|
Post by jdredd on May 17, 2013 12:44:51 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-conspiracy-of-the-unproductive/2013/05/17/d3582160-befa-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2"At the end of a truly dismal week in his presidency, President Obama remains lucky in one crucial category: his opposition. It has been only a few days since two administration scandals — the IRS harassment of conservative groups and the Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press phone records — dropped into the Republicans’ lap. But instead of turning public outrage to their advantage, Republicans have already begun overreaching, turning legitimate areas of inquiry into just some more partisan food fights." You have to wonder if the GOP really thinks these "scandals" are going to turn the tide and put the GOP back on top. Does anyone besides the Fox News crowd really care? SOMETHING will bring the GOP back but I'm not sure these scandals are it.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 17, 2013 17:01:17 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-conspiracy-of-the-unproductive/2013/05/17/d3582160-befa-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2"At the end of a truly dismal week in his presidency, President Obama remains lucky in one crucial category: his opposition. It has been only a few days since two administration scandals — the IRS harassment of conservative groups and the Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press phone records — dropped into the Republicans’ lap. But instead of turning public outrage to their advantage, Republicans have already begun overreaching, turning legitimate areas of inquiry into just some more partisan food fights." You have to wonder if the GOP really thinks these "scandals" are going to turn the tide and put the GOP back on top. Does anyone besides the Fox News crowd really care? SOMETHING will bring the GOP back but I'm not sure these scandals are it. On one issue the GOP has a lot going for them. Very few people like or trust the IRS. Now they have a reason and someone to support to take them down. And look at the other connections: the IRS has an enormous amount of power that is only increased in Obamacare; The person who oversaw the tax-exempt organizations at the IRS during that unit’s targeting of conservative groups is now in charge of the agency’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) office (how fair is that going to be?). I can see the map now, conservatives will not get approval for critical care! Between that and likely medical cutbacks due to possible sequestration is a good enough reason to get the Federal Government OUT of managing health care. Let them regulate it like they have but have a nationwide PRIVATE insurance program not managed by the government.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 17, 2013 20:58:35 GMT -5
The fact is, taxes must be paid. Whether you have the IRS collecting them or the Girl Scouts, our government will be calling the shots, just like it should be. Do you expect the billionaires to voluntarily hand over their fair share?
And we tried unregulated health care, and it sucked IMO. Still, I think the Unaffordable Health Care Act is a monstrosity, and as I said when it passed it just meant that health care would have to be "reformed" once again in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 18, 2013 2:48:06 GMT -5
The fact is, taxes must be paid. Whether you have the IRS collecting them or the Girl Scouts, our government will be calling the shots, just like it should be. Do you expect the billionaires to voluntarily hand over their fair share? And we tried unregulated health care, and it sucked IMO. Still, I think the Unaffordable Health Care Act is a monstrosity, and as I said when it passed it just meant that health care would have to be "reformed" once again in the future. Collect taxes yes, but they still have to much power with NO oversight! They harrass more middle class people and those who just make enough to pay taxes than they do the millionaires or billionaires. An exception are those sports players or movie stars, mostly due to their lack of payment in the first place. I didn't say UNREGULATED Health Care. Let them regulate health care but it should be run by private industry. The government regulates lots of industries without becoming involved with operations, Health Care should be no different. Health Care should not be dependent upon who you vote for, how much money you have, or how much money the government will "budget" for various procedures. Health Care should be no more invasive by government than Medicare, Medical, or Medicaid which are operated privately under government regulations.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 18, 2013 5:01:32 GMT -5
The fact is, taxes must be paid. Whether you have the IRS collecting them or the Girl Scouts, our government will be calling the shots, just like it should be. Do you expect the billionaires to voluntarily hand over their fair share? And we tried unregulated health care, and it sucked IMO. Still, I think the Unaffordable Health Care Act is a monstrosity, and as I said when it passed it just meant that health care would have to be "reformed" once again in the future. Collect taxes yes, but they still have to much power with NO oversight! They harrass more middle class people and those who just make enough to pay taxes than they do the millionaires or billionaires. An exception are those sports players or movie stars, mostly due to their lack of payment in the first place. I didn't say UNREGULATED Health Care. Let them regulate health care but it should be run by private industry. The government regulates lots of industries without becoming involved with operations, Health Care should be no different. Health Care should not be dependent upon who you vote for, how much money you have, or how much money the government will "budget" for various procedures. Health Care should be no more invasive by government than Medicare, Medical, or Medicaid which are operated privately under government regulations. I agree. Definitely the IRS should have plenty of OVERSIGHT. And they do need to spend more time going after the big fish and give the little fish a break. And I guess we have to define "run" when it comes to health care. The government has to set SOME rules. When private industry made their own rules we had all those horror stories of insurance companies cancelling policies when a customer actually got sick, and sick people who couldn't get insurance at all. I believe America, unlike most of the developed world, still has health costs causing 50% of family bankruptcies. By the way, didn't the Dems suggest Medicare for all, or at least for everyone over 55 and the Republicans shot it down?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 19, 2013 12:51:02 GMT -5
What do scandals like Watergate, Iran-contra, and Monicagate show us? That if you cannot win elections, you can win second-term scandal wars. We'll see in 2014 how much the scandals de jour will cost the Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 26, 2013 4:46:11 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mayors-against-illegal-guns-democrat-20130524,0,6703020.story "The Michael Bloomberg-backed group Mayors Against Illegal Guns is following up on its promise to hound Senate Democrats who voted against gun control legislation in April. In an ad that launched Friday, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) is implored by a witness to the murder of state Democratic Party Chair Bill Gwatney in 2008 to revisit his vote on the failed bipartisan effort to expand background checks on gun purchases." Here is something people looking forward to the GOP making a comeback should be happy about: Anti-gun Democrats turning against pro-gun Democrats. I believe it's only the Democratic "Big Tent" that keeps them winning elections, and the party should have room for both pro and anti gun viewpoints.
Just another example of a rotten billionaire trying to control our lives.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 27, 2013 1:15:33 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mayors-against-illegal-guns-democrat-20130524,0,6703020.story "The Michael Bloomberg-backed group Mayors Against Illegal Guns is following up on its promise to hound Senate Democrats who voted against gun control legislation in April. In an ad that launched Friday, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) is implored by a witness to the murder of state Democratic Party Chair Bill Gwatney in 2008 to revisit his vote on the failed bipartisan effort to expand background checks on gun purchases." Here is something people looking forward to the GOP making a comeback should be happy about: Anti-gun Democrats turning against pro-gun Democrats. I believe it's only the Democratic "Big Tent" that keeps them winning elections, and the party should have room for both pro and anti gun viewpoints.
Just another example of a rotten billionaire trying to control our lives. Yup, the Democrats are going to eat their own. Their replacement will be portrayed as not following the "Washington norm", not part of the established "machine". While the Tea Party is viewed as an equal thorn in the Republicans side, at least their replacements are viewed as bring real change to Washington and limiting government. With the way this administration has been abusing its powers, particularly the IRS scandal, people will be looking for real change and limiting the powers of government. Obama promised change but the people didn't get the change they were hoping for. More open government -NOPE! More people employed - NOPE! Less invasive government - NOPE! Lower fuel prices - NOPE! The list goes on and on.....
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 5, 2013 2:51:12 GMT -5
www.newrepublic.com/article/113380/why-democrats-still-need-working-class-white-voters"In the months since the 2012 elections it has become apparent that the victorious Democratic coalition Obama assembled is still not sufficiently large to overcome the unprecedented Republican obstruction and sabotage of the normal processes of American political life. Although long-term demographic trends, such as the increase in minority voters and the rise of the Millennial generation, are favorable for the Democrats, translating those trends into true political and electoral dominance will remain difficult so long as Democrats rely on simply turning out core Obama coalition voters. Their margins will be too thin and subject to backlash, especially below the Presidential level." "In order to successfully appeal to this critical group of voters, Democrats will need to do more than create a few clever TV ads or emphatically repeat Democratic campaign clichés left over from the 1950’s. The key is representation. As research by Democracy Corps has shown, more than anything else white working class voters feel that neither party is really “looking out for them.” "... traditional Democratic “machines” declined along with the large factories and ethnic blue-collar neighborhoods of the 1950’s and 1960’s and no new Democratic-oriented organizations arose to replace them. At the same time, across Red State America Republicans were becoming increasingly familiar and active participants in local white working-class community life. As Joe Bagaent pointed out in his perceptive book, Deer Hunting with Jesus, which describes the working class town of Winchester, Virginia: Republicans’ everyday lives seem naturally woven into the fabric of the community in a way that the everyday lives of the left have not been since the Great Depression…working-class people encounter Republicans face-to-face at rches, all-you-can-eat spaghetti fund-raisers, fraternal organizations like the Elks Club and local small businesses… At the humble level of the small towns, local candidates are raised and groomed for state and national office…and it is from these local grassroots GOP business-based cartels that the army of campaign volunteers, political activists and spokesmen springs." Sadly, my perception is now that white working class voters have gone Republican, they only thing that will change their thinking is them dropping dead. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 7, 2013 14:58:14 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christie-paul-offer-models-for-how-gop-can-compete-in-blue-states/2013/06/07/b6bc19ce-cded-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z7"So much has been made of the demographic obstacles facing Republicans in their quest to win the White House that it has been easy to overlook the other huge hurdle in their path: geography. But two prospective GOP presidential candidates — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul— seem determined to change that. The depth of the Republican deficit in the Electoral College was laid out in stark detail by independent analyst Rhodes Cook in his recent newsletter. Cook charts two eras in the modern history of presidential politics, one Republican and the other Democratic. Republicans dominated the period from 1968 until 1992. Democrats have been the dominant presidential party since then." "That puts two questions on the table: What moved California, Illinois and New Jersey from solidly red to solidly blue in presidential races? And what might move them or some of the other states that have been consistently Democratic back in the other direction in future elections? There are a number of reasons why those big three shifted. In California and New Jersey especially, GOP positions on guns, abortion and the environment soured voters on the party. The Republicans’ problems in California were compounded significantly by a sharp increase in the percentage of Hispanic voters in the electorate, beginning after the 1994 midterm election when then-governor Pete Wilson backed the anti-immigration Proposition 187 as a way to help win another term in office. Another factor affecting all three states was a shift among suburban voters away from the Republicans toward the Democrats. The shift became evident in 1996, when Clinton did demonstrably better in suburban counties in many states than Democrats had done previously. Clinton’s margin in New Jersey went from fewer than three points in 1992 to almost 18 points in 1996. Democrats have not been threatened seriously in California, Illinois or New Jersey since then." "Rand Paul used a trip to California to make an explicit appeal for his libertarian conservatism as the way to make the Golden State, and perhaps some other blue states, competitive. He said there’s no reason a redefined Republican Party cannot compete in California. With an eye on younger voters and the state’s high-tech community, he called for more tolerance and diversity within the party, said Republicans must appeal more directly to Hispanics and African Americans and argued that environmentalism and small-government conservatism need not be mutually exclusive." Is Libertarianism the key to the inevitable GOP comeback? Heck, even I agree with the Libertarians on some things. Alas, the GOP Establishment embraces Libertarianism on the usual issues (Free Markets, limited government, and lax environmental laws), but not when it comes to things they are traditionally against, such as drugs, abortion, and open borders. Plus, they still want to pay for America throwing it's military weight around the globe and sticking it's nose into everyone else's business. But maybe Obamacare will be enough to turn the 2% or 3% of voters needed by the GOP to turn against the Dems for the Republicans to win back the WH.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 20, 2013 17:19:18 GMT -5
So it appears the GOP is betting on returning to power by stirring up hatred of our own government (and even my friends at OWS are buying into some of it). It might work, but I'd keep an eye on those unintended consequences.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 4, 2013 1:01:07 GMT -5
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/should-republicans-just-focus-on-white-voters/?hp"For two decades, from 1972 to 1992, the Democratic Party agonized over its loss of support among whites, especially those in the working class. Over the next two decades, from the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 to the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012, the party slowly came to terms with its loss and learned how to win the presidency with a minority of white voters. Now the white vote has become a Republican problem. White voters cast 72 percent of all votes in the Obama-Romney election of 2012 compared to 87 percent in the Nixon-McGovern contest in 1972. Should the Republican Party accept the fact that the white majority in the United States is getting smaller or should it bet on boosting Republican margins and turnout rates among whites to record levels?"
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 6, 2013 0:54:16 GMT -5
So the wacko (Tea Party) wing of the GOP wants to "shut down the government" on Sep 30 unless Obamacare is defunded, huh? I say, go for it! What cracks me up is how one half of the GOP says Obamacare will self-destruct and take the Democrats with it if they let it go into effect, while the other half says if it goes into effect people will become "addicted" to another "entitlement". In other words, it will be popular!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 16:30:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 21, 2013 20:54:20 GMT -5
Tuned into my old pal Roger today, and he was talking about the killing of the Aussie by those three punks in OK. He claimed that black on white killings have gone way ups since Obama became Prez. Is it true? Does not matter. What does matter is that that kind of racial slur by a GOP shill like Roger will make it that much harder for the Old White People's Party to regain the WH.
|
|