Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Bad News for Republicans
Democrats win Trifecta of Special Elections.
This Mississippi election last night was considered important on a national level. This was a historically Republican district, and the Republicans poured lots of time and money into this election in the hopes that they could retain this seat. Further, they tried very hard to make Obama a liability to the Democratic candiddate. It didn't work. Another article discusses how important this Democratic victory is, and the possibility that it may protend huge majorities in Congress. There won't be any safe Republican seats in November.
Meanwhile, Republicans have trotted out a new slogan that is already being used to market an anti-depressant.
This Mississippi election last night was considered important on a national level. This was a historically Republican district, and the Republicans poured lots of time and money into this election in the hopes that they could retain this seat. Further, they tried very hard to make Obama a liability to the Democratic candiddate. It didn't work. Another article discusses how important this Democratic victory is, and the possibility that it may protend huge majorities in Congress. There won't be any safe Republican seats in November.
Meanwhile, Republicans have trotted out a new slogan that is already being used to market an anti-depressant.
Comments
What a perfect metaphor for the republican party. Sorry, I am one of those "bitter" voters that Obama mentioned, so I find this hilarious. ^_^
I look forward to more Conservative Democrats winning in the South this fall. If enough of them win perhaps they will reclaim their party from the far left that has taken it over as of late?
If the Republicans continue to ignore their conservative base they will lose. The press will spin it as a big Democrat win (half of the news stories say the Limbaugh effect is real while the other half say they are legitimate voter registrations) rather than a Republican loss, which it is.
Republicans are tired of the people they sent to Washington. They want another person like Newt who had the courage to create the Contract With America. That is what created the Republican majority in the 90's. The reason why Republicans are losing these "safe seats" is that they are not acting like traditional Republicans. What we have is an abundance of "spend, spend, spend" Republicans.
Throw the bums out!
If my two choices are a Conservative Democrat and a non-Conservative Republican I will vote for the Democrat. Conservatives need a new home. Southern Democrats supported Reagan in the 80's and I have no problem with supporting them today.
I do have a problem supporting a liberal Democrat (or Republican for that matter). I also have a problem supporting anyone who bases their campaign on painting their opponent into a corner ("Look, this guy is tied to Obama which leads to Rev. Wright and Pelosi!!!"). When you spend all your time demonizing your opponent rather than talking yourself up that tells me you got nothing.
That's why I respect Obama even though his policies are mostly 180 degrees off from mine. Though I would still like to know what seven other states he visited...
It seems to me like the Republicans tried to appeal to their conservative base as strongly as they could. However, they still lost. No Republican is going to win in November, not because they don't appeal to their base, but because they are Republicans. They've shown us that they can't govern, and the people are going to punish them for that. Yeah, Newt was a big win for you guys . . .
Conservatives do not cotton to the politics of fear (This guy is like Obama and eats lunch with Pelosi). The only thing the Republican candidate offered was that he wore the Republican name tag. The Democrat owned the issues that the voters cared about (Pro-life, Pro-gun, etc...) while the Republican did not.
Sending Cheney in is not a recipe for win, it is a recipe for lose. Bush is not the big Conservative win, he is not Reagan. He has done next to nothing to shrink government.
Also, most people know that the Democrats, when they win in November, will not lose the war on terror, not on their watch! If they can pin a lose on Bush before he leaves office they will but they will not pin the lose tag on themselves.
Yes, Newt was a big win for us. Too bad about that illegal wire tapping that did him in, eh?
If there is a three house sweep by Democrats expect bad things to happen on Wall Street. Investors do not like it when one party controls all the branches of government.
I can't believe you think Gingrich was good in any way. Wait . . . considering the source, yes I can.
I just want to put one thing to rest. Republicans aren't losing to Democrats because Democrats are cleverly disguising themselves as Conservatives. Republicans are losing to Democrats because people hate Bush, hate the war, hate the economy, can't afford health care, can't afford gas, and, most of all, hate Bush. In other words, they are thoroughly rejecting all of the Republican positions on key issues. Now, maybe I'm just stupid, but I think I recall something about Bush and the Republicans being, oh I don't know . . . . conservative. Are you kidding? Conservatives LOVE fear. That's all Conservatives are about. Fear of change, fear of different religions, fear of different races, fear of science and technology, fear of other countries . . . the list goes on and on. Source.
Why are Democrats pushing all this global warming crap when the science is not settled and the climate scientists keep changing their minds on whether the Earth is cooling or warming up? The cost to businesses is far greater than the environmental benefit. All this does is cause business to fail and unemployment to increase as profits drop.
Why are Democrats gunning for the oil industry when it only has a 10% profit margin? Record profits? Yes the dollar total is high but they are selling tons of oil. If you make $100K in profit in one year and then $200K the next year while your profit margin stays the same you have not achieved record profits margins even though you have doubled your profit. In order to reach that level of profit you had to increase sales. Why punish that?
Why are Democrats so hot on taxing people with incomes over $500K and calling it a millionaires tax? Taxing income only stops people from accumulating wealth. It protects those who already have their fortunes.
Why do Democrats want to destroy the American Health Care system by nationalizing it?
Why do Democrats continue to poor billions of dollars into the "war on poverty" every year? At what point does that war become unwinnable and no longer worth pouring money into?
Why do Democrats conveniently forget that people move through economic groups over the course of their lives? Yes a kid fresh out of high school is poor because they don't make much money. As they grow older they enter the middle class while new people enter the lower class that they just left. when they retire they leave the middle class because they no longer have a large income (nor should they need one).
I have no problem with providing a public safety net for those who fall on hard times but it should be a safety net and not a way of life.
Conservative values are linked to fear and aggression.
Conservatives fear tolerance.
Conservatives fear stem cell research.
Conservatives fear gays.
Conservatives fear soy products, because they'll make you gay.
Conservative fear other cultures.
Conservative fear loss. Steve, any economic system that wasn't plantation slavery or feudalism would be too far to the left for you.
Either way, even if it could make you gay, the fact that they fear it so much is nonetheless laughable.
Let's not pussyfoot around this subject anymore. Why is being gay a problem? Also, if eating soy makes you gay, why is it that throughout human history, at least 5% of the population in any given civilization (whether it eats soy or not) is gay? Could it not just be a natural part of human biology?! I am so sick of our society allowing hat against gays (I will not call it homophobia, because it is not a phobia -it is hatred and intolerance) to run rampant. It is just as unacceptable as racism, sexism, ageism, and discrimination against the handicapped. I am not saying we should all be PC, but hatred should be named and decried as such. Our economy has never been a pure capitalist system. Incorporating aspects of socialism (not a completely socialist system) is a good idea. Case in point: Norway. Okay, lets ignore the fact the the majority of the scientific community has proven that the Earth is warming (the Globe is recovering from an Ice-age still, you know) and that they have shown time and time again that greenhouse gasses are contributing to speed up that process... let's ignore all of that. Don't you want to limit pollutants for other reasons? Clean air to limit human respiratory diseases and some forms of cancer; clean water to boost failing ecosystems and limit contamination that leads to human disease, etc. It simply makes sense, even when you negate the global warming aspect. Punish the oil companies? How are Democrats punishing the oil companies? The oil industry receives huge tax breaks, lax regulation, and receives governmental funding, in addition to their healthy profit margin. Also, please cite where you are getting consistent 10%, without going up. More than anything, it is a limited resource that creates a lot of pollution. Shouldn't we finally provide realistic alternatives to the masses that will be sustainable for more than a couple hundred years and reduces pollution? Like Republicans, individual Democratic leaders have different stances on taxes, so to say that this is an across the board tax policy for the Democrats is just not sound. Income tax is an excellent idea. It is the only progressive tax we have. When I buy a loaf of bread and a millionaire buys a loaf of bread, we pay the same tax on that bread. It is a far larger percentage of my income than the millionaire's, so in proportion to my income, that bread costs me more than it costs the millionaire. In my opinion, it is time to have a flat percentage tax on all taxable income, so it is fair. That is just my opinion, I do not speak for all Democrats on the tax issue. Destroy? How is it functioning if a large percentage of the population cannot even access it? Please detail what governmentally funded programs you consider to make up this "war on poverty".
Why do Republicans continue to poor billions of dollars into the Iraq War every year? At what point does that war become unwinnable and no longer worth pouring money into?
Why do a majority of Republicans and some Democrats continue to poor billions of dollars into the "war on drugs" every year? At what point does that war become unwinnable and no longer worth pouring money into? Kids just out of high school belong to the economic group that their families belong to, as they are usually still their dependents. Also, the majority of people stay in the class they are born into, at least... they used to until this massive recession hit. Now that the Republicans are destroying the middle class through Reaganomics and "trickle-down" theory, not to mention through education plans like No Child Left Behind hell bent on destroying public schooling (you know, the primary education system that the middle class and lower class utilize), rather than improving it. I completely agree, I think we need progressive programs that help train, recruit and employ those that have fallen on hard times. However, I want the minimum wage to become a living wage so that these people have some hope of supporting themselves for the long run. In addition, the lowest classes should have their financial burdens minimized by the utilization of fair taxes, better public transportation, increase of subsidized housing, and social programs that provide free adult education. Also, you just stated that the war on poverty was unwinnable… so how would you propose helping to get these people back on their feet?
Your loaf of bread argument is flawed. Just because that loaf of bread cost you a greater percentage of your wealth to acquire than someone else does not make it unfair.
If we both walk into a store and you have $10 while I have $20 is it unfair that buying a can of soda of soda for $1 consumes 10% of your wealth while the same can only consumes 5% of my wealth? Why do you only have $10 while I have $20? Did you have $20 yesterday and spend $10 while I spent nothing?Did I work overtime at the factory to earn my extra $10? Would it be fair, after I worked twice as hard as you to make that second $10, be penalized when I try to spend it by paying higher taxes?
You do realize that while "Big Oil" makes a 10% profit margin while Google makes over 50%? Should Google suffer a windfall profit tax? The profit margin for "Big Oil" is quite low. It is lower than the interest rate many credit card companies charge. Perhaps "Big Oil" should stop drilling and issue credit cards instead?
As to the question of oil in a long term sense... We should be developing the next energy technology and deploying nuclear power. In the meantime why not open up offshore and Alaskan drilling until that technology is ready?
I say the war on poverty is unwinnable because new people are constantly added to the ranks of the poor as others move out of that class. The war on poverty is based on the false assumption that someone born poor will forever remain poor and never climb the socio-economic ladder.
As for getting people out of poverty... I like Obama's idea of creating a huge public works department much like the one that created the freeway system. Or even creating a student loan system for the unskilled to learn a trade and become self-sufficient.