patrick.net

dublin hillz says

So called "independents" are not moderates. Moderates shifted to the dems while "independents" are conservative hardliners who are even more to the right of GOP. That's why the reps got their ass kicked on tuesday.

What part of Independent don't you get?
We'll vote for Ron Paul or we'll vote for Denis Kusinish, we don't vote party lines we vote on issues.
Mostly the issues that are not the popular fluff issues that keep the hard line candidates from getting their hands dirty.
Independent candidates are the ones with logical solutions to the Economy, Education, Jobs ect. We can care less about who's getting abortions or who wont let them, who's poking who in the poop-shoot and who that turns on and incenses at the same time, the poor and the social services for them. The truth is, there will always be poor in this country and this country will always have to provide for them to some extent. Regardless what party gets elected. This is a nation that only has 60% employment participation, you don't want 40% idle people going hungry.

edvard2 says

The current stance of the Democrats is highly favorable towards minorities

Yeah 'cept the Democrats will actually have to deliver this time.
There still isn't any immigration reform, and the raft Obama threw out last year with a huge hole in it, was hardly an Olive branch.
A few students gets to stay in this country indefinitely with the status of being a person with out a country, they can work but their parents can't. And when that temporary order expires, Hispanics are going to expect a lot more than reinstating that same do nothing legislation.

They are illegal immigrants, not Mentally retarded.

CaptainShuddup says

Yeah 'cept the Democrats will actually have to deliver this time.
There still isn't any immigration reform, and the raft Obama threw out last year with a huge hole in it, was hardly an Olive branch.

Not if Republicans don't change their attitude. The stance Republicans have historically taken is utterly unappetizing to minorities and immigrants. As mentioned numerous times before, this election was won more so than any other based on changing demographics. Nobody is going to argue that Republicans lack appeal to the majority of minorities. Thus the question of what they need to do to make changes so that they will get more minorities to vote for them.

If they sit back and do nothing they will lose. Plain and simple. What I'm amazed at is that so far many appear to simply not get that. Oh well. Its up to them.

Republicans have to change their tune. They are alienating many who would support them if not for their social agenda garbage.... Many of us are fiscal conservatives who don't see the benefits of an enormous federal goverment. But then, someone like Todd Akin speaks, and we want to distance ourselves. I am a republican, but I have to admit that I'm ashamed to share that label with some of these folks. The republican party will never be taken seriously if it can't get off its social agenda path. JMHO.

edvard2 says

Nobody is going to argue that Republicans lack appeal to the majority of minorities. Thus the question of what they need to do to make changes so that they will get more minorities to vote for them.

Well if the Minorities aren't minority anymore, and the Majority is the Minority. Then who will vote Democrat next time, Karl Rove?

turtledove says

The republican party will never be taken seriously if it can't get off its social agenda path.

Wait a minute, the Republicans have a Social agenda?
Not wanting to put tens of millions of able bodies on Welfare and food stamps, while championing a meaningful jobs policy is hardly a social agenda. Now championing the opposite of such policy, while redefining gainful employment...

CaptainShuddup says

Well if the Minorities aren't minority anymore, and the Majority is the Minority. Then who will vote Democrat next time, Karl Rove?

I believe you understood what I was saying.CaptainShuddup says

Wait a minute, the Republicans have a Social agenda?
Not wanting to put tens of millions of able bodies on Welfare and food stamps, while championing a meaningful jobs policy is hardly a social agenda

Your statement basically summed up what turtledove was indicating: this old-fashioned Reagan era idea that " Everyone is lazy and NOBODY deserves anything ( well except for me of course) !

Yeah... That social agenda.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Most democrats today are to the right of Reagan and would make Eisenhower look like a dirty fucking hippie.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

and:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952-1960

(actual cost of B-2 was $62B for 21 planes, $3B per plane. At $30M per school, that's, well, 100 cities . . .)

The short answer, will they change? NO.

Bellingham Bill says

(actual cost of B-2 was $62B for 21 planes, $3B per plane. At $30M per school, that's, well, 100 cities . . .)

no one ever said.. "engineers are not expensive" and certainly many will concur exotic engineering (stealth) is more expensive.

Bellingham Bill says

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952-1960

true... he said that a few days after Stalin died.. it was Eisenhower,'s hope was that the cold war died with him... but that was not the case was it. As his successor decided parking several nuclear missiles next to the Cuba would go unnoticed.

then of course there was this..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States

I have been reading NRO since the election, trying to gauge how Republican intellectuals and thought leaders think the party will have to calibrate. There's a recurring theme around courting hispanics: embrace amnesty coupled to border control, without a pathway to citizenship.

At first glance, this looks sane. Hispanics are largely Catholic, and tend conservative on social issues, so the "natural ally" line of thought is sound. The questions are two: can a nativist base be sold on this line, and will it impress hispanics?

I've seen nothing in the last several years that makes me think it's possible to overestimate the GOP primary electorate, so I think 'no' on just that count. But even setting that aside, the line this draws is a suspect one: what does amnesty without a pathway to citizenship mean?

It means it's not illegal for illegals to be here any more, but they are forever relegated to alien status. They can go to school, work, have to pay taxes, and don't have to leave. They will never be allowed to vote. They will never serve in the military. They will never run for office.

It seems obvious that being a permanent non-citizen is worse than being a second-class citizen. The idea is condescending and insulting. If the Democrats compromise to this, they will still have a liberal issue to press, and that the Republican party will continue to cast off the repellant stench of racism.

Just on the other side of immigration reform is statehood for Puerto Rico. If Republicans draw a red line at amnesty'd illegals serving in the military to earn the right to vote, then they will surely balk at the idea of voting nine new brown Congressmen into Washington.

I see every indication that they will change their tune on that one issue, but have no reason to think that it will matter.

edvard2 says

The thing is that Republicans will have to change if the hope to remain relevant in the future. So the question is how can they do it, and will they even do so?

The Republicans, for the past 30 years, have been busy rebranding themselves as anti gay, anti women, anti persons of colour, anti faith other than christianist, anti immigration, anti...the list goes on and on. So now they have found that they can get record turn out of their core base; the white elderly christianist, but it is no longer enough. The only solutions hoisted up to solve their losing streak is 1. Perhaps being kinder to immigration reform 2. Offer up better candidates. Both solutions completely ignore the fact that their brand 1. Did offer up their BEST candidate and 2. Immigration reform does not address the core problem with the brand itself. It is almost as bad if suddenly the KKK decided to offer black people membership, as long as they wear a white robe and pointy hat. It does not address the fact that the core values of the GOP are completely out of step with the real needs of a majority of US citizens. Add to the problem that the youth of this country don't want to be associated with such an exclusionary party and as time marches forward, their problems only get worse. This walmart bandaid approach is laughable if not sad.

Buster says

The Republicans, for the past 30 years, have been busy rebranding themselves as anti gay, anti women, anti persons of colour, anti faith other than christianist, anti immigration, anti...the list goes on and on.

All your doing is repeating the same 2012 democratic party lines.. which simply are not true over the past 30 years. There have been strong quality and quantity of immigrants, persons of color and women who have joined the Republican values based on shared values.

Sadly Dems have brain washed with mis information.. They will learn the truth and they will turn on the Demo Party.

To talk of KKK is really to insult many icons in the African American community.

Ray Charles Sings at the 1984 Republic National Convention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3cadTHmTU

Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oi_KaZ53eDg&feature=youtu.be

maybe the rethugs will not be able to find any viable breeding partners any more
and just wind up like the shakers.

marcus says

It's like me, relative to Rachel Maddow. I consider her far more reality based than say Sean Hannity, but still her bias is strong and at times a ittle over the top for me, but still I sometimes like listening to what she has to say.

Dont hold your breath thinking Maddow's rating will increase or Hannity's will decline.
MSNBC ratings are not very strong..and their ranks are slipping.

That competition between good ideas, from both sides, about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. And if the Republican party, and the conservative movement, and the conservative media is stuck in a vacuum sealed, door locked, spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good, and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived, as a nation, of the constructive debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.

That's Maddow, talking the way democrats talk when they get in their bubble.

Thomas Sowell : The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative
and the "anointed ones" ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related

marcus says

They know those entertainers are whacko at times but they listen anyway.

the important thing is to not hear something that pisses you off because you really disagree with it for some reason.

People mostly love to hear their biases bounced back at them.

So there are many reasons provided here and elsewhere for the GOP meltdown. As far as I can tell, the biggest reason for this is their refusal to embrace reality which generally include science, math, accounting, and a long list of verifiable facts. As a sampling, here is the GOP leadership on their predictions for the outcome of this election even when there were multiple polls that suggested otherwise, such as Nate Silver's predictions.

"Here comes the landslide… The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor," - Dick Morris, The Hill.

"There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same. Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us," - Peggy Noonan, WSJ.

"In addition to the data, the anecdotal and intangible evidence—from crowd sizes to each side's closing arguments—give the sense that the odds favor Mr. Romney. They do. My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America's 45th president. Let's call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more," - Karl Rove, WSJ.

"Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals," - Michael Barone, Washington Examiner.

"Both political science and the political polls too often imply a scientific precision that I no longer think actually exists in American politics. I have slowly learned that politics is a lot more art than science than I once believed. Accordingly, what follows is a prediction based on my interpretation of the lay of the land. I know others see it differently--and they could very well be right, and I could be wrong. I think Mitt Romney is likely to win next Tuesday," - Jay Cost, Weekly Standard.

"Feels like 1980 to me: Same failed president, same crisis-plagued globe, same upbeat GOP nominee written off four years ago who won the key debate, same chance to get the Senate. Romney is the president-elect on Wednesday, with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Colorado. Senate tied 50–50 after Ohio brings in Josh Mandel. Let the rebuilding begin," - Hugh Hewitt, National Review.

"Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of the commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney. But many others in the media project very favorable maps and projections for Obama but those doing so fail to realize or accept how heavily-skewed polls distort any average or analysis that relies on them,"- Dean Chambers, UnSkewedPolls.com.

"I'm projecting Minnesota to go for Romney. Now, that's the only state in the union, because Mondale held it -- native son Mondale held it when Romney was -- when Reagan was getting 49 states -- the only state that's voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections. But this year, there's a marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference. Romney: 321 Obama: 217," - George Will, Washington Post.

"Romney wins the Electoral College with room to spare — somewhere around 300 electors. All four marriage votes in the deepest of blue states (Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine) will be won by traditional-marriage supporters. This will happen even though supporters of same-sex marriage have outspent us by gargantuan amounts. … In Minnesota and Iowa, Mitt Romney will defy expectations and score truly historic wins. A state with longest track record of voting for Democratic presidential candidates — nine election cycles — will vote for a Republican. The marriage amendment will be part of the reason" - Brian S. Brown, National Organization For Marriage.

Buster says

Here comes the landslide…

yes, it was a heavy negative campaign with lots of false comments..from SEC filings, IRS returns, 47% and what exactly is a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Romney comments regarding GM. As such Obama doubled down on hoping the voter actually did not read the facts in all these cases.

More people actually did believe in the Obama's "Shovel Ready" Mountain of BS and Dems piled it high as they could.. this was a Chicago style election hope and forward on the public ignorance.

Romney failed to take down the Obama BS ... that is all. It was certainly the hope by the GOP the common voter saw the crap and what Obama was about thus the landslide.. Would you vote for a faker, not even close.

thomaswong.1986 says

Romney failed to take down the Obama BS ... that is all.

And this statement also sums up perfectly the parallel universe the GOP lives in and why they will continue to lose.

Buster says

parallel universe the GOP lives

If what Obama and Company was true... where is the IRS/SEC investigation and charges? How about comments about 47%... Sandra Fluke needs more rubbers ?

So where are those Swiss Bank Accounts so many liberals talk about ...

This was a smear campaign and it worked for Obama...
fact is we should have gone Nuke on Obama's ass.. Would have loved to see 3 rounds of Newt and Obama...

Im sure Chris Mathews would have gone into COMA after that...

He's just getting destroyed by the "Bullshit!" charges so is trying to bounce it all back, that's all.

Just more bullshit from him.

Bellingham Bill says

Just more bullshit from him.

no bullshit its just false allegations of SEC/IRS violations...

which cannot be substantiated by MSNBC

your lack of knowledge in this field doesnt make it bullshit.

msilenus says

At first glance, this looks sane. Hispanics are largely Catholic, and tend conservative on social issues, so the "natural ally" line of thought is sound

I'm thinking this is less so. It's also easy (and convenient!) to think of Catholics as conservative. Most of the Priests I've known have been quite liberal, especially on Social issues.

I saw some polls after the elections showing 66-70% support among Latinos for abortion and gay marriage.

I think that it may be watershed that the growing Latino population is also moving leftward, which should seal the fate of the hate-mongering, racist, sexist, financially backward, electorally challenged GOP.

Plus, Asians are all liberal now. :)

Isn't it ironic that the idol of the right wing, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to Latinos for the Chamber of Commerce and Farm Bureau, only to have their children vote against the right wing?

upisdown says

Isn't it ironic that the idol of the right wing, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to Latinos for the Chamber of Commerce and Farm Bureau, only to have their children vote against the right wing?

Different political parties have flip flopped their views all the time throughout history. It is tiresome to hear that Democrats are this and Republicans are that when in reality, both of these parties have and will change their ideology. It's just a matter of time.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/03/politics-newnation.jpg

edvard2 says

Will Republicans change their tune given the shift in demographics?

Will a whore fake an orgasm while saying how awesome your dick is?

Scagnetti says

They won't use it wisely like you say, nor will they give it back, we have to take it back.

LOL. A people get the Republic they deserve. To get a better government, we need a better electorate first. After your revolution you're going to be stuck with the same stupid (er, "low information") electorate.

Bellingham Bill says

Plus Dem votes on those Republican bills were defensive, to avoid being demagogued as soft on terrorism.

Bellingham Bill says

Just like the Democrat AUMF vote in late 2002, Senate Dems pussied out to avoid being seen as weak on defense or terrorism by their constituents.

Really tough making a vote that can be so easily twisted against you and boot you out of Congress permanently.

Here is part of the problem....politicians and people in general need to stick to their principles. I'm tired of this "political darwinism" crap that says over time (generations) we can make a difference. It leads to defensive posturing to keep gains while you slowly lose.

Scagnetti says

Did Obama renew the patriot act instead of repealing it?
What about closing Guantanamo Bay?
Passing the NDAA?
HR 347?

Obama is not a Roman Tribune and thus cannot "repeal" laws. Though he does have leeway as head of the Executive in how to enforce them.

What about closing Guantanamo?

"In a court filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, government lawyers said the names of detainees "no longer warrant protection." They had been blocked from public disclosure under a 2009 court order requested by the government.

"The filing includes 55 names out of the 167 detainees currently at the prison.

"President Barack Obama on his second day in office issued an order to close the prison by January 2010 and set up a task force to review the status of prisoners there. The president's plans soon ran into opposition from Congress, where lawmakers raised security concerns, and the target date wasn't met."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578010510465382582.html

The problem with releasing anyone is that if any released person does something bad, that's some bad egg-on-face. Conservatism is the order of the day.

NDAA was bundled in a defense spending bill and since Obama needed FL and VA to win that wasn't a hill worth dying on. He issued the appropriate "signing statements" about the stuff he didn't like in it and wasn't going to utilize. The vote itself sailed through Congress with overwhelming majorities.

HR 347 was unanimous in the Senate and 399-3 in the House.

Scagnetti says

politicians and people in general need to stick to their principles.

yeah, well, principles and $1.35 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks.

30,000 libertarian voters in Montana picked principle over tactics and now they have Tester as their Senator still. Tea Party extremists in Indiana booted Lugar for a Democrat, too.

Bellingham Bill says

Obama is not a Roman Tribune and thus cannot "repeal" laws.

Sorry, you are correct. He can not repeal a law. What he could have done, is to not sign the 4 year extension of the patriot act. He could have done that!

Scagnetti says

He could have done that!

It passed 77-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House, veto-proof majorities. Dems were 54-122 against in the House.

Aside from all the BS about PATRIOT, I've never had any problems with the powers it allows law enforcement. I only object to the name, really.

Bellingham Bill says

Aside from all the BS about PATRIOT, I've never had any problems with the powers it allows law enforcement. I only object to the name, really.

Stupid link limitation...

www.aclu.org/national-security/patriot-act-victim-speaks-out-spy-bill

patriotactvictims.tumblr.com/

www.peterbcollins.com/2011/02/18/boiling-frogs-nick-merrill-another-innocent-victim-of-the-patriot-act/

www.zimbio.com/USA+PATRIOT+Act/articles/30/Media+Ignores+Christian+Kid+Patriot+Act+Victim

www.thepolitic.com/archives/2011/10/27/a-victim-of-the-patriot-act-speaks/

www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=110&contentid=1436

www.globalissues.org/news/2012/04/20/13413

And people have a problem with gay sex.

Bellingham Bill says

Scagnetti says

He could have done that!

It passed 77-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House, veto-proof majorities. Dems were 54-122 against in the House.

Aside from all the BS about PATRIOT, I've never had any problems with the powers it allows law enforcement. I only object to the name, really.

From your numbers, there wasn't a 2/3 majority in the house to overturn a presidential veto. Regardless, Obama signed it, he agrees with it. If he didn't agree with it, he shouldn't have signed it! Same with the NDAA and HR 347.

Scagnetti says

Disagree completely.

thanks for sharing, LOL

Scagnetti says

Could it be that the Versailles treaty from WWI completely crippled their economy?

No, the Dawes Plan and Young Plan sorta fixed that. The problems came in 1929 with the global seizure of credit and trade.

Scagnetti says

Hitler proposed to stop paying reparations and to get out of the league of nations, which in effect would elevate the German people out of poverty.

The German people were far from "poverty". Their economy was just fucked and needed velocity of Keynesian redistribution. Once industry got going again velocity picked up.

A little known thing is that Hitler's immediate predecessor -- von Schleicher -- kicked off a lot of shovel-ready public works and had he been able to stay in power in 1933 he could have greatly benefited from the economic pick-up this effected.

Scagnetti says

The Nazis came out of opression, not out of complete free will like you claim.

What they came out of was chaos and a bitterly divided electorate, 10% red, 30% left, 20% centrist and 40% radical right.

The centrists thought they could control the radical right, but failed in 1933. The Nazis first eliminated the reds, then connived with the centrists to eliminate the left (with the Enabling Act). And with that, the totalitarian dictatorship and secret police state was established.

We're probably going that way, too. 2025 is my guess. The result won't look like Germany 1935, but it will rhyme.

Scagnetti says

I don't see a grass roots movement in support for the Patriot Act, NDAA, and HR347. Where were the masses that were fighting for this?

what you don't understand is basic game theory and the adversarial nature of politics. PATRIOT is about not having another 9/11 happen and FBI insiders then leak that they "coulda caught that terrorists" had Congress not failed to give them the tools they had asked for.

Same thing with NDAA. Clinton caught shit from the Republicans for not blowing up Osama when he was "on a silver platter":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75807.html

That's politics, and it works because we have a very stupid electorate.

Romney lost because his voters were composed of aging, dwindling groups; Obama won because his voting demographic was more in line with middle aged and young adult voters.

In fact, Romney's voting groups are even more conservative than old farts generally.

We had peak Evangelical Right Winger around 2000. It would have faded much faster but was kept alive by the GWOT for a few years longer. It's over. The number of college educated people is sky high, skepticism over superstition is growing, and the Jesus Freaks of the 60s and 70s, who grew up on Sercy, Arkansas A/V bullshit and brought the Reagan bullshit are now wearing Depends or will be shortly.

As soon as we have a few million more hip replacements, perhaps by the next Presidential Election, the country will turn solidly to the left.

The real challenge is to make sure the Left turn gets channeled into productive "Salt of the Earth" issues like minimum wages and taxation, and doesn't get lost in the fruitless disputes (and misuse of the term) about "Privilege" and the Oppression Olympics(tm) ("Transgendered people can't use Womyn's safe space bathrooms, that's just for Womyn born Womyn!" "Why, you bigoted RadFem!" "Chinaman is a derogatory term!" "Like Scotsman? Irishman? Frenchman?" etc.).

Bellingham Bill says

What they came out of was chaos and a bitterly divided electorate, 10% red, 30% left, 20% centrist and 40% radical right.

Word.