Being bipartisan for bipartisanship's sake is never a good idea when effective policies are being excluded from being implemented.
I never understood the meme that independents were looking for moderation in all things political or governmental. They--like you said--are looking for effectiveness in governance. Whether or not the ideas being implemented are democratic in nature or conservative, the Independents are looking for beneficial results in their pocketbooks.
Democrats should have taken the mandate for leadership when they had the chance to so. However, now, they are laden with the results of moderation or center-right policies at a time when Americans are hungry for more effective policies . Many of these effective policies are progressive in theory and application.
The Dems will keep both the house and senate with aggressive campaigning. I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers stay relatively the same as now after the election with aggressive campaigning. As suggested by Rachel Maddow, the Democrats should commit politics by driving and stressing wedge issues toward the electorate. This would cause this current group of ultra-radical conservatives to play defense instead engaging in their current offense strategy.
I throw my lot with the Democrats, since it's not the 80's anymore. Even if the republicans are successful, they will not hold on to the chambers much longer since the demographics. The silent majority's impact is dwindling.
If Democrats would stop being wimps and, at least, try to put up a clear argument, we could still keep both chambers with clear majorities. Don't count the pessimism chickens before they hatch.
The Dems will keep both the house and senate with aggressive campaigning. I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers stay relatively the same as now after the election with aggressive campaigning as suggested by Rachel Maddow. That is, Democrats should commit politics by driving wedge issues with the radically conservatives that are competing against.
I throw my lot with Democrats, since it's not the 80's anymore. Even if the republicans are successful, they will not hold on to the chambers much longer since the demographics.
If Democrats would stop being wimps and, at least, try to put up clear argument, we can still have both chambers with clear majorities. Don't count the pessimism chickens before they hatch.
Uh, I do not see where Clinton should factor with his current issues. The Clintons are doing just fine in my eyes. The President needs to at least be preparing a campaign strategy to deal with the Republicans or someone could be writing how the REpukes brought down the House of Obama. In short, there is no Hillary to fight against now...just Republicans. Let's keep the focus on the GOP and not get caught up in nostalgic moments of the past.
I agree with the premise of your statement. Even before the 2006 election, many in the media were talking about how Republicans were going to gain seats even in the lowest point of Republican credibility. If these people vote the Republicans into power, it is what they deserve. Personally, I've lost all hope on what people state should be an individual's social responsibility (to how empathy for others), for those talking heads' actions are louder than their words in contradiction of such statements. Going forward, I'm thinking about injecting myself with a strong dose of selfism. Let the populance drink its own poison if they so choose.
The way things look on the political spectrum these days. It's best for blacks to continue voting the way we do.
Okay, I can understand you when you say that blacks should not be lock-stepped with President Obama, but we should not throw away our votes for the sake of criticism.
So, here, I say criticize from eclectic viewpoints but vote similarly. Again, blacks are not the ones getting national press coverage for their heinous acts due to some anti-societal national movements.
I wish I can say the same for their extreme right-wing, anti-government, pro-corporatist white counterparts. Sadly, many of the uneducated/undereducatd henchmen will serve only as the minions of the powerful, anti-government, pro-corporatist ruling class.
Much of the deadly effects of West Virginia's massive mine killings were due to a pro-corporatist, anti-government mindset. This is evident in the number of major workplace, safety, and hazard violations that were discovered.
I can imagine already that many of the workers had bought into that mindset. They probably thought they were doing themselves a favor by saving the company unneeded expenses (or lowering costs) while working extremely long hours in unreported hazardous work conditons.
This reason could be due to the workers' social workplace mindset (social theory) that it was wimpy, unpatriotic to complain about little insignificant matters such as unchecked coal debris and compromised structural problems with the mine. Why complain or become a whistle blower?
People could lose their jobs or the shirts on their backs if the rules and laws were actually enforced. This is what happens when one decides not to participate in one's government and when one discards the life-long learner path. One become subject to ridiculous propaganda and illegitimate ideas and/or group thinking.
No, No, No--that's too costly a decison to make (when it comes to ensuring safety for all). Well, it seems that the so-called appropriate decison, which was to do nothing, cost those dedicated workers more than the shirts on their backs: their lives was the payment in demand.
Unfortunately, the pro-corporatist, anti-government mindset will lead to privatzed government and, thereby, the enslavement of United States' populance.
Black people, stay the same by being skeptical and holding all those in power accountable.
Do this to discern whether those in power are holding you back or being held back to better serve you. If it is the former, then, blacks should vote democrats out, but if it is the latter, then, the question is who (whether those people are individual democrats or republicans, we have them change their minds or vote them out).
I'm not a hard-line pro-Obama supporter--well, not initially. As a matter of fact, I supported Hillary, but, even I, can see that it is not good to miss the forest for the trees.
Some people want to throw the entire bucket of tea out, because someone added too much water. Yet, they still forget that it's tea (Health Care Reform). Sometimes things have to move in smaller increments, for the HCR Bill is by no means small but just smaller.
Please folks remember that or get ready for more Blue Dogs or more Republicans.
I truly understand the phrase..."with democrats/liberals like that...who needs republicans/right-wingers."
While being a avid Hillary Clinton supporter during the primaries (mainly due to her policy wonkiness and the Health Care Reform), I'll have disagree that Obama's health care was a disaster since nothing this big has happened concerning Health Care (e.g., this even includes Medicare and Medicaid).
So, unless you can make a plurality of 100 senators follow a different or better path, then, I'll have to say hold back on the void criticism. Hell, he's already doing better than Hillary by at least getting something passed. Never miss the forest for the trees.
If you want radical change, you need to develop a strategy that will beat the radical conservative think tanks for the next four election cycles at the lower echelons of government.
First place, galvanize the disk jokeys to be more politically active, especially in minority communities. I'll have to give Tom Joyner and another disc jokey (name can't recall) kudos for starting something very similar to another wave in the political movement.
I agree TarHeel. I can't see any reason why the 50 plus crowd would be so agitated over the public option, since generally they would not qualify.
Now, if they are fighting for what they would receive in the future or for their parents rights/disabled relative's rights, then, they should at least consider how beneficial it would be if everyone could qualify for such a health plan that worth fighting for.
I believe if a portion of the 50-plus crowd is targeted by promoting how great the health care coverage would be if they (50-plus people) or their significant others could benefit with a Medicare Expansion (i.e., cost & availability of the health plan coverage where it was at first non-existant) that some of the 50-plus would eventually influence the 65 or older crowd.
At a minimum, it would reduce by a sizable portion the protesters at the town hall meeting and, even, the dissent that's evident in the polling.