 87 to 7 percent) want to repeal and replace it.

» Sixty-five percent of voters said that the stimulus bill either hurt the economy or did no good — and those voters overwhelmingly favored the GOP.\

» Fifty-four percent of those voting said they were dissatisfied with the performance of Barack Obama — and they broke 85-11 for the Republicans.

» Republicans have captured the seats in at least 57 of the 83 Democratic-held districts in which Obama won less than 55 percent of the vote.

» Democrats hold a majority of the congressional delegation in only three states — Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont — that don’t directly touch an ocean. Republicans similarly routed Democrats in gubernatorial races across the Midwest and the border states, from Ohio and Tennessee to
Wisconsin and Iowa.

» Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, the most in the modern era. In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats. The GOP gained majorities in at least 19 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures. And across the country, Republicans now control 55 chambers, Democrats have 38, and two are tied. (The Nebraska legislature is unicameral.)

» Republicans have not enjoyed this much power in state capitals since the 1920s.

» Voters who identified as ideologically conservative accounted for 41 percent of the turnout, an increase from the 34 percent figure in 2008 and the highest level recorded for any election since 1976.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/380851

[DragonStryk72]

How could Palin have "done well" when she wasn't running for office?!

You're being even sillier than usual.

Ah, so you're saying she didn't help get at least 30 of the 43 candidates she back elected? I'd say that doing petty good, especially since 9 more of those races are still being decided right now. I'd say that's doing pretty good.

Oh hey, how many of the people Obama backed got elected?

[Little-Acorn]

How could Palin have "done well" when she wasn't running for office?!

You're being even sillier than usual.

Was he silly enough to name himself after a candidate who "wasn't running for office"?

:slap:

[red states rule]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BrancJ/2010/BrancJ20101015_low.jpg

[Palin Rider]

Was he silly enough to name himself after a candidate who "wasn't running for office"?

:slap:

I was trying to make a joke. He just IS a joke.

[namvet]

I was trying to make a joke. He just IS a joke.


Howdy everyone,
I like both liberals and conservatives, as long as they have ideas about how the government can proactively improve our country and states. The only people I don't like are those who care only about their party winning elections, and/or about power with no real interest in governing. And yes, I think Sarah Palin is one of those. If you want to hate me for THAT, go right ahead. If you want to make me happy, talk about issues with substance and logical arguments. Or just buy me a tasty alcoholic beverage: most any will do.

Peace,
PR



http://pledgeamerica.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/oands.jpg

[LuvRPgrl]

:lol:
Considering that you first equate cynicism with being incorrect, and then you say that cynicism and realism are mutually exclusive, it's obvious that your consciousness is on some other planet. (That and I still have no idea who 'tubby' is.)

Those are dictionary definitions, not mine.

Tubby? From another planet

[LuvRPgrl]

LuvRPgrl is correct: they whipped your ass soundly. 'Tubby' would be Spidey-Lad, not too terribly difficult to figure out.

Own it like a man and move along.

Obviously you were able to figure out who Tubby is, and his lack of ability to do so tells volumes about why he has his political and social beliefs.

[Palin Rider]

LuvRPgrl is correct: they whipped your ass soundly. 'Tubby' would be Spidey-Lad, not too terribly difficult to figure out.

Own it like a man and move along.

You must have an ego bigger than Obama's if you think I give even a microshit about what you say. So far, you demonstrated no special knowledge of anything, and have added zero value to all the threads I've seen you in.

"Dickweed."

[NightTrain]

You must have an ego bigger than Obama's if you think I give even a microshit about what you say. So far, you demonstrated no special knowledge of anything, and have added zero value to all the threads I've seen you in.

"Dickweed."


Let's not get testy.

Own your thrashing, congratulate RSR and FJ and the others, and move along like a man.

Acting like a petulant punk about it is amusing, and quite typical of liberals of your caliber.

[Palin Rider]

Let's not get testy.

Own your thrashing, congratulate RSR and FJ and the others, and move along like a man.

Acting like a petulant punk about it is amusing, and quite typical of liberals of your caliber.

Not being testy; just advising you not to waste any more of your worthless life on pathetic attempts to out-alpha me.

Get back to me when you grow up.

[SassyLady]

Well....let's see ....who can out-alpha the other .... which one would attract the females ... which is the point, isn't it....the whole alpha thing ... so from a female's persepective ... hmmmmm

a guy who rides on the back of a woman and looks like a nerd;
http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=1972&dateline=1283306646&type=profile


or a guy who is perfectly comfortable with tackling the Alaskan wilderness....

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/NightTrain70/2010/P7010211.jpg (http://s585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/NightTrain70/2010/?action=view&current=P7010211.jpg)

and the winner is.....


NIGHTTRAIN

[NightTrain]

LOL, thank you, MKP :beer:

[Palin Rider]

Well....let's see ....who can out-alpha the other .... which one would attract the females ... which is the point, isn't it....the whole alpha thing ... so from a female's persepective ... hmmmmm

a guy who rides on the back of a woman and looks like a nerd;
http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=1972&dateline=1283306646&type=profile


or a guy who is perfectly comfortable with tackling the Alaskan wilderness....

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/NightTrain70/2010/P7010211.jpg (http://s585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/NightTrain70/2010/?action=view&current=P7010211.jpg)

and the winner is.....


NIGHTTRAIN

Ah, but nerds make more money than sourdoughs, so I win. :laugh:

[SassyLady]

Ah, but nerds make more money than sourdoughs, so I win. :laugh:

So, all you are after is a woman who wants your money? Figures.

Personally, I'm not attracted to money ... I'm attracted to a man who can take care of me without using money...guess that's why I like the strong, military type of guy....I don't like babysitting nerds.

[SassyLady]

LOL, thank you, MKP :beer:
Anytime. ;)

[Palin Rider]

So, all you are after is a woman who wants your money? Figures.I'd prefer she not want too much of my money, but the main thing is that she has to have a good set of these: :boobies:
:laugh:


Personally, I'm not attracted to money ... I'm attracted to a man who can take care of me without using money...And not live with you in the backwoods and kill all your own food? Most people don't enjoy that kind of lifestyle for long...

[NightTrain]

Looks like my response to this was eaten in the server glitch.


Ah, but nerds make more money than sourdoughs, so I win. :laugh:

I'll not get drawn into a juvenile paycheck comparison contest, but I make a comfortable living as a Book 1 telecommunications journeyman in Alaska which is the highest scale in the country. It took me 5 years of OJT and classroom instruction to reach Journeyman. My kids have everything they need and most of what they want, with unreal benefits.

I'm quite sure, based on your naive political and social views, that you're roughly 19 years old and still living in your mother's basement. You probably work at Subway part time and smoke dope with the others out back by the dumpster at lunch, fuzzily dreaming up new liberal concepts and railing against the owner.

You'll look back on your current views, someday, and shake your head & chuckle. This should start happening when you're about 30 - 35. At 40, you'll be fucking embarrassed.

[Palin Rider]

Looks like my response to this was eaten in the server glitch.



I'll not get drawn into a juvenile paycheck comparison contest, but I make a comfortable living as a Book 1 telecommunications journeyman in Alaska which is the highest scale in the country. It took me 5 years of OJT and classroom instruction to reach Journeyman. My kids have everything they need and most of what they want, with unreal benefits.

I'm quite sure, based on your naive political and social views, that you're roughly 19 years old and still living in your mother's basement. You probably work at Subway part time and smoke dope with the others out back by the dumpster at lunch, fuzzily dreaming up new liberal concepts and railing against the owner.

You'll look back on your current views, someday, and shake your head & chuckle. This should start happening when you're about 30 - 35. At 40, you'll be fucking embarrassed.

You actually thought this was worth posting again?!? Now THAT is genuinely pathetic.

[Kathianne]

Ah, but nerds make more money than sourdoughs, so I win. :laugh:

I thought 18, now I'm guessing 12 or 13? Are you ever going to come clean? You must realize that the rest of us are over 25?

[LuvRPgrl]

You actually thought this was worth posting again?!? Now THAT is genuinely pathetic.

Me thinks you need to come clean and admit to yourself that if you have one single bone of conservatism in your body, it is your little pinky toe, iff even that.

To have any credibility at all, you should edit your signature

I am curious, what issue do you stand proudly with conservatives on?

[NightTrain]

Me thinks you need to come clean and admit to yourself that if you have one single bone of conservatism in your body, it is your little pinky toe, iff even that.

To have any credibility at all, you should edit your signature

I am curious, what issue do you stand proudly with conservatives on?



.............................................

[NightTrain]

You actually thought this was worth posting again?!? Now THAT is genuinely pathetic.

Yes, you are.


How's my aim?

[red states rule]

You must have an ego bigger than Obama's if you think I give even a microshit about what you say. So far, you demonstrated no special knowledge of anything, and have added zero value to all the threads I've seen you in.

"Dickweed."

Nobody has a bigger ego then Obama. No resume to speak of yet mpeople still think he is going a fine job and the election was not a report card on his "progress"

http://www.funnyobamas.com/pictures/Holiday_Inn117.jpg

[Palin Rider]

.............................................

Keep your panties on. Unlike you, I have a life.

[Palin Rider]

Me thinks you need to come clean and admit to yourself that if you have one single bone of conservatism in your body, it is your little pinky toe, iff even that.

To have any credibility at all, you should edit your signature

I am curious, what issue do you stand proudly with conservatives on?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29027-Stuff-I-agree-with-conservatives-on

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/170202.JPG

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29027-Stuff-I-agree-with-conservatives-on

I hope you have a longer list than that, cuz it basically is only four issues.

the voucher thing, by putting the no religous school restriction on it basically still leaves you on the liberal side of the issue.

I think virtually all conservatives, and all liberals have at least four issues with which they part ways from their fellow libs or conservatives on,
so, unless that list expands quite a bit, you are still far entrenched in the liberal camp.

I am unabashadly conservative, Im liberal in my heart, but conservative in my brain, and ultimately I choose to have my brain dictate my final posistion on issues.

I oppose immigration restriction of any kind.
I support legalizing drugs
I support legalizing prostitution


Yet I would not even remotely consider my self " middle of the road" unless I expanded that list by another 5-10 issues or so.

Its been my experience that ultimately, those who are in the middle, are there only for a short period of time. A persons basic philosophy, over time will always take them basically into one camp or the other.

But many people do like to "think" they are in the middle because that indicates they are "open minded", where as my experience shows that if a person remains in the middle for several decades or more, its not an indication of being "open minded" , but rather an indication of being "spineless"

Dont take that personal, its just my experience, but you so far have shown yourself firmly in the liberal camp, just admit it, there is nothing wrong with it.

[Palin Rider]

I hope you have a longer list than that, cuz it basically is only four issues.

the voucher thing, by putting the no religous school restriction on it basically still leaves you on the liberal side of the issue.

I think virtually all conservatives, and all liberals have at least four issues with which they part ways from their fellow libs or conservatives on,
so, unless that list expands quite a bit, you are still far entrenched in the liberal camp.
That's the difference between you/Gaffer/RSR and me. I don't believe in "camps." Fences (and the flag-wavers on each side) are for people who can't think for themselves.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's the difference between you/Gaffer/RSR and me. I don't believe in "camps." Fences (and the flag-wavers on each side) are for people who can't think for themselves.

We are in the same camp because we have the same beliefs,
we do not have the same beliefs because we are in the same camp

Your problem is you assume the second is true, which it isnt.

[Palin Rider]

We are in the same camp because we have the same beliefs,
we do not have the same beliefs because we are in the same camp

Your problem is you assume the second is true, which it isnt.

I don't have to assume any such thing (and I don't). The only problem here is that you, and others who have the same beliefs, insist on dealing only in absolutes when it comes to politics.

Of all the things in life that come in thousands of shades of gray, politics ranks high on the list. For as long as anyone thinks of politics as only black or white, they imprison their beliefs and ultimately wind up backing very stupid ideas.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't have to assume any such thing (and I don't). The only problem here is that you, and others who have the same beliefs, insist on dealing only in absolutes when it comes to politics.

Of all the things in life that come in thousands of shades of gray, politics ranks high on the list. For as long as anyone thinks of politics as only black or white, they imprison their beliefs and ultimately wind up backing very stupid ideas.

so, which is it, we think in black and white, or we just all think the same because we are in the same camp.

Even more dangerous than thinking in black and white, (which is a blanket stereotype accusation with no supporting facts by you), is the delusion that one is open minded, when infact one isnt.

[red states rule]

That's the difference between you/Gaffer/RSR and me. I don't believe in "camps." Fences (and the flag-wavers on each side) are for people who can't think for themselves.

and people like you continue to think liberals were destroyed on November 2 for not being liberal enough

Keep that arrogant attitude right up until Election night 2012, please!

[Palin Rider]

so, which is it, we think in black and white, or we just all think the same because we are in the same camp.
Logically it has to be that you think in black and white, because (as I said) I don't believe in camps.

Think that's an accusation with no support? Okay. Name me one well-known public figure OR one active poster here on DP whom you think is neither a liberal nor a conservative, and I'll be happy to take it back.

Is that open-minded enough for you?

[LuvRPgrl]

Logically it has to be that you think in black and white, because (as I said) I don't believe in camps.

Think that's an accusation with no support? Okay. Name me one well-known public figure OR one active poster here on DP whom you think is neither a liberal nor a conservative, and I'll be happy to take it back.

Is that open-minded enough for you?

Missleman
pagan
revelarts

I have gone nose to nose with all of them, they have forced me to do a lot of research, and we have vehemently disagreed on more than one issue, then wala, another issue, we support each other like lovers.

And thats just off the top of my head.

Plus I think I piss Kathianne off alot, but she just remains silent on some issues she disagrees with me ???????????????

[Palin Rider]

Missleman
pagan
revelarts

I have gone nose to nose with all of them, they have forced me to do a lot of research, and we have vehemently disagreed on more than one issue, then wala, another issue, we support each other like lovers.
Okay, in that case, how many conservative and how many liberal issues do each of these three have to support to qualify for the middle ground? Offhand, I'd say that two of the above stand on the conservative side more than half the time.

[LuvRPgrl]

Logically it has to be that you think in black and white, because (as I said) I don't believe in camps.

Think that's an accusation with no support? Okay. Name me one well-known public figure OR one active poster here on DP whom you think is neither a liberal nor a conservative, and I'll be happy to take it back.

Is that open-minded enough for you?

You know, its not about being open minded, thats not the issue.

The issue is simply labels. When used properly, labels can be quite useful.I meet people all the time, they tell me they are conservatives. I know what that means.
It means you can take a llist of issues, abortion, taxes, states rights vs fed power, public education, God in schools, etc. etc. and if a person calls themselves a conservative, it simply is telling you that probably on about 70-90% of the issues they agree,

I dont think anybody agrees fully 100%, neither libs nor conservatives. Its simple, and if one is young enough, they may not really be in either camp, but eventually, if they become informed on those issues, they will probably fall into one camp or another....

because people have basic philosophies that usually dictate how they decide their posistion on an issue.

Their is no shame in being in either camp, in and of itself, all I'm saying is, its pretty obvious based on the number of issues in which you take a liberal stance, you are not middle of the road.

And, I do know a lot of people who consider themselves libs, when in fact they take a more conservative view on most issues, but for a lot of people, its insulting for them to think of themselves as a conservative. But I have yet to run into someone who calls themselves a conservative, yet has mostly liberals views.

Thats all, go drink some tea and vodka and have a good night, and Merry Christmas,,,that is, Happy Birthday Jesus,

[Palin Rider]

You know, its not about being open minded, thats not the issue.

The issue is simply labels. When used properly, labels can be quite useful.I meet people all the time, they tell me they are conservatives. I know what that means.
It means you can take a llist of issues, abortion, taxes, states rights vs fed power, public education, God in schools, etc. etc. and if a person calls themselves a conservative, it simply is telling you that probably on about 70-90% of the issues they agree,

I dont think anybody agrees fully 100%, neither libs nor conservatives. Its simple, and if one is young enough, they may not really be in either camp, but eventually, if they become informed on those issues, they will probably fall into one camp or another....

because people have basic philosophies that usually dictate how they decide their posistion on an issue.

Their is no shame in being in either camp...
To me, there is a huge difference between supporting many more liberal issues than conservative ones, as opposed to being "a liberal."

The spin machine of the far right has spent too long turning the concept of "a liberal" into a ridiculous stereotype that has nothing to do with what most liberals believe.


Thats all, go drink some tea and vodka and have a good night, and Merry Christmas,,,that is, Happy Birthday Jesus,
Tea and vodka sounds nice, even though I don't do the "Christmas thing." Thanks for the offer, and for explaining your views.

[red states rule]

Okay, in that case, how many conservative and how many liberal issues do each of these three have to support to qualify for the middle ground? Offhand, I'd say that two of the above stand on the conservative side more than half the time.

Why should anyone seek "middle ground" with Dems?

They LOST the election

Compromise is for the losers not the winners

Or are you not up on the results of the election yet?

[LuvRPgrl]

To me, there is a huge difference between supporting many more liberal issues than conservative ones, as opposed to being "a liberal.".
??????????????????????????????????????

But that is EXACTLY what it means.


The spin machine of the far right has spent too long turning the concept of "a liberal" into a ridiculous stereotype that has nothing to do with what most liberals believe. .

Please show me some specifics. In fact, I find JUST THE OPPOSITE TO BE TRUE. And, your pov on this just supports my belief that you are a liberal.

I WILL SHOW YOU SOME SPECIFICS ON HOW THE MEDIA/LIBERAL LEFT HAVE SMEARED WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE:

I dont remember who said it, it was a well known liberal democrat, I remember exactly where I was and the basics of what he said, that
Republicans want to take us back to the days of legal slavery, they want to remove womens sufferage, they want to be able to use child labor again in their large factories and exploit anyone and everyone they can for profit.

The media portraits conservatives as monsters, religous bible thumping sex crazed, whore chasing, war hungry child abusers who want their women barefoot and in the kitchen, we want our kids working in our factories and we want women who have abortions thrown in jail.
We want homosexuals strung up and blacks to once again be called niggers in public and put in their place.

AND THAT MY SON IS A FACTAS SURE AS THE MOON IS ROUND, THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE PAINTED AS SOMETHING A VAST MAJORITY OF THEM IN FACT COMPLETELY OPPOSE.

Interestingly enough, I have found that liberals and the negative connotation to the term has come from fairly accurate descriptions of what liberals stand for





Tea and vodka sounds nice, even though I don't do the "Christmas thing." Thanks for the offer, and for explaining your views.

[Kathianne]

I split off about 50 posts onto a new thread in the lounge. Perhaps it was wrong to hi-jack Acorn's thread, though seemed to have been done long ago.

Here's those posts:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30007-Is-It-Who-You-Are-or-Who-You-Know-For-Political-Knowledge