The Hits Keep Coming For the Democrats

[Kathianne]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/11/29/general-us-defecting-democrats_8169705.html


Associated Press
Dem state lawmakers defecting to GOP post-election
By SHANNON McCAFFREY , 11.29.10, 07:36 PM EST

ATLANTA -- Staggering Election Day losses are not the Democratic Party's final indignity this year. At least 13 state lawmakers in five states have defected to Republican ranks since the Nov. 2 election, adding to already huge GOP gains in state legislatures. And that number could grow as next year's legislative sessions draw near.

The defections underscore dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party - particularly in the South - and will give Republicans a stronger hand in everything from pushing a conservative fiscal and social agenda to redrawing political maps.

In Alabama, four Democrats announced last week they were joining the GOP, giving Republicans a supermajority in the House that allows them to pass legislation without any support from the other party. The party switch of a Democratic lawmaker from New Orleans handed control of Louisiana's House to Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction.

In Georgia, six rural Democratic state legislators - five from the House and one in the Senate - have switched allegiance to the GOP since Nov. 2. In Maine, a House Democrat flipped; in South Dakota, a Democratic state senator....

[Little-Acorn]

More liberals in the Republican party.

And this is good.....why?

[Mr. P]

More liberals in the Republican party.

And this is good.....why?
That's how I see it too..and who would vote for one of these cross overs next go round? I mean they're obviously not committed to a platform or to those who elected them to start with.

[logroller]

A politician getting elected and changing their platform sounds heinous, but honestly, are you really suprised? It's a bit like a recovering alcoholic going into a bar and coming out drunk.
Mr Smith might get voted into office for his platform, but they stay there because they pander to the political machine.

Let's take Obama's healthcare change platform: everybody's all high on expectations after the election, but midterm elections come round, and the only change I've seen is a dispensation of lifetime insurance claims and longer dependant coverage. Whoopee! What's next, subsidizing vitamins?

How about giving the people who want change the ability to pay for it out of their own pockets.

"But but but, I can't afford the same level of care as someone who pays ten times more."

I chose my own healthcare plan, cost me a pretty penny, and I get what I pay for. What, pray tell, should be changed about paying for something you get?

If I advocated a change to healthcare -- how about a menu board with prices.

Visit $25, x-rays $45, arm cast $72, political lobbying $350

Uh yeah, I'll uh...have the cast and the xray --hold the political donation, I gave at the ballot box!

[fj1200]

More liberals in the Republican party.

And this is good.....why?

You assume they were liberal. Remember it's the South where most Southern Dems don't/won't vote for a National Dem for POTUS. For example Georgia has been voting Republican for POTUS for awhile but only had their first post-reconstruction Rep Governor 8 years ago.

I'm just surprised there haven't been any Congressional crossovers yet.

There have been many Dems, Southern especially, where "they didn't leave the Dem Party, the Dem Party left them." I'm mostly happy to have them.


That's how I see it too..and who would vote for one of these cross overs next go round? I mean they're obviously not committed to a platform or to those who elected them to start with.

Just look at the post-'94 crossovers to see how they fared in later elections; I have no idea what the results would be but I would guess they did OK.

[Kathianne]

More liberals in the Republican party.

And this is good.....why?

Because they will be involved with the Republicans when drawing up the new districts per the census, which is very important in 2012.

[Kathianne]

...

How about giving the people who want change the ability to pay for it out of their own pockets.

"But but but, I can't afford the same level of care as someone who pays ten times more."

I chose my own healthcare plan, cost me a pretty penny, and I get what I pay for. What, pray tell, should be changed about paying for something you get?

If I advocated a change to healthcare -- how about a menu board with prices.

Visit $25, x-rays $45, arm cast $72, political lobbying $350

Uh yeah, I'll uh...have the cast and the xray --hold the political donation, I gave at the ballot box!

Dealing with the above would have been part of an actual 'reform.' What happened wasn't reform, it was the most convoluted, exasperating, unintelligible exercise ever done by the legislature to force through the beginning of dismantling of our present health care system.

Your last part about posted costs is related to what I've long said would be a healthy start of reform, which would be returning a bit to what was the system years ago. 'Health care insurance' would be major medical or hospitalization. People would pay out of pocket for doctor visits and medicines prescribed in the course of normal health issues. When major medicines are needed such as those for diabetes and related issues, cancer, pain meds related to serious, chronic illnesses, etc., major medical kicks in.

Doctors would be able to cut their staffs, most of which are now used to deal with insurance related issues. Medicine would drop when people refuse to pay $40 bucks for Advil.

[Little-Acorn]

You assume they were liberal.
They were in the Democrat party. They were voting for tax increases, entitlements, govt takeovers of everything from CEO salaries to operations of car companies and finance companies to health care.

"Assuming" they are liberal, is like "assuming" the sun is bright.

Show me a Democrat who votes for cutting taxes, getting government out of unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, Health Care, votes against regulating toilet sizes and light bulbs, votes against amnesty, AND votes against new entitlements and expanding spending, and I'll show you a conservative (I'm not holding my breath - there are zero such people in the Dem party). Hell, most Republicans aren't very conservative either... and many of those are former Democrats, as you pointed out.


There have been many Dems, Southern especially, where "they didn't leave the Dem Party, the Dem Party left them." I'm mostly happy to have them.
But look how long they waited until they decided the Dem party had "left them". They were fine with the huge increases in Congressional spending thru the 1980s and 1990s. They had no problem with expanding entitlements, cutting the military, taking over car companies, extending unemployment benefits, and socializing Health Care. Only when their jobs were threatened, did they decide that maybe the Democrat party was driting away from what they wanted.

People like that swung the Republican party further and further left for several decades. They are exactly what we DON'T need in the Republican party.

We need conservatives, and they ain't it.

Last person I saw who switched from Democrat to Republican because he was conservative and the Dem party wasn't, was an actor named Ronald. And he remained mostly conservative, and did well.

Nearly all the party-switchers since then, have switched because they were liberal but the Dem party was even more liberal and becoming socialist. They should form a third party where they can stew in their juices, rather than contaminate a formerly-conservative party with their liberalism.

Republicans got thrown out of power in 2006 and 2008, because they were becoming too liberal, spending like crazy and enacting new entitlements. And it wasn't because they had too many people like Ron Paul and John Boehner.

[fj1200]

They were in the Democrat party. They were voting for tax increases, entitlements, govt takeovers of everything from CEO salaries to operations of car companies and finance companies to health care.

I'll snip the rest because it's speculation. Besides these were state legislators that were switching parties, I haven't seen any Federal level switchers yet. And last I checked state legislators didn't vote on your list.

Besides, in two years they can be thrown out by the voters, the same voters you have been proclaiming supreme wisdom.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb101203_cmyk20101201111345.jpg