Election Results [Archive] - Firehouse Forums

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-03-2009, 11:19 PM

I have met Chris Christie a couple of times. He is a solid guy, good family man and he is pro-public safety. He is going to have an uphill fight to get anything done in this state, but he has the moxy to do it.

I refuse to run around high-fiving people over tonight's results. IT most certainly is encouraging. But to call a couple of elections a mandate is not smart. Two governorships are not going to change the course of national politics. Except in one area. These victories effectively kill the health care bill being pushed by Pelost and Reid.

The challenge will be to continue the momentum into the mid terms. The model here is 1994.

One other thing. I think the campaign run by McDonnell should be the model for 2010. I don't believe that regular people enjoy mud-slinging and negative campaigning. Staying positive in a strong conservative campaign will go a long way towards the plurality the GOP must win.

MarcusKspn

11-04-2009, 01:25 AM

I refuse to run around high-fiving people over tonight's results. IT most certainly is encouraging. But to call a couple of elections a mandate is not smart. Two governorships are not going to change the course of national politics. Except in one area. These victories effectively kill the health care bill being pushed by Pelost and Reid.

Virginia and New Jersey are kind of weird. It seems like they have gone towards the opposition party to the President since Bush Sr. When Clinton took office both went to Republicans, when Bush Jr. took office both went to Democrats, now with Obama both went to Republicans again. That seems to be their pattern, so I don't know how much of a "mandate" this really is.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/03/art.govraces1.cnn.jpg

I think that NY 23 might be the most important race when it comes to predicting the future for 2010. It might give us an idea where the leadership of the Republican Party is headed. Will the Republican "base" (the voters) agree with the leadership that more conservative is the way to go? It seems that Owens (D) is going to win the seat for now (@ 0020 Central).

One other thing. I think the campaign run by McDonnell should be the model for 2010. I don't believe that regular people enjoy mud-slinging and negative campaigning. Staying positive in a strong conservative campaign will go a long way towards the plurality the GOP must win.

I agree 100%. I hate the negative campaigning. It always makes me wonder if you just have nothing positive to say about yourself and the only thing you have left is to drag the other person through the mud to make yourself look better. Campaigning used to mean that people are trying to convince me to vote for them. More and more it seems that people are trying to tell me not to vote for the other guy/gal.

MarcusKspn

11-04-2009, 03:26 AM

More observations:

Looks like the independents swung to the right this time around. In NJ and VA the independents favored the GOP by 60% and 65%. The independents are a fickle group, and it is pretty clea that neither party has them in their pocket.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-04-2009, 07:18 AM

I disagree completely about NY 23. There will be no election in the country like it next year. There was a moderate Republican (use that term loosely) incumbent who could not win. She left the race in the last hour and released her voters to vote for the Democrat. The third party Conservative party candidate STILL got 45% of the vote. If the incumbent had stayed in the race, the Conservative party candidate would have won. I don' see how that mirrors any other race in the country, at least how they are set up

DaSharkie

11-04-2009, 08:59 AM

The biggest kick I got out of last night was the outright lie (as I see it) that Mr. Obama was not watching news of the elections last night. What a crock of bovine tripe that was.

An off year election that is not even a "mid-term" election is no bellweather on what people think. Nor is it really an indicator for next year's battle royal.

That being said, in the next 12 months you will see the moronic, half-wit, inbred, scumbag, career criminals on Capital Hill will scramble like mad. They will ram through health care (whether it passes or not is a different story), they will try to pass Cap & Trade, and push a few other projects while they know that they have the votes to do it because they know that their control in power next year will be much less, and the margins of passage and control in the House will be less and they will not have the power they think they have now.

I can't wait to watch the fun, because in the next year the incumbents will be on edge because their votes in the next 12 months will come back and bite them in the arse.

Additionally, the economy is still in the dumper and despite the fake optimistic tone coming out of D.C., there will be higher unemployment in a year, less financial security, more irate voters, more national debt and deficit, and many failed "stimulus" efforts that will lie squarely at the foot of the current crop of Senators, House members, and the President - although after 22 months in office they will still be blaming Bush instead of taking responsibility for their own failures and inability to correct the hand they were dealt.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-04-2009, 09:24 AM

They may very well pass some sort of health care insurance reform. But the 1900 pages of liberal crap being pushed by Pelosi and Reid is dead. Cap and trade is also dead.

Polls show that these are extremely unpopular programs with the US electorate. I heard someone say last night that when politicians are more afraid of their constituents than they are of their leadership, they will do what the electorate says and abandon their leadership. Many Democrats who come from relatively conservative districts are simply not going to risk their careers for these unpopular ultra-liberal agendas.

I am also looking forward to seeing the poll results on Independent voters in VA and NY23. The exit poll results from NJ last night (that I saw on local cable channel News 12NJ showed about 55% of independents voted for the GOP candidate, about 31% went for the Dem and the rest went to the Indy candidate or others. If that result repeats itself across the country, it very well could be 1994 all over again.

But I really hope and pray that the GOP legislators up for re-election in 2010 remain positive, remain on message and stay true to the time-proven conservative principles that are being pushed by the electorate today.

ChiefKN

11-04-2009, 09:28 AM

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-04-2009, 09:55 AM

I'm also encouraged by Chris Christie's win.

The very first thing he MUST do is to deal with the out of control corruption. It is this state's shame.

If any of the most recent candidates or winners have a chance at it, he does. Great record as a prosecutor in that regard.

After that it is taxes.

I just have to say this. Why on earth would the voters approve $400 million in NEW DEBT for open space, the same year they vote in a republican governor?

I just don't get it. We are our own worst enemy.

.

Agreed.

My taxes this year will over $12,000 for 1.9 acres with well and septic. I am not naive enough to believe that they will ever go down. But having not go up several hundred dollars a year would be a plus.

As far as the question, I think it stems from the fact that people are afraid of more development. They actually believe that this program is preventing development. In reality it is buying farmland, wetlands and pet projects (urban parking lots, for example). I voted no, and the question was defeated in Morris County overwhelmingly. But, I guess we have to be happy with the victories we won.

voyager9

11-04-2009, 10:22 AM

They may very well pass some sort of health care insurance reform. But the 1900 pages of liberal crap being pushed by Pelosi and Reid is dead. Cap and trade is also dead.

How does the NJ/VA election kill the current Health Care push? Just curious.

I'm just glad the election is over. Between Friday and Monday night I had close to 50 automatic "Vote-for-me" calls.

KyleWickman

11-04-2009, 01:21 PM

Did he really say the Obama was not watching the returns? After 5 visits to NJ and millions of dollars, he was not watching the returns?

I have a bridge for sale.

BULL321

11-04-2009, 01:37 PM

In these hard economic times, who paid for all those friendly little trips that Mr. Obama took to visit his friend in NJ? That was money well spent. And that is change you can believe in.:mad:

Stay Safe
Bull

MarcusKspn

11-04-2009, 02:14 PM

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-04-2009, 03:13 PM

How does the NJ/VA election kill the current Health Care push? Just curious.

Asked and answered in Post #8.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-04-2009, 03:19 PM

Surprise: Elections not a referendum on Obama! (At least according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/election.analysis/index.html) :p)

And of course FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/gop-democrats-different-views-republican-victories/) is featuring the headline that voters spoke out against Obama. :p

I'm pretty sure that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that Obama was the driving force behind the Republican wins, but I also don't think that he had nothing to do with pushing some voters towards the Republican candidates. If anybody is at "fault" for causing the Republicans to win (how dare voters pick Republicans :rolleyes:), I think that Reid and Pelosi had more success in pushing voters away.

The independent voters will be pretty interesting in 2010. I think a large percentage of independents could consider themselves D's or R's, but they are not comfortable with the extremes that both parties are often portraying. Both parties have a stable base, all they have to do is go get their supporters to actually get out and vote. The independent voters could be the deal breaker in 2010.

Is it impossible for you to have intellectually honest discussion about politics? Honest to God, this is getting ridiculous.

You have completely micharaterized the story on Fox News.

1. They did not write the story. They are quoting what Michael Steele, the Chairman of the RNC, had to say.

2. Mr. Steele did not say that the voters spoke out against Pres. Obama. The article says that the voters spoke out against his POLICIES. I watched Fox News most of the night and heard various people on that network make the point that Pres. Obama is still popular, that voters actually like the man. But they also quoted exit poll results that show blocks of voters were motivated
to vote for the GOP candidates as a result of a negative reaction to the Democrat policies.

MarcusKspn

11-04-2009, 04:29 PM

Is it impossible for you to have intellectually honest discussion about politics? Honest to God, this is getting ridiculous.

What the heck is wrong with you George? Are you just sitting there like a bitter old man looking for anything and any reason to get into an argument?

You have completely micharaterized the story on Fox News.

1. They did not write the story. They are quoting what Michael Steele, the Chairman of the RNC, had to say.

George, I said (as you quoted) that FoxNews is running the HEADLINE that voters spoke on Obama. If you click on the link and read the top of the browser window (or the really big letter on the beginning of the article) you can see that.

Here is a pretty picture of the FoxNews front page as of 1500 Central:

http://www.d-usa.info/uploads/FoxNewsHeadline.jpg

The big fat headline in the middle is FoxNews featuring the story that the election are a result of the people speaking out against Obama. FoxNews doesn't have to write the story, the are giving the speaker a platform on the top of the front page. One might dare say that FoxNews is the mouth of the Republican Party :rolleyes:.

CNN has a tiny headline about how it is not a referendum against Obama. I would guess that by tonight or tomorrow the headline will drop to the bottom. You can only spin a loss so many times before people realize that it is pure damage control. I'm sure that CNN will try to move on from this story as fast as possible.

2. Mr. Steele did not say that the voters spoke out against Pres. Obama. The article says that the voters spoke out against his POLICIES.

Now you are just grasping at straws. We both know that people vote for policies. They don't vote for a guy that they like. I might think that Obama is a fun guy to have a beer with, but if I don't agree with his policies then I will not vote for him.

I watched Fox News most of the night and heard various people on that network make the point that Pres. Obama is still popular, that voters actually like the man. But they also quoted exit poll results that show blocks of voters were motivated
to vote for the GOP candidates as a result of a negative reaction to the Democrat policies.

Like I said earlier: Obama the President = Obama and his policies. Do you think that in 2012 people will go: "I don't agree with Obama on his policies, but he is a swell guy, so I think I will vote for him again."? Policies are what get's a president elected. If people don't like your policies, then they don't like you.

Your argument sounds like you are a girl dumping her boyfriend: "You are a good guy, and I like you. It's not that you are a bad person, we are just going in different directions in our lives right now. I'm sure we can still be friends...."

George, you are becoming more and more transparent. You are an angry person, I would dare say that you are bordering on hate. You are the only person that is beating ScareCrow when it comes to starting anti-Obama threads. Look through all the threads and see who is fighting anybody who is remotely pro-Obama. The two biggest posters are George and ScareCrow. If we were to judge you by the company you keep, then it doesn't look pretty.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-04-2009, 05:53 PM

What the heck is wrong with you George? Are you just sitting there like a bitter old man looking for anything and any reason to get into an argument?

George, I said (as you quoted) that FoxNews is running the HEADLINE that voters spoke on Obama. If you click on the link and read the top of the browser window (or the really big letter on the beginning of the article) you can see that.

Here is a pretty picture of the FoxNews front page as of 1500 Central:

http://www.d-usa.info/uploads/FoxNewsHeadline.jpg

The big fat headline in the middle is FoxNews featuring the story that the election are a result of the people speaking out against Obama. FoxNews doesn't have to write the story, the are giving the speaker a platform on the top of the front page. One might dare say that FoxNews is the mouth of the Republican Party :rolleyes:.

CNN has a tiny headline about how it is not a referendum against Obama. I would guess that by tonight or tomorrow the headline will drop to the bottom. You can only spin a loss so many times before people realize that it is pure damage control. I'm sure that CNN will try to move on from this story as fast as possible.

Now you are just grasping at straws. We both know that people vote for policies. They don't vote for a guy that they like. I might think that Obama is a fun guy to have a beer with, but if I don't agree with his policies then I will not vote for him.

Like I said earlier: Obama the President = Obama and his policies. Do you think that in 2012 people will go: "I don't agree with Obama on his policies, but he is a swell guy, so I think I will vote for him again."? Policies are what get's a president elected. If people don't like your policies, then they don't like you.

Your argument sounds like you are a girl dumping her boyfriend: "You are a good guy, and I like you. It's not that you are a bad person, we are just going in different directions in our lives right now. I'm sure we can still be friends...."

George, you are becoming more and more transparent. You are an angry person, I would dare say that you are bordering on hate. You are the only person that is beating ScareCrow when it comes to starting anti-Obama threads. Look through all the threads and see who is fighting anybody who is remotely pro-Obama. The two biggest posters are George and ScareCrow. If we were to judge you by the company you keep, then it doesn't look pretty.

If you read the posts I wrote before you ruined this thread, you will see that there was zero anger and zero hate. I, and others, were posting intelligent views about what happened last night absent the partisan nonsense you bring around.

I do not hate Pres. Obama. I disagree vehemently his policies. I believe his policies, if enacted, would destroy this country in short order. That is far different from hate. Yes, there is a difference. Otherwise. he wouldn't have a 50% approval rating while his policies like health care are running negative ratings in the 75% range.

Your girlfriend analogy is absurd and gives insight into your intellgence and maturity.

MarcusKspn

11-04-2009, 06:06 PM

If you read the posts I wrote before you ruined this thread, you will see that there was zero anger and zero hate. I, and others, were posting intelligent views about what happened last night absent the partisan nonsense you bring around.

I do not hate Pres. Obama. I disagree vehemently his policies. I believe his policies, if enacted, would destroy this country in short order. That is far different from hate. Yes, there is a difference. Otherwise. he wouldn't have a 50% approval rating while his policies like health care are running negative ratings in the 75% range.

Your girlfriend analogy is absurd and gives insight into your intellgence and maturity.

George, anything you disagree with is partisan according to your book. And your partisan views are the truth :rolleyes:.

In this thread I talked about how the Democrats are loosing independent voters. I talked about how independents are sick of the extremes of both parties. I talked about how CNN is trying to downplay the fact that Obama does represent the Democratic Party and probably had an influence on the outcome of the elections. I talked about how CNN is trying to move quickly to talk about anything else but the outcome of this election.I talked about how Pelosi and Reid are having a negative impact on the Democratic Party. I agreed that McDonnell ran a positive campaign, and that positive campaigns are an important aspect in any election. If the Republicans can run a "vote for me" instead of a "don't vote for the other guy" campaign they will have a good shot in 2010.

But you focused on my "misrepresentation" of a FoxNews headline. And how that makes me partisan. :rolleyes: If FoxNews did not write the article, they are giving the GOP a free spot on their homepage to tell their story.

Here is your non-partisan posting record:

http://d-usa.info/uploads/ThreadsstartedbyGeorge.jpg

I would take a long hard look in the mirror before you start calling anybody partisan. This forum is leaning very heavily towards the conservative side, I am overcome by the amount of people that have come to your defense when it comes to your rants.

And just to clarify. I stayed on subject and talked about the elections. You started the personal attacks. If you can't deal with the message, I guess it's easier to shoot the messenger.

ScareCrow57

11-04-2009, 07:27 PM

I live in the 23 rd congressional district and watched this race closely. Owens outspent Hoffman by almost 2 to 1. Owens spent 1.1million, Hoffman about 650,000, and Scabafozza spent around $900,000. Many locals who are active in the Republican Party were furious that this RINO was picked by the crew of 11. The right thing for her to do would have to simply bow out of the race and not endorsed anyone. Instead, she stabbed the Republican Party and the conservatives square in the back by waiting to the last minute and then throwing her support to one candidate. It left no time for those supporters of Scabafozza to actually analyze the other two candidates. Had she stayed in the race Hoffman would have one for sure. As it was, a relative unknown nearly one the race with far less funding. A more organized effort in the future and the 2 party system is in danger of collapse.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-05-2009, 07:56 AM

George, anything you disagree with is partisan according to your book. And your partisan views are the truth :rolleyes:.

In this thread I talked about how the Democrats are loosing independent voters. I talked about how independents are sick of the extremes of both parties. I talked about how CNN is trying to downplay the fact that Obama does represent the Democratic Party and probably had an influence on the outcome of the elections. I talked about how CNN is trying to move quickly to talk about anything else but the outcome of this election.I talked about how Pelosi and Reid are having a negative impact on the Democratic Party. I agreed that McDonnell ran a positive campaign, and that positive campaigns are an important aspect in any election. If the Republicans can run a "vote for me" instead of a "don't vote for the other guy" campaign they will have a good shot in 2010.

But you focused on my "misrepresentation" of a FoxNews headline. And how that makes me partisan. :rolleyes: If FoxNews did not write the article, they are giving the GOP a free spot on their homepage to tell their story.

Here is your non-partisan posting record:

http://d-usa.info/uploads/ThreadsstartedbyGeorge.jpg

I would take a long hard look in the mirror before you start calling anybody partisan. This forum is leaning very heavily towards the conservative side, I am overcome by the amount of people that have come to your defense when it comes to your rants.

And just to clarify. I stayed on subject and talked about the elections. You started the personal attacks. If you can't deal with the message, I guess it's easier to shoot the messenger.

I'm not non-partisan. I never said I was. I am a proud conservative. I support conservative policies and values. I support candidates who are conservatives. When did I ever say that I was non-partisan?

I can answer that for you? Never.

I do, however, believe that the best way to solve alot of the problems the country faces today is a bi-partisan approach. The problem here is that a liberals' definition of bi-partisan is "Do what I want without arguing with me. If you argue with me or debate me, you are a hate monger".

I'm wrong? Really? Where is the liberal's bi-partisan approach to the health care insurance problem? Exactly. Now, when conservatives offer their suggestions, instead of debate or compromise, they hear that they want to deny health care to people and their motivation is hate.

Fact.

I enjoy politics. I enjoy engagement with informed, intelligent people, regardless of their political viewpoint. This is exactly why I publicly apologized to both noz and sc for the way I acgted towards them. We are diametrically opposed on almost every subject, but they are informed and intelligent and offer vigorous debate.

I don't enjoy reading the ill-informed commentary of those on here who are ignorant of the facts of the issues and simply spew forth talking points, again, regardless of the person's ideology.

I have disagreed with many of the policies of the Bush administration and I have said so right here. Some of these policies were not consistent with conservatism. Examples are the policy on illegal immigration and the pre-surge policy in the war in Iraq. I try to stay informed on the issues, as well as current events. I try not to offer my opinion on things I am not informed about.

I find your criticism of my posting of my beliefs and my defense of conservatism somewhat disturbing, yet typcial. I disagree with you, so I am hateful. I will say it again. I do not hate Pres. Obama. I vehemently disagree with his policies and the direction that he is taking this country. I do not hate Pres. Clinton. But I am angered by the disrespect he showed this country and the direction he took it. And I am not ashamed or embarased of my postings of my beliefs on these policies.

And I have no plans to stop any time soon.

MarcusKspn

11-05-2009, 08:05 AM

I'm wrong? Really? Where is the liberal's bi-partisan approach to the health care insurance problem? Exactly. Now, when conservatives offer their suggestions, instead of debate or compromise, they hear that they want to deny health care to people and their motivation is hate.

Fact.

The libs have the majority they need to ram this bill through Congress. They did not need to ask the Republicans what they thought, they don't need to compromise. If the want to be partisan, they have the votes to pull it off. If the want to say F*** Y** to the republicans they have the votes to pull it off 6 months ago.

It's pretty hard for the Republicans to compain about the Democrats being partisan when all they have done is bitch about everything the Dems are doing.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-05-2009, 08:09 AM

The libs have the majority they need to ram this bill through Congress. They did not need to ask the Republicans what they thought, they don't need to compromise. If the want to be partisan, they have the votes to pull it off. If the want to say F*** Y** to the republicans they have the votes to pull it off 6 months ago.

It's pretty hard for the Republicans to compain about the Democrats being partisan when all they have done is bitch about everything the Dems are doing.

You see, this is what I mean about being misinformed.

1. The liberals HAVE said F*** Y**! I would call locking Republicans out of committee meetings and caucus meetings saying "F*** Y**! ".
2. The GOP has offered a very detailed plan for improving health care insurance that includes tort reform and allowing insurance companies to do business across state lines. You should do a little research before you make such comments as "all the Republicans do is bitch". But thank you for making my point.

BTW, I added some more to my post while you were writing this.

MarcusKspn

11-05-2009, 08:12 AM

BTW, I added some more to my post while you were writing this.

You enjoy discussion, until you are wrong. Then you resort to name calling and stomping your feet.

If you can look back over the last 9 months you will find that the quality of your posts has decreased dramatically.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-05-2009, 08:29 AM

You enjoy discussion, until you are wrong. Then you resort to name calling and stomping your feet.

If you can look back over the last 9 months you will find that the quality of your posts has decreased dramatically.

I guess that is your opinion. I do not agree even a smidge. Of course, it is also your opinion that someone is wrong. Someone as misinformed as you are should probably not be telling people they are wrong.

MarcusKspn

11-05-2009, 08:39 AM

Someone as misinformed as you are should probably not be telling people they are wrong.

Yeah, I'm such a misinformed misguided person. Poor me.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-05-2009, 09:09 AM

Yeah, I'm such a misinformed misguided person. Poor me.

I didn't say misguided. I said misinformed.

ChiefKN

11-05-2009, 04:25 PM

The libs have the majority they need to ram this bill through Congress. They did not need to ask the Republicans what they thought, they don't need to compromise. If the want to be partisan, they have the votes to pull it off. If the want to say F*** Y** to the republicans they have the votes to pull it off 6 months ago.

You are not dealing with the facts here. The republicans have not been involved and have been specifically excluded.

The reason for the delays is because the democratic party is not unified.

Usually, this sort of problem would be blamed on the party leadership, in most cases, the president. Seems to me that the President is not the leader that most claim that he is. He can't even wrangle his own party, which has been hijacked by the "progressives".

It's pretty hard for the Republicans to compain about the Democrats being partisan when all they have done is bitch about everything the Dems are doing.

That comment really doesn't make sense.

Are the democrats partisan or not? You seem to contradict yourself here.

You seem to be implying that they are acting in a partisan fashion in response to the republican's "bitching".

The reality is, other then Olympia Snowe, they have ignored the republicans thinking they have enough votes, or as Obama has pointed out when the topic of a bi-partisan approach was raised, "I won".

.

ScareCrow57

11-05-2009, 04:31 PM

ScareCrow57

11-05-2009, 04:33 PM

You are not dealing with the facts here. The republicans have not been involved and have been specifically excluded.

The reason for the delays is because the democratic party is not unified.

Usually, this sort of problem would be blamed on the party leadership, in most cases, the president. Seems to me that the President is not the leader that most claim that he is. He can't even wrangle his own party, which has been hijacked by the "progressives".

That comment really doesn't make sense.

Are the democrats partisan or not? You seem to contradict yourself here.

You seem to be implying that they are acting in a partisan fashion in response to the republican's "bitching".

The reality is, other then Olympia Snowe, they have ignored the republicans thinking they have enough votes, or as Obama has pointed out when the topic of a bi-partisan approach was raised, "I won".

.

You make the assumption the party has leadership. Lacking leaders there is no direction, hence the current floundering. A leader would have said this is what we are doing and this is what I want. Like the Bush policies or Not, that is one thing Bush did very well. He was a leader.

MarcusKspn

11-05-2009, 06:50 PM

That comment really doesn't make sense.

Are the democrats partisan or not? You seem to contradict yourself here.

You seem to be implying that they are acting in a partisan fashion in response to the republican's "bitching".

The section you quoted was pretty hard to read, I didn't make myself very clear on that section. I was not trying to say that the Democrats are blameless. I was trying to say that the Republicans are just as guilty.

My problem is that the minority party (R or D) always acts the same way. They complain about the majority being partisan, and unwilling to work together in the spirit of bi-partisanship. But then they just sit there and are unwilling to compromise. Nobody wants to meet in the middle.

The Republicans (in this current instance) complain about the Democrats being partisan and unwilling to cooperate. But what have the Republicans done to show their bi-partisanship? I think it's hard for the Republicans to point their fingers at the Dems and scream "partisan, partisan" if the Republicans are not willing to compromise on anything. To most people up on the hill being bi-partisan means "you will agree to do it my way".

It's not bi-partisanship if nobody is willing to compromise. The Democrats do have their problems, but the Republicans are not sitting on their side of the aisle itching to work with the Dems either. I think that this (partisanship) is probably the single biggest problem with a two-party system.

On health care: I do believe that the Dems could have rammed this down the throats of the Republicans months ago if they wanted to. There has been a concentrated effort to work on compromises. It seems like a lot of that effort has gone out the window over the last month.

MarcusKspn

11-05-2009, 06:54 PM

You make the assumption the party has leadership. Lacking leaders there is no direction, hence the current floundering. A leader would have said this is what we are doing and this is what I want. Like the Bush policies or Not, that is one thing Bush did very well. He was a leader.

You should go to some of the non-political forums and read the definitions of leadership.

"It's my way or the highway" is not one of the definitions...

ScareCrow57

11-05-2009, 07:52 PM

The section you quoted was pretty hard to read, I didn't make myself very clear on that section. I was not trying to say that the Democrats are blameless. I was trying to say that the Republicans are just as guilty.

My problem is that the minority party (R or D) always acts the same way. They complain about the majority being partisan, and unwilling to work together in the spirit of bi-partisanship. But then they just sit there and are unwilling to compromise. Nobody wants to meet in the middle.

The Republicans (in this current instance) complain about the Democrats being partisan and unwilling to cooperate. But what have the Republicans done to show their bi-partisanship? I think it's hard for the Republicans to point their fingers at the Dems and scream "partisan, partisan" if the Republicans are not willing to compromise on anything. To most people up on the hill being bi-partisan means "you will agree to do it my way".

It's not bi-partisanship if nobody is willing to compromise. The Democrats do have their problems, but the Republicans are not sitting on their side of the aisle itching to work with the Dems either. I think that this (partisanship) is probably the single biggest problem with a two-party system.

On health care: I do believe that the Dems could have rammed this down the throats of the Republicans months ago if they wanted to. There has been a concentrated effort to work on compromises. It seems like a lot of that effort has gone out the window over the last month.

I have been saying similar things for months, R or D it makes no difference. They both look out for the rich, feed the poor, and put the screws to the middle class. The minority will also say they are not being included. That s why it is good to have a majority of one party in the senate and a majority of the other party in the house. Together they come up with compromises that get through both places.

The only reason there is no Health Care legislation now is that not all of the Democrats are on board with the far right.

ScareCrow57

11-05-2009, 07:54 PM

You should go to some of the non-political forums and read the definitions of leadership.

"It's my way or the highway" is not one of the definitions...

Yes, but providing a direction and a goal is. The goal that was given the congress was we need health care reform (which can be many things). There was no direction on the kinds of reform, what changes were needed, or what it should look like. No guidance at all. As a result, you have 535 elected officials all running around doing their own thing.

ChiefKN

11-05-2009, 10:47 PM

On health care: I do believe that the Dems could have rammed this down the throats of the Republicans months ago if they wanted to. There has been a concentrated effort to work on compromises. It seems like a lot of that effort has gone out the window over the last month.

Seriously Marcus, you need to read more.

The debate is not between dems and republicans. It's progressive democrats (we want public option) vs. BlueDogs (no public option).

The only republican that I've heard of in the entire discussion was Olympia Snowe.

.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-05-2009, 11:14 PM

But what have the Republicans done to show their bi-partisanship?

Are you for real? After they have been shut out of committee meetings and had the rules changed to prevent a filibuster, what are they supposed to do? As I said before, liberals idea of "bipartisan" is to shut up and do whatever I say.

The GOP introduced a very intelligent bill today. How much of it will the Dem leadership adopt in the interest? My guess is none of it.

MarcusKspn

11-05-2009, 11:26 PM

The only republican that I've heard of in the entire discussion was Olympia Snowe.

She was blasted for even working with the Dems and voting on the "compromise" bill, even by people on this board.

And in the end her compromise was thrown out by the Dems :(

MarcusKspn

11-05-2009, 11:29 PM

As I said before, liberals idea of "bipartisan" is to shut up and do whatever I say.

And how are the Republicans any different?

They were doing the same, and when (it's not an if) they return to power they will do the same again.

It's easy to complain about it now, but they will do the same when they can. And when the Republicans return to power and push partisanship through Congress. Then the minority Democrats will whine about the lack of bi-partisanship in Congress.

Everyone does it, everyone complains about it. (And that does not mean that I think it is OK)

MarcusKspn

11-06-2009, 12:18 AM

The GOP introduced a very intelligent bill today. How much of it will the Dem leadership adopt in the interest? My guess is none of it.

I don't know if you will be back on tonight, but:

I meant to ask you what the number of the bill was, I'm in triage tonight so there is a good chance that I can spend some time reading.

Update:

I was able to find some info from the CBO about the proposals.

The Democrats House Bill (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf)

The Republicans Proposal (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf)

Some quick highlights:

Democrats: According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result
in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period

Republicans: According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the amendment would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $68 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

Democrats: By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 36 million, leaving about 18 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under H.R. 3962, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent
currently to about 96 percent.

Republicans: By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health
insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share.

So the Republican bill would have a smaller effect on reducing the deficit and at the same time it would cover fever Americans. The Democratic bill covers more people and saves more money. Looking at the projections it seems like the biggest slice of savings from the Democrats bill comes in 2012 (49 billions shaved off the deficit), I really wouldn't be surprised if that is playing politics. Nothing like reducing the deficit by almost 50 billion during an election year.

The only other downside I noticed while scanning the Republican proposal was that it included Tord Reform. I think that Tord Reform is an important aspect, but it should be handled as a separate bill. A blanket cap on damages is not the way to go IMO. Some practitioners have just commited actions that are borderline criminal and victims should have a means to collect from them. I would strongly support a system that would make sure that lawsuits have some validity before they can be filed. I think that much can be reformed in the arena of class action lawsuits as well.

Both parties are pretty bad about including pet projects in important bills, and I'm sure that Democrats got their share in those 1,900 pages.

DaSharkie

11-06-2009, 06:08 AM

She was blasted for even working with the Dems and voting on the "compromise" bill, even by people on this board.

And in the end her compromise was thrown out by the Dems :(

The reason being that before she voted for it, she even said it was not the best bill and it still needed a lot of work. Why the Hell would you vote for something that you know still sucks? Especially given that the Democrats have not engaged Republicans.

MarcusKspn

11-06-2009, 06:21 AM

The reason being that before she voted for it, she even said it was not the best bill and it still needed a lot of work. Why the Hell would you vote for something that you know still sucks? Especially given that the Democrats have not engaged Republicans.

She would have to answer that. The biggest shame is that even if she voted for it thinking that she did the right thing, the Dems ignored her compromise and changed the bill back.

ScareCrow57

11-06-2009, 08:46 AM

Here is the real issue with the "Health Care Reform" those in favor have played on peoples fears to create an imaginary problem. The reform is nothing more than an expansion of the currently failing and broke medicare, medicaid, SCHIP and other systems. I would like to see the people like Pelosi own up to the fact she is simply trying to expand a social program. This legislation will do nothing to reform the system and cut cost.

I might have a better time buying in if they would stop ******ING on me and tell me it is raining. Simply put, I don't trust them any more than I trust the insurance companies. I do however trust the insurance companies 10 times more than these career politicians.

doughesson

11-06-2009, 02:33 PM

It's pretty hard for the Republicans to compain about the Democrats being partisan when all they have done is bitch about everything the Dems are doing.

How is keeping from passing bad legislation as the People of this country want to be done a bad thing?
I thought we elected congresscritters to represent us not do what THEY think is best for us like we were too stoopid to think for ourselves.
Any Senator or Representative who thinks that they are there to pass into law whatever Bill comes to their little mind with no input from the voters needs to resign effective immediately and do it forthwith.

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-06-2009, 03:03 PM

And how are the Republicans any different?

They were doing the same, and when (it's not an if) they return to power they will do the same again.

It's easy to complain about it now, but they will do the same when they can. And when the Republicans return to power and push partisanship through Congress. Then the minority Democrats will whine about the lack of bi-partisanship in Congress.

Everyone does it, everyone complains about it. (And that does not mean that I think it is OK)

If you were informed, you would know the answer to this.

Go back to the last congress that was Republican controlled. The Dems brought congress to a virtual standstill by complaining that the GOP was not being bi-partisan. When one cut to the core of what they were complaining about, they wanted to GOP leadership to give them committee chairs, nominate Dem candidates for key appointments and accept Dem legislation as is. Not my interpretation, but a historical fact.

In my book, that is an example of "Shut up and do it my way or you are not being bi-partisan."

GeorgeWendtCFI

11-06-2009, 03:19 PM

I don't know if you will be back on tonight, but:

I meant to ask you what the number of the bill was, I'm in triage tonight so there is a good chance that I can spend some time reading.

Update:

I was able to find some info from the CBO about the proposals.

The Democrats House Bill (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf)

The Republicans Proposal (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf)

Some quick highlights:

Democrats: According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result
in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period

Republicans: According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the amendment would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $68 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

Democrats: By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 36 million, leaving about 18 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under H.R. 3962, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent
currently to about 96 percent.

Republicans: By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health
insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share.

So the Republican bill would have a smaller effect on reducing the deficit and at the same time it would cover fever Americans. The Democratic bill covers more people and saves more money. Looking at the projections it seems like the biggest slice of savings from the Democrats bill comes in 2012 (49 billions shaved off the deficit), I really wouldn't be surprised if that is playing politics. Nothing like reducing the deficit by almost 50 billion during an election year.

The only other downside I noticed while scanning the Republican proposal was that it included Tord Reform. I think that Tord Reform is an important aspect, but it should be handled as a separate bill. A blanket cap on damages is not the way to go IMO. Some practitioners have just commited actions that are borderline criminal and victims should have a means to collect from them. I would strongly support a system that would make sure that lawsuits have some validity before they can be filed. I think that much can be reformed in the arena of class action lawsuits as well.

Both parties are pretty bad about including pet projects in important bills, and I'm sure that Democrats got their share in those 1,900 pages.

I don't know the bill number. I know what you know.

However, you are cherry-picking numbers.

The plan, of course covers fewer people. It does not cover illegal aliens.

The plan, of course, has a smaller effect on the democrat-created deficit. It relies on the private sector and the free market for more of the price reduction.

And, it's T-O-R-T reform. It is one of two lynch pins. It is a complicated issue that I have addressed here before. Tort reform has to include a limitation on lawsuits and a cap on jury awards. And it works. NJ had the highest auto insurance rates in the US until lawsuit limitations were enacted.

Also, interstate competition will be another aspect that will reduce premiums. 1300 companies in competition against 3 or 4 will have a dramatic effect.

I think it is a winner when the only thing Pelosi can say against it are Dem talking points.

MarcusKspn

11-07-2009, 12:29 AM

Democrats clear impasse blocking health care vote (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)

By DAVID ESPO and RICARDO ALSONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writers David Espo And Ricardo Alsonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writers – 8 mins ago
WASHINGTON – House Democrats have cleared an impasse over abortion that has been holding up a vote on sweeping health care legislation.

A vote is expected on Saturday — after President Barack Obama makes a late morning trip to the Capitol to make one final pitch for the legislation.

According to Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, he and other abortion opponents will be given a chance to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.

The leadership hopes that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dems themselves are divided over abortion, and many want a strong anti-federal-money-used-for-abortion provision. This is also a strong desire for Repubs as well. Let's see if they will walk the walk with this compromise.