90130_ Report This Comment
Date: November 04, 2009 06:39AM

The Obama loving media will do their very best to marginalize these two significant victories, so here's a totally non-partisan take on tonight's events from across the pond:

[www.guardian.co.uk]

90130_ Report This Comment
Date: November 04, 2009 06:40AM

Plan on a "red tide" in 2010, motherfuckers.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: November 04, 2009 11:29AM

I hope you are right 90130 but I hope we will see all incumbents removed from office regardless of their party affiliation.

maddie Report This Comment
Date: November 04, 2009 02:11PM

yawn......oh yah fuk u too.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: November 04, 2009 02:40PM

Ah yes, as always spoken with your usual display of the stunning acumen and command of the language you manage to place upon display every time you get in front of your keeboard Madd(nez). Too bad your heroes are goin down in flames, but, this is really just a small sampling of similar results you'll be seeing in the next round of elections.

Best get ready for a steady diet of well deserved crow that will be comin your way. Might I suggest a rather large bib to make sure you're up to the task

quasi Report This Comment
Date: November 04, 2009 06:16PM

Mr. Deeds gets thrown out of town.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: November 05, 2009 11:38AM

I really hope this is a small sampling of what is to come in the midterms, but after the last election I don't hold out much hope for American intelligence.

duane Report This Comment
Date: November 07, 2009 12:26PM

Traditional values out the window, more taxes and social programs. If we don't vote them out then we are dumb. That also goes for the conservatives that want bigger government and more federal involvement. The parties have been bought and sold, we have to vote without party lines.

duane Report This Comment
Date: November 07, 2009 12:30PM

Redistribution of wealth will never work. The values that made this country strong are not good enough for progressives willing to tear the house down to fix a door. Our constitution should be enforced and that includes looking at the repercussions of changes made by the previous administration.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: November 08, 2009 11:18AM

The vote will need to remove anyone who is in office right now regardless of party lines or how they have been voting. We need to show congress that we can sweep their house completely clean if we don't like what they are doing.

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: November 08, 2009 05:30PM

Are you really that stupid, jgoins? Do you really think that a complete change of incumbents is the answer? Or even that it could possibly happen?

What a dumbass!

Firstly, you will lose a lot of good politicians, who will be disillusioned with the system because they worked hard and did right by their constituents, and yet got ousted.

Secondly you will lose a lot of experience, so the newly elected officials will flounder for some time.

Thirdly, because you are not selecting a replacement fully on the issues and the person, you will get people elected who really shouldn't be there.

And most importantly, the newly elected are going to be scared to do anything because they will realise that if they do, even if they listen to those who elected them, potentially nearly half of their constituents will think they are not listening to the people because they didn't do what they want. That's on each issue, so over the course of their tenure of service the majority of people will think that they were not listened to (on at least one issue) so will vote them out.

I suggest you think through the consequences of your ideas before you start believing them.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: November 08, 2009 07:30PM

Firstly, you will lose a lot of good politicians, who will be disillusioned with the system because they worked hard and did right by their constituents, and yet got ousted.

"Good Politicians" by and large is an oxymoron

Secondly you will lose a lot of experience, so the newly elected officials will flounder for some time.

The bulk of the "experience" we'd be losing is exactly a large part of the problem and why they should be shown the door. The position of "politician for life" is not in the best interest of the people as it enables and encourages growth of small kingdoms within the system.

Thirdly, because you are not selecting a replacement fully on the issues and the person, you will get people elected who really shouldn't be there.

Here we find common ground. There are the rare and odd exceptions within our political system of folks who care about the concerns of their constituants and are there for the "right" reasons and these obviously have to be looked at and thought upon individually by the voters.

Sadly too many of "my fellow Americans" have a hard time thinking through the choice of which inane TV channel to watch next which obviously makes the more complicated process of individually vetting political candidates more complicated than they are interested in makin the required investment of time and thought processes to.

All in all the seeming best course forward is to out any candidate who has voted against the individual voters concerns and as a good start to also dethrone any candidate who's served more than 2 consecutive terms as a means towards settin a precedence for this process.

When even the office of Pres. has to be vacated every 8yrs at max the same reasons and ideas should be considered reasonable for congresspeople. Unfortunately our own laws prohibit term limits ever coming to pass without the legislators it would effect 1st placing a bill for this on the table and then finding a majority of legislators to back it. Mostly that is just like sayin "That'll never happen"

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: November 08, 2009 07:32PM

"when the people fear the govt........"

TJ

GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: November 09, 2009 01:04AM

Mrkim, firstly let me say that it's a pleasant change to have a response that is thought through and logical. A few things I would like to raise though:

""Good Politicians" by and large is an oxymoron" is kind of contradicted by "There are the rare and odd exceptions within our political system of folks who care about the concerns of their constituants and are there for the "right" reasons and these obviously have to be looked at and thought upon individually by the voters"

I am also not advocating a position for life. There have been instances here in NZ where a particular person has been in office for a long period - usually as mayor of a city - but that has been because there has been nobody better, or because they have been doing a good job in that role, and they have still faced elections every three years. Nobody has the right to be in a publicly elected office - they are only there to serve the people that voted them in. I think that is the point that some in those offices forget, and those that do well remember.

Sadly, it is not just your fellow American's who seem to not give due consideration to who they vote for - it is an issue here too, and I am sure it probably is in most well established democracies. Personally, I am an advocate for the best person for the job getting the job (that relates to more than just political roles), so the number of terms an incumbent has held office should not come into it. Given what I have just said about people considering their vote though, I don't believe the best person for the job necessarily gets the job. Unfortunately I don't have an answer to ensure that does happen.

You suggest that the best course of action is to "out any candidate who has voted against the individual voters concerns". While this sounds like a good idea, what is a concern to you is not a concern to your neighbour, or to the person on the other side of town, so people will not agree on which candidates to oust. Any candidate who has pursued their own agenda and has gone against the majority of their constituents definitely doesn't understand what public office is all about and should be voted out though.

Fossil - A great quote by "TJ", as you put it, but unfortunately I do not believe there is any fear from either side. The people do not believe there will be any real change no matter who is in office, but I don't think they fear the government. The government, or at least those in power, also do not fear the people as the system is more about money and connections than it is about the voice of the people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2009 01:10AM by GAK67.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: November 09, 2009 02:33AM

i beg to differ on the fear aspect...there finally is some fear in Washington, or the demochimps wouldn't be ramming as much through as they can as fast as they can. a bit obvious i do believe.

if you don't agree with that, then i would point out that if some of the legislation presented will not take full effect until '15 or later, why is it so important to ram through now?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2009 02:36AM by fossil_digger.

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: November 09, 2009 03:42AM

Thanks GAK, and same here

The phrase "by and large" is intended to accomadate the idea that "There are the rare and odd exceptions", each essentially completing the other in a circuitous way.

In the US federal govt. GAK, many politians will enter congress, usually in their 30s or 40s, then unless they get actually caught at something and resign they will often finish out the rest of their lives in congress. Too many times this leads to lots of pork bellied projects to pet or stroke some group, organization, or someone and tends to lead to more overall costs with a decreased benefit to the nation as a whole. Not to even mention the "good ol boys syndrome" this also leads to.

What we need is some fresh blood and the scent of more to come if they don't start listening to and acting upon the feedback they get from their constituants

Lastly, anyone who lives in this country and doesn't have a certain amount of fear of the government, wouldn't seem to know much about it

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: November 09, 2009 12:15PM

I feel it would be imposable to determine which member of congress is there for the right reason. Because ,just like the issues, the right reason is objective and varies among different voters. Even if a person is honest when he is elected to office, he will not remain so for long after taking office. For that reason it would be imposable to tell which one is there for the right reason. I feel we would be better served to replace all for them, put up with the instability it might cause for a while and let them know their job is not guaranteed or permanent.