Listening to Rush, as is my want between noon and 3:00 most days - and I'm hearing him talk about how some Senate Republicans (i.e. Graham & Lot) are wringing their hands because tea party candidates "cost them control of the Senate." Rush is referencing this article. Well, let me say this about that...
First, tea party candidates nor anyone else can deprive THEM of control. THEY should not have control - WE should have control - we the people, you eegits are our employees - sooner you get that in your thick skulls the better. This is in fact the reason that there is a tea party movement. And, once again, must these idiots be reminded? There is no tea PARTY! there is a movement - using the original Tea Party simply as inspiration and a way to label how we feel - not to label us as a PARTY. Now, that may change - but for now there is no party. A movement people, a rising up in protest - of what? That you - you Senate/Congress critter types - Do Not Listen. Lindsey? You don't listen. Here is a little hint for you Lindsey - You are toast. Start planning for your post Senate career now because your days are numbered dude. When next you are up for re-election, you are out of there. Just sayin.
Second, let's look at what actually would have happened if we had achieved 50-51 seats by putting in - say a Castle instead of running O'Donnell. Castle, you know - the "moderate" republican. What happens when there is a split or one seat majority held by Republicans? If memory serves me correctly (and it still does), this is when the Rhinos - Graham, Lott, Snow, CASTLE - come out and form partnerships with Democrats to block anything Republicans try to accomplish - this is when Republicans (Lott) come up with stupid power sharing rules giving up half their control to the Dems (do the Dems do this? hell, no). So does it hurt us not to technically have regained control? Nope, if we don't have at least a 5-6 seat majority it does us no good what so ever. And that was not going to happen. Don't know 'bout the rest of you but I'd rather have a Dem hold a seat than a Rhino. At least with a Dem we know where we stand. With Rhinos the best you can hope for is that they will do as you expect - and stand with the Dems when it counts. And this woman in Alaska? This Murkowski who is technically a Republican but running as a write in? Want to take bets who she caucuses with when (if) she wins? I'm betting Dems. And while we are on that topic, anybody remember Jumping Jim Jeffords? That's what Rhinos do if we put them on the ballot in a close race - that is what we get from "moderates".
Oh sure, Rhinos will vote with Republicans when they are voting on national cup cake appreciation month - or laws protecting puppies from being eaten for brunch, but a fight to repeal health care reform? Nope, they would have been with the Dems on that one. It is an important issue, so we know where they would have stood. And what would happen if a handful of Republicans stood in the way of reversing health care reform as it stands right now? The electorate would rise up again next cycle - angry that Republicans had held the power and done nothing with it - and just as they did two years ago they would have "punished" Republicans. We'd not only have another four years of Obama, but another switch in control of not one but both houses of congress. We know all of this from past actions - it isn't a wild guess - it is educated conjecture based on historic patterns, based on solid evidence.
A couple other things I'd throw out for consideration. I believe - as much as it pains me - that we got about the best outcome we could have hoped for long term. As I stated above, if we'd regained both houses - Obama's chances for re-election went way way up. As it stands now, we have a better chance to oust him because Republicans can only slow him down (thank God) with only control of the House. But with a wishy washy Republican held Senate he could have bludgeoned Republicans and blamed them for what is bound to be the continued slide of our economy and frankly world safety. Also - as much as I wanted to see Harry Reid ousted, we'd then have had Chuck Shumer leading the Democrats (with Dems still in control). Folks Harry Reid is an idiot - Chuck Shumer is not. I'd rather have that idiot being the face and voice of the Democrat led Senate than Shumer. Right now I figure Chuckie is wishing he'd given Harry that little shove at the top of the stairs... So really, we are better off even with the outcome in Nevada. But man (or should I say ma'am) I wish Boxer had been beaten.
Now, I must make a confession of sorts. I believe that when any one party, be it Democrat or Republican, hold all the cards of power - especially for more than say 15 min - that party is going to get arrogant, greedy, and somewhat corrupt, as evidenced by the behavior of the Democrats over the last two years. I don't need to remind you of how Democrats behaved at town halls and when confronted by their constituents. Because this is what I believe - I think the best thing for the country as a whole is for there to be a Republican President - a Republican Senate (by at least 5-6 seats, see above), and a Democrat controlled House - just to keep everyone honest (I know, yeah right, no such thing as an honest politician). Right now that is not possible, so I'm happy as a clam to have the Congress under Republican control- on soooo many levels (nana nana booboo Nancy!). Not that I'd cry if Republicans held all three, but I know full well that it would not be best for that to be a long term condition. Republicans are just as human as anyone else (yes Joy Behar, Janeane Garofalo they are) and just as likely to fall pray to absolute power and all that.
Why Senate rather than House for Republican control? In short - Judicial nominees.
And for the record once again, I am registered Unaffiliated, not a cool-aide drinking Republican - I believe an honest politician, of any stripe, is more rare than rainbow farting unicorns. But I don't believe everyone in politics is in fact a politician - i.e. Allen West - don't think he is a politician and I just love him!
First, tea party candidates nor anyone else can deprive THEM of control. THEY should not have control - WE should have control - we the people, you eegits are our employees - sooner you get that in your thick skulls the better. This is in fact the reason that there is a tea party movement. And, once again, must these idiots be reminded? There is no tea PARTY! there is a movement - using the original Tea Party simply as inspiration and a way to label how we feel - not to label us as a PARTY. Now, that may change - but for now there is no party. A movement people, a rising up in protest - of what? That you - you Senate/Congress critter types - Do Not Listen. Lindsey? You don't listen. Here is a little hint for you Lindsey - You are toast. Start planning for your post Senate career now because your days are numbered dude. When next you are up for re-election, you are out of there. Just sayin.
Second, let's look at what actually would have happened if we had achieved 50-51 seats by putting in - say a Castle instead of running O'Donnell. Castle, you know - the "moderate" republican. What happens when there is a split or one seat majority held by Republicans? If memory serves me correctly (and it still does), this is when the Rhinos - Graham, Lott, Snow, CASTLE - come out and form partnerships with Democrats to block anything Republicans try to accomplish - this is when Republicans (Lott) come up with stupid power sharing rules giving up half their control to the Dems (do the Dems do this? hell, no). So does it hurt us not to technically have regained control? Nope, if we don't have at least a 5-6 seat majority it does us no good what so ever. And that was not going to happen. Don't know 'bout the rest of you but I'd rather have a Dem hold a seat than a Rhino. At least with a Dem we know where we stand. With Rhinos the best you can hope for is that they will do as you expect - and stand with the Dems when it counts. And this woman in Alaska? This Murkowski who is technically a Republican but running as a write in? Want to take bets who she caucuses with when (if) she wins? I'm betting Dems. And while we are on that topic, anybody remember Jumping Jim Jeffords? That's what Rhinos do if we put them on the ballot in a close race - that is what we get from "moderates".
Oh sure, Rhinos will vote with Republicans when they are voting on national cup cake appreciation month - or laws protecting puppies from being eaten for brunch, but a fight to repeal health care reform? Nope, they would have been with the Dems on that one. It is an important issue, so we know where they would have stood. And what would happen if a handful of Republicans stood in the way of reversing health care reform as it stands right now? The electorate would rise up again next cycle - angry that Republicans had held the power and done nothing with it - and just as they did two years ago they would have "punished" Republicans. We'd not only have another four years of Obama, but another switch in control of not one but both houses of congress. We know all of this from past actions - it isn't a wild guess - it is educated conjecture based on historic patterns, based on solid evidence.
A couple other things I'd throw out for consideration. I believe - as much as it pains me - that we got about the best outcome we could have hoped for long term. As I stated above, if we'd regained both houses - Obama's chances for re-election went way way up. As it stands now, we have a better chance to oust him because Republicans can only slow him down (thank God) with only control of the House. But with a wishy washy Republican held Senate he could have bludgeoned Republicans and blamed them for what is bound to be the continued slide of our economy and frankly world safety. Also - as much as I wanted to see Harry Reid ousted, we'd then have had Chuck Shumer leading the Democrats (with Dems still in control). Folks Harry Reid is an idiot - Chuck Shumer is not. I'd rather have that idiot being the face and voice of the Democrat led Senate than Shumer. Right now I figure Chuckie is wishing he'd given Harry that little shove at the top of the stairs... So really, we are better off even with the outcome in Nevada. But man (or should I say ma'am) I wish Boxer had been beaten.
Now, I must make a confession of sorts. I believe that when any one party, be it Democrat or Republican, hold all the cards of power - especially for more than say 15 min - that party is going to get arrogant, greedy, and somewhat corrupt, as evidenced by the behavior of the Democrats over the last two years. I don't need to remind you of how Democrats behaved at town halls and when confronted by their constituents. Because this is what I believe - I think the best thing for the country as a whole is for there to be a Republican President - a Republican Senate (by at least 5-6 seats, see above), and a Democrat controlled House - just to keep everyone honest (I know, yeah right, no such thing as an honest politician). Right now that is not possible, so I'm happy as a clam to have the Congress under Republican control- on soooo many levels (nana nana booboo Nancy!). Not that I'd cry if Republicans held all three, but I know full well that it would not be best for that to be a long term condition. Republicans are just as human as anyone else (yes Joy Behar, Janeane Garofalo they are) and just as likely to fall pray to absolute power and all that.
Why Senate rather than House for Republican control? In short - Judicial nominees.
And for the record once again, I am registered Unaffiliated, not a cool-aide drinking Republican - I believe an honest politician, of any stripe, is more rare than rainbow farting unicorns. But I don't believe everyone in politics is in fact a politician - i.e. Allen West - don't think he is a politician and I just love him!
|
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Interesting analysis, and one that parallels a lot about how I feel about the outcome of the elections. Hopefully with a GOP controlled House we can limit anymore damage done by the White House, if not reverse what's already been done. Repeal of Obamacare isn't going to be in the cards for at least another two years, though perhaps it can be tweaked to where it makes a little more sense than it currently does. But at least we can ensure that some of the really bad ideas, like cap and trade, don't make it.
Like after the 2010 elections, I'm going to withhold full judgment until our newly elected put their money where their mouths are and show us that they're worthy of the offices they've been elevated to. Hopefully they won't disappoint, because the outcome of the 2012 POTUS election is very much at stake.
AMEN! Very well said, Patti, and I agree wholeheartedly!
Going to send to the man, who is still desolate because Reid, Pelosi, Boxer and Frank still have jobs.
Excellent!
Thanks, I actually seriously considered hitting the delete button on that one.
Difficult to dangle those sorts of opinions out in the bloggy-sphere...
Dittos! :-)
I would also add that it would benefit the republican party to actively dismiss RINO's (I include Mitch McConnell on that list; see TARP) from the party. I've never understood why the party would put up with someone just because THEY call themselves a republican.
Like you, I remain unaffiliated; an independent Constitutionalist. If the republicans decide to become truly conservative again, and make themselves worthy of my trust, I'll consider throwing my lot in with them again.
Constitutionalist! Thats what I am! I'm going to start using that instead of conservative because for some reason people thing conservatives want to get into legislating what goes on in people's bedrooms. I could not care less what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults. So long as they keep it behind those closed doors! I expect no one but myself to live up to my moral expectations and rules. Constitutionalist is a very good tag for my political views.