I caught Bob Shrum on Fox News. Remember Bob Shrum, the manager of more losing Democrat campaigns than any one in history? He stated with a straight face "I'm actually thinking that the Democrats can hold on to the house".
Over the past few weeks when I hear Shrum and other Democrat pundits of his ilk claiming the upcoming elections will not be that bad for Democrats in spite of every major reputable poll stating otherwise I can only think of the old adage, 'Denial is just a river in Egypt'.
Will these folks ever wake up and realize that the majority has rejected their initiatives and ideology? Obama states that despite the election results, Republicans will have to take a back seat. I guess I need help. Are these people that confident or are they that delusional?
Did Obama actually say that Republicans will have to take a back seat?? Sounds typical of him, but could you point me to where he said it?
It's all over the place this morning. Check out
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/ … -ride-back
They're under the illusion (perpetuated by their Leader) that their ideology is right and acceptable. Just wait til the majority actually makes its voice heard, then reaction from the Left will probably be more of the rebellious, violence-inferring reaction like Obama saying it will be "hand-to-hand combat" in our government if Republicans dare to oppose the views of his sneaky tyrannical reign. I bet he will wear out his Veto stamp trying to retain his hold over America, (if he's not smart enough to actually let good legislation go through).
You make a lot of assumptions that are not warranted.
First, you assume that conservatives will take both houses. That's very unlikely.
Secondly, you assume that the "do nothing" Party of No would then turn around and start passing legislation. They might, but it won't be the kind of legislation you all (mistakenly and foolishly) think you want.
I remain so conflicted here. On the one hand, I would love to see the Tea Party types win big so their empty noise can be seen for what it is. My only fear is that will damage us far too much - but it would be nice to bury this nonsense for a few decades or more.
No, honestly, I don't think they'll willingly undertake the legislation I want. And I don't just "think" I want it. I really do want it.
But what I do think is that my Party will have the power to listen to the proposals of the Right, and the responsibility to actually act upon those proposals. On the basis of it, the Party Platform actually calls for holding them accountable for enacting legislation to uphold those values.
No, you just think you want it. If you ever get it and you see what will happen to this country, you'll be sorry you ever registered to vote.
We don't need cuts - we are cut to the bone already. We need revenue and specifically we need it from the greedy rich who are destroying this country. Without a middle class, we are doomed and the type of legislation the real puppet masters of the Tea Party want will do nothing to help us.
I know you can't see that. It still needs to be said.
I don't want to insult your opinion, but I must comment on something you said.
This idea of "the party of do nothing, no party" stuff is nonsense. Saying no is an important part of any discussion. Imagine a work where people who disagreed with something were not allowed to disagree or take action against what they disagree with!! It would be tyranny!!
Saying no is not the same thing as doing nothing: fighting government spending is a valid method of fighting a depression. Consumption is not the way to save an economy, no matter what Krugman tells us.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with "no" if it is a principled stand. The current Republican party is saying no to everything as a strategy for winning back the House and Senate, not out of principle. They have publicly admitted that. And one can see it's true because they have said no to proposals that were originally their own.
IF Obama is working hard to save our way of life, and all the repubs want is to see him fail, what does this say? There are people running for office that advocate a violent takeover if the election doesn't go their way! This is WAY outta control! Nobody can place nice in the sandbox. Sounds like "TIME OUT"
Exactly. What a wonderful moral example they set. Let the county suffer that they may make political gains.
The rubes are once again being sucked in by the "trust us this time, we've learned our lesson" line from the R's. They will win some offices, become exposed once again as liars, hypocrites, and fools, then whine from the sidelines again in two years as society's progress resumes.
I think you are disillusioned. You can't just say no and think there is a discussion. Discussion implies debate, conceding, refuting, negotiation, and compromise. None of that is happening on either side.
Name just one company where the workers get to make the decisions without resulting to legal mediation. Management makes the decisions period, all companies are run as dictatorships, some are just more benevolent than others.
Governments themselves do not create depressions. Consumer reactions to government policies lead to depressions. Yes, gvt. spending needs to be curtailed but also consumers need to be protected as well as encouraged to keep consuming.
Sorry but I'm not assuming anything. You'll notice I specifically state that every reputable poll is making the assumptions.
You MAY or may not have a light majority, but that's not definite at all.
To hear you talk, you'd think 80% or more of the country agrees with you. That's not the case at all: at BEST your ideas represent a little over 50% and even that isn't absolutely certain.
Millions of us are firmly opposed to everything you pitch. We aren't a tiny minority at all.
Tobey, I think you should let well enough alone. Let them keep believing and hiring Shrum with his losing record. It's all good for the rest of us.
I heard an interview yesterday with Scott Rasmussen the pollster.
He is quite up front about realizing that polls are NOT clairvoyant. There are many races that are legitimately "too close to call" (for one, the governor's race in Florida has the Democrat, Alex Sink at something like .01% ahead of the Republican).
The candidates who have generated the most media attention generated it by being extreme. This is not to say they are qualified or going to win. It means they are lightning rods for attention -- most of it negative.
Will there be some movement toward the right (as in GOP) in the House? Yes. Will the GOP win ever seat they are running for? No.
Will they win the Senate? Mathematically it's not likely.
No matter what they do or don't score in the midterm elections, will it make them happy? Not on your life.
John Orange Tan and his cronies have one objective and one objective only: To ensure that Obama is a one-term president.
That, to me, is contemptible. We elected him and the other congresspeople to SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS HERE AND NOW. And all they care about -- and I do mean ALL -- is thwarting ANY progress that will make our country better now.
Is that really the kind of representation you people want?
"John Orange Tan and his cronies"
Why call them "cronies"? Isn't that a little low-road?
" have one objective and one objective only: To ensure that Obama is a one-term president."
A fine objective.
"That, to me, is contemptible."
Then you should support other candidates.
"We elected him and the other congresspeople"
And now a lot of people want to make a different 'choice.'
"to SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS HERE AND NOW. And all they care about -- and I do mean ALL -- is thwarting ANY progress that will make our country better now."
An awful lot of your fellow Americans don't want the government as our 'problem sovler,' and what is or is not "progress" or "better" will depend a lot on your point of view. You have to expect that a great many of your fellow Americans will not agree with your assessment of that.
"Is that really the kind of representation you people want?"
We're having elections to find out just that.
I also heard Rasmussen and Charlie Cook both admit that the polls were so off the chart tilting toward a Republican stomping that they were cutting back on their estimates regarding a Republican simply because they could not believe the size of the swing against the Democrats. Charlie Cook allowed as how it could be much worse than is being reported.
by My Esoteric6 months ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with...
by LucidDreams4 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that...
by girly_girl098 years ago
After posting my last thread on spite towards people in the public spotlight, I thought I should come out. So, here is a little overview of my political beliefs that I thought you might enjoy. I think that there is a...
by LucidDreams5 years ago
I keep hearing the pro-republican news outlets like fox etc. talking about news that does not matter at this point. Since they had such a stanglehold on the candidate, I mean, they seem to work together as far as...
by American View5 years ago
I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.