http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/09/14/us_tea_party_wins/index.html

In states like Alaska, Colorado, Kentucky, or Nevada no it doesn;t affect the outcome that much. I think in Delaware it is a big deal because its a northeast state and people from the Northeast usually elect Moderate Repubs or Demorcats and not conservative repubs. The Northeast and West Coast Sections of the US are more liberal politically than the Southwest, Southeast, Midwest or Mountain West with the exception which of Illiinois is a deep blue state maybe even Minnesota because they have 2 democratic US senators.

This really can't be good for Obama and Democrats, in 2012, we'll be seeing President Sarah Palin.

Trust on me this one.

::)

This really can't be good for Obama and Democrats, in 2012, we'll be seeing President Sarah Palin.

Trust on me this one.

::)
No I don't think so I mean Palin even alienates Moderate Conservative Repubs I think.

If it were a choice between Palin and Obama in '12 I would vote whoever the Independent Candidate was.

No I don't think so I mean Palin even alienates Moderate Conservative Repubs I think.

If it were a choice between Palin and Obama in '12 I would vote whoever the Independent Candidate was.


Unfortunately, the Teabaggers don't feel the same way.

::)

Unfortunately, the Teabaggers don't feel the same way.

::)


the Teabaggers aren't a majority though.  Even if they are still a majority of the conservatives, that would still make them a minority of the country as a whole.  If they can't get someone elected in a moderate area like Delaware, they stand no chance in a nationwide election.

The GOP is not supporting the tea party candidate in Delaware, they're not spending money on a race they know they won't win.

I think it's similar to what Ross Perot did to the Republicans in 1992.  He was kinda nutty too, and he squandered a lot of momentum he had and didn't end up helping the GOP that year.  One thing is certainly clear, the GOP has long had this riff developing in their party and it goes back a long ways.  The only thing that's kept them together is Newt's surprise victory in 1994 gave them a majority they didn't want to risk losing it.  Now that they don't have it, they're going after each other like wounded animals.  Which is kind of funny, because if they weren't doing this now, they could really throw a monkey wrench into the Dems. during the mid-term elections.

The Democratic party is dead. The GOP is roaring back to life anew.
We're going back to 1910 boys. Forget all those Commie safety and job regulations--YOU WILL WORK 23 HOURS A DAY, OR BE FIRED.

The Democratic party is dead. The GOP is roaring back to life anew.
We're going back to 1910 boys. Forget all those Commie safety and job regulations--YOU WILL WORK 23 HOURS A DAY, OR BE FIRED.



Karma for the Captain!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif

If it IS good news for the Democrats, don't worry, the D party will turn it into bad news by November!
::)

Karma for the Captain!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif

If it IS good news for the Democrats, don't worry, the D party will turn it into bad news by November!
::)


Yeah, they are pretty good at shooting themselves directly in the foot.
I'm a Democrat, but the party has been a pretty wimpy, push over party since Clinton.
If we had an FDR in the White House, and an LBJ in the Senate, things would get done.
Guys like Clinton and Obama just like to roll over and play nice for the opposition. It's weak.

the Teabaggers aren't a majority though.  Even if they are still a majority of the conservatives, that would still make them a minority of the country as a whole.  If they can't get someone elected in a moderate area like Delaware, they stand no chance in a nationwide election.

The GOP is not supporting the tea party candidate in Delaware, they're not spending money on a race they know they won't win.

I think it's similar to what Ross Perot did to the Republicans in 1992.  He was kinda nutty too, and he squandered a lot of momentum he had and didn't end up helping the GOP that year.  One thing is certainly clear, the GOP has long had this riff developing in their party and it goes back a long ways.  The only thing that's kept them together is Newt's surprise victory in 1994 gave them a majority they didn't want to risk losing it.  Now that they don't have it, they're going after each other like wounded animals. ]Which is kind of funny, because if they weren't doing this now, they could really throw a monkey wrench into the Dems. during the mid-term elections.
Uh the Dems aren't any better right now I mean Obama is so unpopular Democratic Incumbents don't even want to be seen with him when Obama is in their state.

the Teabaggers aren't a majority though.  Even if they are still a majority of the conservatives, that would still make them a minority of the country as a whole.  If they can't get someone elected in a moderate area like Delaware, they stand no chance in a nationwide election.
The GOP is not supporting the tea party candidate in Delaware, they're not spending money on a race they know they won't win.

I think it's similar to what Ross Perot did to the Republicans in 1992.  He was kinda nutty too, and he squandered a lot of momentum he had and didn't end up helping the GOP that year.  One thing is certainly clear, the GOP has long had this riff developing in their party and it goes back a long ways.  The only thing that's kept them together is Newt's surprise victory in 1994 gave them a majority they didn't want to risk losing it.  Now that they don't have it, they're going after each other like wounded animals.  Which is kind of funny, because if they weren't doing this now, they could really throw a monkey wrench into the Dems. during the mid-term elections.
I think you are wrong about. The "Tea Party" candidates can get elected in states like Colorado, Alaska, and Nevada. The Northeast never elects conservative Republicans anyway. Its always Democrats or Moderate Republicans that win the Northeast. I mean in New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte might get elected to the US Senate and she's a conservative but thats like an exception. New Hampshire has people in Congress like Jeane Shaheen or Carol Shea-Porter that are rubber stamps for Obama's agenda.

New Hampshire has people in Congress like Jeane Shaheen or Carol Shea-Porter that are rubber stamps for Obama's agenda.


Funny how every Dem is just a rubber stamp for Obama, yet he still can't seem to get things passed with a majority in both houses currently.

Yet when Bush had super thin majorities in both houses his stuff went through with no hitches.  I think I know which party had a rubber stamp mentality amongst it's members towards the White House.

I think you are wrong about. The "Tea Party" candidates can get elected in states like Colorado, Alaska, and Nevada. The Northeast never elects conservative Republicans anyway. Its always Democrats or Moderate Republicans that win the Northeast. I mean in New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte might get elected to the US Senate and she's a conservative but thats like an exception. New Hampshire has people in Congress like Jeane Shaheen or Carol Shea-Porter that are rubber stamps for Obama's agenda.


Is Mitt Romney conservative enough for you?  He was our governor up here in Massatwosh1ts for a term.
???

Is Mitt Romney conservative enough for you?  He was our governor up here in Massatwosh1ts for a term.
???
Yeah I wasn't thinking about GOP Conservative Governors I was just thinking about US House Members, and US Senators from the Northeast section of the US. Well Scott Garrett(R-NJ , District 5) he's a conservative so there's one conservative repub from the Northeast!

Funny how every Dem is just a rubber stamp for Obama, yet he still can't seem to get things passed with a majority in both houses currently.

Yet when Bush had super thin majorities in both houses his stuff went through with no hitches.  I think I know which party had a rubber stamp mentality amongst it's members towards the White House.
Well thats Obama's and Pelosi's fault if they can't get bills through the US House I mean they have 256 Dem House Members and need only what 214-219 votes to pass a bill?

The Senate thats different since the Dems lost their fillibuster proof majority when Scott Brown won the late Ted Kennedy's seat.

Overall...  it's good news.

For certain states, it's bad news.  Granted, for the states that actually favor the nutcases among that party, it's not like the Democrats would win anyway.  Also, even if they did win, they'd have to run a candidate so conservative that they'd be more honest running as a Republican.

Call me a wide eyed optimist, but I just can't believe that main stream Americans are going to elect a bunch of right wing crazies into the U.S. senate.  Right now I have more respect for the intelligence of the average voter.  If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow after the election.  If I'm right, you pessimists must do the same

Call me a wide eyed optimist, but I just can't believe that main stream Americans are going to elect a bunch of right wing crazies into the U.S. senate.  Right now I have more respect for the intelligence of the average voter.  If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow after the election.  If I'm right, you pessimists must do the same


It should be good for the Democrats if the Republicans have to compete with the Tea Party.  If the Tea Party could establish a third party, get themselves in the debates, and on the ballots, it would devastate the Republicans.  Ross Perot was great for Bill Clinton.

Call me a wide eyed optimist, but I just can't believe that main stream Americans are going to elect a bunch of right wing crazies into the U.S. senate.  Right now I have more respect for the intelligence of the average voter.  If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow after the election.  If I'm right, you pessimists must do the same
My opinion of it is both parties are throwing out the moderates in both their respective parties. I mean the so-called Moderate Dems always vote with Pelosi and Reid anyway for the most part. Look at at a congress person like Betsey Markey(D) who was elected to serve Colorado's 4th district in 2008 which is a swing district I don't think she is gonna win this year because she voted for the Healthcare Bill. She voted "no" on the Healthcare Bill the first time it came up and "yes" the 2nd time the bill came up for a House Vote. Thats just political suicide in my opinion.

It should be good for the Democrats if the Republicans have to compete with the Tea Party.  If the Tea Party could establish a third party, get themselves in the debates, and on the ballots, it would devastate the Republicans.  Ross Perot was great for Bill Clinton.
No I think Perot pretty much spilt the vote for people who didn't want to vote for either Clinton or Bush(H.W.)

Overall...  it's good news.

For certain states, it's bad news.  Granted, for the states that actually favor the nutcases among that party, it's not like the Democrats would win anyway.  Also, even if they did win, they'd have to run a candidate so conservative that they'd be more honest running as a Republican.
Nutcases... the Dems have their own too!

My opinion of it is both parties are throwing out the moderates in both their respective parties. I mean the so-called Moderate Dems always vote with Pelosi and Reid anyway for the most part. Look at at a congress person like Betsey Markey(D) who was elected to serve Colorado's 4th district in 2008 which is a swing district I don't think she is gonna win this year because she voted for the Healthcare Bill. She voted "no" on the Healthcare Bill the first time it came up and "yes" the 2nd time the bill came up for a House Vote. Thats just political suicide in my opinion.




Not so, or the Dems would have abandoned Blanch Lincoln

"For the most part" voted for the dem agenda, compared to the repub party discipline during Bush?

The Dems need to trumpet what they have done, including "Obamacare", and they have done quite a bit to undo GWB's disastrous policies which got us into this mess.

But lets look at some of the radical repub's ideas:

privatize social security - Bush flew that up the flag poll and got slaughtered.

State legislatures appointing senators?  That ain't gonna fly anywhere - I would think even the tea party would say WTF

"Second amendment remedies"  if "we" don't get what we want?  Several thought - rising up in arms against the fed is treason, unless it succeeds, in which case, none dare call it treason, but as Sal Allende said when advised to arm the masses to prevent a coup (9/11/73), "how many masses does it take to stop a tank?"

No Dem has come even close to advocating this kind lunacy. 

Nutcases... the Dems have their own too!


True...  most of them are clustered in California and D.C.

Not so, or the Dems would have abandoned Blanch Lincoln

"For the most part" voted for the dem agenda, compared to the repub party discipline during Bush?

The Dems need to trumpet what they have done, including "Obamacare", and they have done quite a bit to undo GWB's disastrous policies which got us into this mess.

But lets look at some of the radical repub's ideas:

privatize social security - Bush flew that up the flag poll and got slaughtered.

State legislatures appointing senators?  That ain't gonna fly anywhere - I would think even the tea party would say WTF

"Second amendment remedies"  if "we" don't get what we want?  Several thought - rising up in arms against the fed is treason, unless it succeeds, in which case, none dare call it treason, but as Sal Allende said when advised to arm the masses to prevent a coup (9/11/73), "how many masses does it take to stop a tank?"

No Dem has come even close to advocating this kind lunacy. 


Ho Chi Minh told us early on he only wanted what the United States already had -- a Constitutional Republic.  He admired the U.S. Constitution.  He wanted the French and the Americans out of there.  It got ugly.  Hundreds, sometimes thousands of casualties in a month.  The slaughter is something older generations still have to live with both in Vietnam and in America.  Remember, we didn't like the British dicking around with out stuff, did we?  He thought he might get a sympathetic ear from Uncle Sam but he might as well have wished for a mountain of Hershey Kisses this high!  We're the empire now.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
::)

Not so, or the Dems would have abandoned Blanch Lincoln

"For the most part" voted for the dem agenda, compared to the repub party discipline during Bush?

The Dems need to trumpet what they have done, including "Obamacare", and they have done quite a bit to undo GWB's disastrous policies which got us into this mess.

But lets look at some of the radical repub's ideas:

privatize social security - Bush flew that up the flag poll and got slaughtered.

State legislatures appointing senators?  That ain't gonna fly anywhere - I would think even the tea party would say WTF

"Second amendment remedies"  if "we" don't get what we want?  Several thought - rising up in arms against the fed is treason, unless it succeeds, in which case, none dare call it treason, but as Sal Allende said when advised to arm the masses to prevent a coup (9/11/73), "how many masses does it take to stop a tank?"

No Dem has come even close to advocating this kind lunacy. 
Blanche votes with Reid all the time now. At least the Repubs version of Blanche Lincoln(Olympia Snowe)_ doesn't vote with Mitch McConnell all the time.

Bush's distrarous policies? Some of the Dems policies that passed or didn't pass are worse under Obama(Obama Care, The DREAM Act(well most of it), Cap & Tax, The Disclosure Act, A failed Stimulus Bill.)

Yeah the Dems don't even run on Obama's policies that they voted for. Thats not good.

Privatize Social Security-I don't agree with that.

I don't agree with state legislatures appointing senators either.

Blanche votes with Reid all the time now. At least the Repubs version of Blanche Lincoln(Olympia Snowe)_ doesn't vote with Mitch McConnell all the time.

Bush's distrarous policies? Some of the Dems policies that passed or didn't pass are worse under Obama(Obama Care, The DREAM Act(well most of it), Cap & Tax, The Disclosure Act, A failed Stimulus Bill.)

Yeah the Dems don't even run on Obama's policies that they voted for. Thats not good.

Privatize Social Security-I don't agree with that.

I don't agree with state legislatures appointing senators either.




Seems to me that the policies you call failed are policies you disagree with.  Obamacare, with vall its faults, gives use some protection against the rapacious policies of insurance companies.  The stimulus worked, to a point, but was, as Paul Krugman has said repeatedly, was just to small.

On the other hand, Bush's policies have lead to the biggest increase in poverty in memory.  The result of his (and Clinton"s) deregulations

Ho Chi Minh told us early on he only wanted what the United States already had -- a Constitutional Republic.  He admired the U.S. Constitution.  He wanted the French and the Americans out of there.  It got ugly.  Hundreds, sometimes thousands of casualties in a month.  The slaughter is something older generations still have to live with both in Vietnam and in America.  Remember, we didn't like the British dicking around with out stuff, did we?  He thought he might get a sympathetic ear from Uncle Sam but he might as well have wished for a mountain of Hershey Kisses this high!  We're the empire now.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
::)


What you say is right on, very simplified, but right on, but I'm not seeing the connection???

Well thats Obama's and Pelosi's fault if they can't get bills through the US House I mean they have 256 Dem House Members and need only what 214-219 votes to pass a bill?


And that is the bottom line.  O'bama and Pelosi shot their wads.  Lots of smoke and noise but little of what their constituencies wanted and were promised, and at the same time they have managed to alienate a whole lot of people.

The past two years will go down in history as how a sitting President and his party managed to squander an overwhelming majority in Congress.

Seems to me that the policies you call failed are policies you disagree with.  Obamacare, with vall its faults, gives use some protection against the rapacious policies of insurance companies.  The stimulus worked, to a point, but was, as Paul Krugman has said repeatedly, was just to small.

On the other hand, Bush's policies have lead to the biggest increase in poverty in memory.  The result of his (and Clinton"s) deregulations
True Obama Care has a protection with people with medical pre-existing conditions can get insurance and not be knocked off their insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

Obama Care lacks anything when it comes to cost containment and that was nearly the whole reason for doing healthcare reform. Even Bill Clinton said Obama Care needs more when it comes to cost containment.

The stimulus worked to a point? Well it sure didn't prevent unemployment staying at a rate of 8% like the Obama Administration said it would.

As for the Stimulus not being big enough. I heard it was loaded with too much pork and too many pet projects.

Bush's Policies led to the biggest increase in poverty? I saw the stat poverty in the newspaper on Friday that the current poverty rate is at its highest rate since 1994.Obama has been in office for 19 months. Please don;'t use the same excuse "that its all Bush's fault" like Obama does.

What did Bush(W.) deregulate anyway? You have to refresh my memory on that one. I agree that Clinton's deregulations when it came to repealing Glass-Stegall was a horrible thing.

It should be good for the Democrats if the Republicans have to compete with the Tea Party.  If the Tea Party could establish a third party, get themselves in the debates, and on the ballots, it would devastate the Republicans.  Ross Perot was great for Bill Clinton.


I'd actually like to see that happen too, though.  Let the Jesus Party become the Tea Party, and let the Goldwater types take back the GOP.  It might take a couple of electoral cycles of de facto one-party rule (that's how the Bush II administration got itself into trouble, is it not?), but it'll self-correct.  Given a choice between the Tea Party, a Goldwateresque GOP, or the present-day Democratic Party -- I'll bet that in that circumstance, the moderates wouldn't just have an option, they'd actually have power, as both the Democrats and the neo-Goldwaterites would try to court their support.

All of which is a moot point.  There will be no third party.  The Tea Party could have been an alternative, but it was immediately (it took about a month from Santelli's initial CNBC rant) hijacked by the present-day-GOP.  There is no Tea Party: you can't vote "Tea" in November.  You can only vote (R) or (D), even though the (R) option is increasingly likely to be a theocrat who's hijacked what was once the GOP.

It's like a political version of the Sorcerer's Apprentice: the Schiavo debacle was the moment the GOP brass decided they could win by courting the theocrats and actively purging the libertarian wing from the GOP.  In so doing, they ended up creating something they couldn't control.  Sucks to be them, but it's funny as hell for those of us who've given up on the political process and are just laughing from the sidelines as the Republic implodes. 

The Consitution's a self-correcting system: if the system works, it'll reconstitute itself soon enough.  If the system fails, the American experiment failed, and whatever happens next is up to whoever takes over.  Even at my most cynical, I can't deny that we survived the Civil War.  We'll survive this.

I'd actually like to see that happen too, though.  Let the Jesus Party become the Tea Party, and let the Goldwater types take back the GOP.  It might take a couple of electoral cycles of de facto one-party rule (that's how the Bush II administration got itself into trouble, is it not?), but it'll self-correct.  Given a choice between the Tea Party, a Goldwateresque GOP, or the present-day Democratic Party -- I'll bet that in that circumstance, the moderates wouldn't just have an option, they'd actually have power, as both the Democrats and the neo-Goldwaterites would try to court their support.

All of which is a moot point.  There will be no third party.  The Tea Party could have been an alternative, but it was immediately (it took about a month from Santelli's initial CNBC rant) hijacked by the present-day-GOP.  There is no Tea Party: you can't vote "Tea" in November.  You can only vote (R) or (D), even though the (R) option is increasingly likely to be a theocrat who's hijacked what was once the GOP.

It's like a political version of the Sorcerer's Apprentice: the Schiavo debacle was the moment the GOP brass decided they could win by courting the theocrats and actively purging the libertarian wing from the GOP.  In so doing, they ended up creating something they couldn't control.  Sucks to be them, but it's funny as hell for those of us who've given up on the political process and are just laughing from the sidelines as the Republic implodes. 

The Consitution's a self-correcting system: if the system works, it'll reconstitute itself soon enough.  If the system fails, the American experiment failed, and whatever happens next is up to whoever takes over.  Even at my most cynical, I can't deny that we survived the Civil War.  We'll survive this.


BTW, my mother voted for Perot, saying of Clinton, "I just don't trust that man!"
;D

The Tea Party was bought out by the Koch Brothers.  Should be the Koch Party (in all homophonic and humorous ways). 

As long as politicians have to owe their sorry asses to commercial enterprise, they can't stand up for anything that differs from what commercial enterprise wants.  In earlier times 90% of Congress would be hanging from gibbets for bribery alone!  I abhor capital punishment, but maybe something like that might send a message.  I dunno.  I don't advocate any kind of violence.  Not for me, thanks.  Unfortunately, there are those who do.  Keep the gun clubs on your side.  NRA guys don't like it when you pee down their backs and tell 'em it's raining.  I mean, we've got the second amendment and a whole lotta strong words on the issue from Tommy Jeff!
:o

BTW, my mother voted for Perot, saying of Clinton, "I just don't trust that man!"
;D

The Tea Party was bought out by the Koch Brothers.  Should be the Koch Party (in all homophonic and humorous ways). 

As long as politicians have to owe their sorry asses to commercial enterprise, they can't stand up for anything that differs from what commercial enterprise wants.  In earlier times 90% of Congress would be hanging from gibbets for bribery alone!  I abhor capital punishment, but maybe something like that might send a message.  I dunno.  I don't advocate any kind of violence.  Not for me, thanks.  Unfortunately, there are those who do.  Keep the gun clubs on your side.  NRA guys don't like it when you pee down their backs and tell 'em it's raining.  I mean, we've got the second amendment and a whole lotta strong words on the issue from Tommy Jeff!
:o


Wasn't it Sharon Angel who said if her side didn't win they would resort to 2nd amendment remedies?  Puts me in mind of advice some of Allende's people gave him before the coup, ie arm the masses.  His response - "How many masses does it take to stop a tank?"  Now that would be a show worthy of the Roman Coliseum.

Wasn't it Sharon Angel who said if her side didn't win they would resort to 2nd amendment remedies?  Puts me in mind of advice some of Allende's people gave him before the coup, ie arm the masses.  His response - "How many masses does it take to stop a tank?"  Now that would be a show worthy of the Roman Coliseum.


The Coliseum will be televised!  
:o

Your favorite politician's name is Sharon Angle.  If you share an angle with her, I can't share a beer and a joint with you.
:(

The Coliseum will be televised!  
:o

Your favorite politician's name is Sharon Angle.  If you share an angle with her, I can't share a beer and a joint with you.
:(


I assume you're referring to joint of beef, as in "a fag and a joint" as I hear they say across the pond.

I assume you're referring to joint of beef, as in "a fag and a joint" as I hear they say across the pond.


Of course, you didn't think I was talking about...you know!
8)

Of course, you didn't think I was talking about...you know!
8)


Of course not, you know we don't, pooooooooooooooooo, do that any more

Of course not, you know we don't, pooooooooooooooooo, do that any more


Sometimes it's time to move on...
:)