Election Aftermath - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cimarron29414 · 11-06-2010, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

You realize the Executive branch is the Presidency, right?

Yes, Tully.

You see, when one party holds power in both branches of congress and also holds the presidency, it means bad things for us. Now that one of those three was wrestled from monopoly, glorious, glorious gridlock occurs.

Tully Mars · 11-06-2010, 07:15 AM

I really think the plan is to gut SS, medicare and anything that looks like it's a hand out. I think the tea party folks see any federal money going to an individual as "evil." Which is kind of odd considering the number of them that are admittedly on such programs.

If you completely unfunded all those programs it might be possible to increase military funding.

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Yes, Tully.

You see, when one party holds power in both branches of congress and also holds the presidency, it means bad things for us. Now that one of those three was wrestled from monopoly, glorious, glorious gridlock occurs.

Oh ok, I see. Well then you must have hated the Bush Jr. years.

Cimarron29414 · 11-06-2010, 07:23 AM

Yes. Any time there is concensus across those three branches (okay, two branches with a sub-branch?

), it means massive expansion of the federal government. Would you not characterize the Bush years as such?

Baraka_Guru · 11-06-2010, 07:37 AM

Well, unless we see some unprecedented political plays---say, from Tea Partier types or whatever---this current political environment should be good for the stock market at least. Historically, the market does best under split governments, probably because they appreciate the stability that arises out of the process of compromise.

This means that more investors will be comfortable investing, which means more capital infusing into the system, which means, in theory, more capital purchases for increased efficiency and eventually more hiring. Companies won't sit on their cash for too long, especially once their competitors start making moves towards expansion.

Cimarron29414 · 11-06-2010, 07:40 AM

Right, so when the federal government quits writing laws and interfering with the ongoings of Americans, the entire country prospers, and hence the world.

Got it. Well said, Baraka.

Baraka_Guru · 11-06-2010, 07:47 AM

Not exactly. It's more about getting both political parties to reach a middle ground to ensure that the laws and such that are passed are mostly likely going to benefit the greatest number of Americans instead of conservative or liberal Americans.

Compromises don't always work, which is why stuff often doesn't get done, but some stuff does. The hope is that the stuff that does get done is important to the core of the country in terms of functioning as a stable society---a counterbalance to extreme political goals, if you will.

Canada has been under a minority conservative government for years now, with the persistent looming possibility of a centre-left/left coalition if things weren't tempered in the interest of a wide number of Canadians, rather than mainly centre-right/conservative interests. If you haven't noticed yet, Canada has been one of the most stable, if not most stable, economically amongst the G8 right through the global recession---one could argue it's been stable politically as well.

Split governments can be frustrating, but in terms of acts of government under them, the compromises take into account the greatest number of people because you have more people along the spectrum pulling their influence to do what they can to influence final decisions.

The thing to remember about America is that, despite the myths that tend to float around, the nation is historically politically centre, well-entrenched on the centre-right. You sometimes see fluctuations in either direction, but when all is said and done, you guys are centre-right. The best one can hope for in a two-party system, is this kind of give and take.

Cimarron29414 · 11-06-2010, 08:02 AM

For 10 minutes there, people mistook you for a laissez faire sort of guy. That must have felt weird for you.

Baraka_Guru · 11-06-2010, 08:13 AM

Yes, quite weird.

Laissez-faire is as appealing to me as communism.

Tully Mars · 11-06-2010, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Yes. Any time there is concensus across those three branches (okay, two branches with a sub-branch?

), it means massive expansion of the federal government. Would you not characterize the Bush years as such?

Yes, I think it's bad when either side has too much power.

I would characterize the Bush Jr. years has complete failures. I have little doubt years from now historians will list him as one of the worst POTUS ever.

Cimarron29414 · 11-06-2010, 09:22 AM

He was inadequate for the job, and that job was made tremendously more difficult by 9/11. When you put a marginally qualified person in an extremely difficult position, they usually fall on their face. Had 9/11 not occurred, he would have been a 4 year president and it would have been a mediocre tenure.

roachboy · 11-06-2010, 10:05 AM

i think that 9/11/2001 simplified things for the bush people. it's kinda hard to imagine how they'd have functioned without it frankly---they ran the show from a state of emergency---9/11 enabled the neo-con imperialist daydream to bring us the steaming brown bon-bon that was iraq---on and on.

without 9/11/2001 maybe a mediocre single-term president.
with 9/11/2001, a two-term fucking disaster.

Tully Mars · 11-06-2010, 10:07 AM

He was completely inadequate for the job and surrounded himself by people with terrible ideas. I thought after 9-11 he was doing a pretty damn good job. I remember seeing a poll where he had something like 94% approval and I thought to myself who are these (6%) morons who don't support the POTUS in a time of war. Wasn't until he took focus off finding OBL and attacked Iraq that I went "what the heck is this guy doing?"

Oh well, I'm partly to blame, I voted for him in 2000. I just thought he country had had enough of the dems and it was time to change leadership. Plus really thought (still do) much of the good times under Clinton were due to things the GOP forced down his throat. Though I completely disagreed with their handling of the Starr, et el, investigation(s.) I could give a shit who gave or how often he got a blow job.

That's one of the things that concerns me about the current house, with control comes subpoena power. I'm not interested in endless, time wasting hearings. Unlike you I think gridlock is a bad thing and I think there's a lot of work to be done. That's be hard to do if we end up spending time trying to prove Obama was born in Kenya.

Cimarron29414 · 11-06-2010, 10:23 AM

Imagine if the work needing to be done was done by people who could actually make a difference, like you and me.

Tully Mars · 11-06-2010, 10:35 AM

One- I'm not sure I understand enough about how things like the economy, foreign policy etc.. work to make a difference in a positive way. Bush was inadequate. I might make him look good. Second- getting common people elected isn't likely ever going to happen. It takes big money anymore to run a winning campaign, that money has to come from somewhere. So most of the time by the time anyone is elected they've been bought and paid for several times over. I honestly feel we've gotten to the point in this country that by the time someone is elected they're unworthy of the office.

Deep down I fear it might be too late to change the system. I'm hoping to see some kind of logical third party option in 2012. One with realistic solutions and not just slogans and "bumper sticker meme." But I also wish I'd win the lotto... I figure chances of both are about the same and I don't buy lotto tickets.

Cimarron29414 · 11-06-2010, 11:04 AM

Tully, Tully, Tully....

Your natural inclination is to think that, naturally, I was talking about us running for office. This inclination means you believe that the work to be done can only be done by the government. This saddens me.

Tully Mars · 11-06-2010, 05:41 PM

I believe the system can only be helped by people who completely understands things like the US Constitution, how major economies function (or don't,) the details of diplomatic relations and on and on and on. I never said it takes someone from the government to solve the governmental problem. I'm simply saying solving those problems will take someone better educated then I on these matters (and I'm guessing a whole bunch I never even considered.)

I want the folks running the system to understand important issue like these, I'm sure I don't. It really pisses me off when people running for office can't answer basic questions about things like the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. This last election a reporter asked O'Donnell a few question about the US Constitution and she stated "There's at least one or two amendments I'd like to repeal." "Like which ones?" Her response was "I'd start with the 13th." I knew by the look on the reporters face something was wrong but I had no idea what the 13th amendment was so I looked it up real fast. Turns out it's the amendment that repealed slavery.

Do I think I could be effective on the local school board or the water board? Sure, I have a back ground in administrative rules, public employee relations/bargaining units and local ordinances. Do I think I would be a good candidate for national public office? No. I don't want average Joe Blows, like me, running the country. I want well educated, well informed people doing that.

There's a line in a Clint Eastwood movie where he tells another guy "a mans got to know his limitations." I think that's good advice.

flstf · 11-08-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

So which of the republican candidates elected on tuesday ran on a platform of cutting social security, medicare and military spending? And by cutting social security and medicare, I don't mean privatizing (as that actually increases deficits in the short run).

Hell, to make this farce even more blatant, a number of them gained support precisely because the elderly are upset that the current health care bill actually cuts medicare spending.

Several of my elderly neighbors voted against Democrats because the healthcare reform bill cuts about $500 billion from their Medicare. They believe the Tea Party will keep the government's hands off their benefits unlike "Obamacare".

The elections in 2012 could get interesting if the Rand Paul (Tea Party) version of spending cuts gets much airplay on cable. I suspect most Republicans will not dwell on cuts to seniors programs.

Tully Mars · 11-08-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Several of my elderly neighbors voted against Democrats because the healthcare reform bill cuts about $500 billion from their Medicare. They believe the Tea Party will keep the government's hands off their benefits unlike "Obamacare".

The elections in 2012 could get interesting if the Rand Paul (Tea Party) version of spending cuts gets much airplay on cable. I suspect most Republicans will not dwell on cuts to seniors programs.

There's really no way for most of the GOP's elected under the tea party mantra to be re-elected if they manage to do what they said they'll do. Seniors vote and they won't like what they voted for this time.

roachboy · 11-08-2010, 11:04 AM

in france after world war 2 there was a reworking of part of the educational system to produce "technocrats" who would have both the academic and procedural background to be able to inform (and sometimes block) political policy choices. the reason this got started was in part because there's a body of administrative law that lays out the procedures for how bureaucracies operate. it's boring stuff, but it's more transparent in its way that you find in other places.

the existence of the administrative law made policy formation a more obviously technical matter than it appears to be in the states. the other main reason for this was the expansion of the state after world war 2, which found itself nationalizing some areas on planning grounds and others, like renault and parts of the banking sector, because of the excessive enthusiasm (ahem) that folk who ran the show during the war showed for working with the germans. so the state expanded rapidly in part as a matter of circumstance.

to qualify things: it's not that the development of technocrats enabled the french system to avoid problems--but alot of those problems derived from other features of the political system than are concerned with the technical matters of policy development and implementation.

i mention all this to echo tully's point above---there is a real problem, particularly in more social-democratic style systems, of a technical understanding of how governance works. the american system, which is mixed, a kind of weak version in which the state has long mutated in ways that basically save capitalism from itself (because capitalism generates crisis as one of its primary characteristics---and this is a matter of historical record, not open for debate) but in a context that is also characterized by a bizarre-o political aversion to the idea of government, to the idea of the state. one effect of that is that there's not really been the same kind of redirecting of the educational system to reproduce a professional labor pool for policy formation and implementation.

during period of relative contintuity/inertia this isn't necessarily such a big deal---but when you hit periods of deeper crisis that require basic rethinks that goes beyond merely tweaking arrangements already in place, the fact that the american system is subject to the continual learning curves of the politicos that run the show is a real problem.

this doesn't seem something that can be just fixed either. it'd require something like a system failure it seems to me. maybe we're on our way to one. hard to say.

loquitur · 11-08-2010, 11:59 AM

rb, that's all very interesting but it's not fundamentally democratic, at least not in the sense that most Americans understand the term. Handing over governance to unelected technocrats doesn't sit well with most Americans (at least, unless the person being asked is a technocrat or part of the technocratic class).

roachboy · 11-08-2010, 01:25 PM

loquitor---

well, the same thing happens in almost any administrative apparatus, yes? sometimes the consequences are more obvious than others.
there's pretty overwhelming continuity across presidencies in most federal bureaucracies etc...i think i saw a number or two about this once, but can't remember.

if that's the case, then really all that is changed by this training is the professional and intellectual competencies of the administration.

but yeah, i can see how the impression could be otherwise.

one of the main differences between french conceptions of democracy and american insofar as the state is concerned anyway (i mean as a bureaucracy) is the emphasis placed on transparency of procedure.

what's strange---from my viewpoint anyway, based on my experience with french state bureaucracies (which are not enough to make me an expert...just a clown with a couple years fellowship money from the french government once upon a time, which required that i do alot more of the usual administrative stuff to be in france than i had to before or since) is that this transparency makes them into self-referential machines kinda. it's like you are a client or as someone who needs something to happen are extraneous to the whole machinery, which gets along perfectly well in it's self-enclosed little universe without you. it's not hostility. it's indifference. it's kinda amazing. but one adapts.

like when i first got there for that period, i had to register with the prefect of police for the paris district i lived in. i had to get a national identity card and keep it with me before that. i know that this comes out of the history of the police in france and how they monitor the population, in paris in particular, which runs back to the 17th-18th century intellectually (it's different from the anglo model)....but still at first it felt like i was giving something away. a sense of personal space or something. it took a little while to learn that it's really just a different administrative system not a different sense of "freedom."

but it is different.

i was concerned mostly with thinking about how a system like the american could make significant adjustments of logic or even direction (within the same logic) if there's not something on the order of a technocracy running the show administratively.

if recent events are any guide, the answer's simple: it can't.

added later:..............................................................................................

and here's another piece which argues that the tea party does not exist. not really.

Quote:

The Tea Party is not new, or coherent. It's merely old whine in new bottles

This incoherent group has no leaders, no policies, no headquarters. It is held together by Fox TV and big money

----

Lectures about fiscal responsibility from the occupants of a plush suite on the 20th floor of one of the fanciest hotels in Las Vegas stick in the craw like a slice of cantaloupe swallowed sideways. Appropriately, the Tea Party Express's open bar, trays of fruit and skyline view at the Aria hotel on election night smacked more of a corporate event than a political, let alone a populist, one.

At one stage I turned to a man standing next to me and asked if he was a Tea Party supporter. "No," he said. "I was hoping you were." He was a state department official who had brought some foreign journalists in the hope of meeting some real Tea Party supporters to interview. But they couldn't find any. There is a reason for that.

The "Tea Party" does not exist. It has no members, leaders, office bearers, headquarters, policies, participatory structures, budget or representatives. The Tea Party is shorthand for a broad, shallow sentiment about low taxes and small government shared by loosely affiliated, somewhat like-minded people. That doesn't mean the right isn't resurgent. It is. But the forces driving its political energy are not those that underpinned its recent electoral success.

The Tea Party is not a new phenomenon. It's simply a new name for an old phenomenon – the American hard right. Over the last two years the term has provided a rallying point for a coalition of disparate groups, most of which have been around for many years. Minutemen (anti-immigrant vigilantes), birthers (who deny that Obama was born in the US), Promise Keepers (Conservative Christian men), Oath Keepers (military and police, retired and current, who vow to resist unconstitutional government "by any means necessary"), Fox News watchers, Glenn Beck lovers and Rush Limbaugh listeners who had no unifying identity before.

Having a name helps. It has offered a political identity to a significant number of people who were either not active or might not have understood themselves to be in any way connected. That name has helped reorient the stated priorities of the right away from social issues and towards fiscal ones. But this is no more than the old whine in new bottles.

Most of the characters now closely associated with the Tea Party are not new to rightwing politics. They have just moved from the margins to the mainstream. Sharron Angle, the failed Senate candidate from Nevada, has held state office since 1998. While in the 42-member state assembly she voted no so often on consensual matters that such votes were sometimes referred to as "41-to-Angle". The much-maligned Delaware Tea Party candidate, Christine O'Donnell, stood unopposed in the Republican primary in 2008 before going on to challenge Joe Biden. These people didn't join the Tea Party, the "Tea Party" term attached itself to them.

It is difficult to imagine a candidate earning the Tea Party label who is not against gay marriage or abortion, for the simple reason that no such candidate could exist. White Christian evangelicals still formed one of the most crucial bedrocks of last week's Republican success – comprising 25% of the electorate and giving 79% of their vote to the GOP. That's far more clout than black and Latino votes combined give the Democrats .

At first the term Tea Party helped us understand the insurgent, inchoate force that took to the streets last year; now it may be hindering analysis of its more choreographed march to power. For when people ask what the Tea Party will do, talk about Tea Party demands, or lay down Tea Party threats, they mistake (wilfully or otherwise) the Tea Party for a coherent formation with power of cohesive action. It's not.

Research conducted over several months by the Washington Post to contact every Tea Party group in the country found that many did not exist. Seventy per cent said they had not been involved in a political event in a year – a year in which the Tea Party was credited with transforming the nation's politics.

"When a group lists themselves on our website, that's a group," Mark Meckler, a founding member of the Tea Party Patriots, told the Post. "That group could be one person, it could be 10 people, it could come in and out of existence – we don't know."

This is less of a criticism than a description. Movement-building is hard, messy work that, if it is to be truly at grassroots level, produces uneven results. In that sense it's no different from, say, the anti-war movement, and would have been about as successful were not it for two key factors.

The first is that the Tea Party has its own "news" channel – Fox – devoted to its growth. It promotes Tea Party demonstrations as though they are events of national celebration and showcases those who pose as its leaders as though they are national celebrities. Second, it has money. A lot of it. When it comes to elections it has the backing of huge amounts of money from private corporations and individuals who are behind institutions – like the Tea Party Express, Freedomworks, Americans for Prosperity and Tea Party Patriots – which are run by people with a proven track record of rightwing Republican activism.

The relationship between these organisations and the base of people who call themselves Tea Party supporters is episodic and erratic. They show up in different places where they sense an opportunity for a breakthrough, throw money at it, attract media attention for it, and then see what sticks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires – mostly it makes barely any difference. They have no organic, let alone democratic, relationship with the grassroots that they claim, in some way, to represent. Sarah Palin, for example, endorsed 64 candidates this season. Half of them won last Tuesday; 10 lost in the primaries, 19 lost in the general elections, and three races are still too close to call. Her support is important, but hardly decisive.

It would be too easy to deduce from this that the Tea Party is simply a creation of big business and the rightwing media. Neither, alone, can explain the 50 or so conservative old men who have met at the Nugget Casino in Pahrump, a hard-scrabble town in rural Nevada, every Friday for the last five years, or most of the other groups I have seen around the country. It would also be too naive to suggest that such groups would boast anything other than a marginal presence without big money and media to amplify their voices.

What we witnessed on Tuesday was not a realignment of American politics but the first real test of the reconfiguration of the balance of forces in the American right. Exit polls show an electorate even more polarised than two years ago, where registered independents swung to Republicans but self-described moderates continued to back the Democrats. Sixty per cent of the seats that the Democrats lost were in districts where John McCain beat Obama in 2008.

Last December I interviewed Rand Paul, after he addressed about 12 people in a small town in Leitchfield, Kentucky, and asked what the Tea Party meant to him. "I call it the national open mic movement," he joked. "It's kind of good in a way. Some people were tired of not being able to speak their piece. But I don't think it has a cohesion yet. It's yet to be seen whether it can transform itself."

Back then Paul was a rank outsider; now he is a senator-elect. The Tea Party still has no cohesion, but it has been transformed. Not from the inside or below, but from the outside and above. Its name reflects a popular mood, its actions reflect an elite capability.

The Tea Party is not new, or coherent. It's merely old whine in new bottles | Gary Younge | Comment is free | The Guardian

this should be pretty obvious by now.

Derwood · 11-09-2010, 08:28 AM

I'm not worried about Rand Paul; he sold out to the GOP to get the financial backing he needed to win.

Tully Mars · 11-09-2010, 08:39 AM

Paul already back tracking from the "no ear marks" platform he ran on. Depending on who you read he's either now stating "they're fine as long as Ky gets it's share." Or "it's ok as they're not called ear marks."

That didn't take long, not even in office yet.

filtherton · 11-11-2010, 09:03 AM

Interesting how congressional republican leadership did Michelle Bachmann, and she isn't really all that good of a tea partier. I think their relationship with her is a pretty good microcosm of the relationship between the republican party and the tea party.

Should be interesting to watch.

11-06-2010, 07:23 AM	#43 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Yes. Any time there is concensus across those three branches (okay, two branches with a sub-branch? ), it means massive expansion of the federal government. Would you not characterize the Bush years as such? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

11-06-2010, 07:37 AM	#44 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, unless we see some unprecedented political plays---say, from Tea Partier types or whatever---this current political environment should be good for the stock market at least. Historically, the market does best under split governments, probably because they appreciate the stability that arises out of the process of compromise. This means that more investors will be comfortable investing, which means more capital infusing into the system, which means, in theory, more capital purchases for increased efficiency and eventually more hiring. Companies won't sit on their cash for too long, especially once their competitors start making moves towards expansion. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-06-2010, 07:40 AM	#45 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Right, so when the federal government quits writing laws and interfering with the ongoings of Americans, the entire country prospers, and hence the world. Got it. Well said, Baraka. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

11-06-2010, 07:47 AM	#46 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Not exactly. It's more about getting both political parties to reach a middle ground to ensure that the laws and such that are passed are mostly likely going to benefit the greatest number of Americans instead of conservative or liberal Americans. Compromises don't always work, which is why stuff often doesn't get done, but some stuff does. The hope is that the stuff that does get done is important to the core of the country in terms of functioning as a stable society---a counterbalance to extreme political goals, if you will. Canada has been under a minority conservative government for years now, with the persistent looming possibility of a centre-left/left coalition if things weren't tempered in the interest of a wide number of Canadians, rather than mainly centre-right/conservative interests. If you haven't noticed yet, Canada has been one of the most stable, if not most stable, economically amongst the G8 right through the global recession---one could argue it's been stable politically as well. Split governments can be frustrating, but in terms of acts of government under them, the compromises take into account the greatest number of people because you have more people along the spectrum pulling their influence to do what they can to influence final decisions. The thing to remember about America is that, despite the myths that tend to float around, the nation is historically politically centre, well-entrenched on the centre-right. You sometimes see fluctuations in either direction, but when all is said and done, you guys are centre-right. The best one can hope for in a two-party system, is this kind of give and take. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 11-06-2010 at 07:51 AM..

11-06-2010, 08:02 AM	#47 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	For 10 minutes there, people mistook you for a laissez faire sort of guy. That must have felt weird for you. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

11-06-2010, 08:13 AM	#48 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Yes, quite weird. Laissez-faire is as appealing to me as communism. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-06-2010, 09:22 AM	#50 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	He was inadequate for the job, and that job was made tremendously more difficult by 9/11. When you put a marginally qualified person in an extremely difficult position, they usually fall on their face. Had 9/11 not occurred, he would have been a 4 year president and it would have been a mediocre tenure. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

11-06-2010, 10:05 AM	#51 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think that 9/11/2001 simplified things for the bush people. it's kinda hard to imagine how they'd have functioned without it frankly---they ran the show from a state of emergency---9/11 enabled the neo-con imperialist daydream to bring us the steaming brown bon-bon that was iraq---on and on. without 9/11/2001 maybe a mediocre single-term president. with 9/11/2001, a two-term fucking disaster. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-06-2010, 10:07 AM	#52 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	He was completely inadequate for the job and surrounded himself by people with terrible ideas. I thought after 9-11 he was doing a pretty damn good job. I remember seeing a poll where he had something like 94% approval and I thought to myself who are these (6%) morons who don't support the POTUS in a time of war. Wasn't until he took focus off finding OBL and attacked Iraq that I went "what the heck is this guy doing?" Oh well, I'm partly to blame, I voted for him in 2000. I just thought he country had had enough of the dems and it was time to change leadership. Plus really thought (still do) much of the good times under Clinton were due to things the GOP forced down his throat. Though I completely disagreed with their handling of the Starr, et el, investigation(s.) I could give a shit who gave or how often he got a blow job. That's one of the things that concerns me about the current house, with control comes subpoena power. I'm not interested in endless, time wasting hearings. Unlike you I think gridlock is a bad thing and I think there's a lot of work to be done. That's be hard to do if we end up spending time trying to prove Obama was born in Kenya. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

11-06-2010, 10:23 AM	#53 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Imagine if the work needing to be done was done by people who could actually make a difference, like you and me. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

11-06-2010, 10:35 AM	#54 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	One- I'm not sure I understand enough about how things like the economy, foreign policy etc.. work to make a difference in a positive way. Bush was inadequate. I might make him look good. Second- getting common people elected isn't likely ever going to happen. It takes big money anymore to run a winning campaign, that money has to come from somewhere. So most of the time by the time anyone is elected they've been bought and paid for several times over. I honestly feel we've gotten to the point in this country that by the time someone is elected they're unworthy of the office. Deep down I fear it might be too late to change the system. I'm hoping to see some kind of logical third party option in 2012. One with realistic solutions and not just slogans and "bumper sticker meme." But I also wish I'd win the lotto... I figure chances of both are about the same and I don't buy lotto tickets. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

11-06-2010, 11:04 AM	#55 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Tully, Tully, Tully.... Your natural inclination is to think that, naturally, I was talking about us running for office. This inclination means you believe that the work to be done can only be done by the government. This saddens me. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

11-06-2010, 05:41 PM	#56 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I believe the system can only be helped by people who completely understands things like the US Constitution, how major economies function (or don't,) the details of diplomatic relations and on and on and on. I never said it takes someone from the government to solve the governmental problem. I'm simply saying solving those problems will take someone better educated then I on these matters (and I'm guessing a whole bunch I never even considered.) I want the folks running the system to understand important issue like these, I'm sure I don't. It really pisses me off when people running for office can't answer basic questions about things like the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. This last election a reporter asked O'Donnell a few question about the US Constitution and she stated "There's at least one or two amendments I'd like to repeal." "Like which ones?" Her response was "I'd start with the 13th." I knew by the look on the reporters face something was wrong but I had no idea what the 13th amendment was so I looked it up real fast. Turns out it's the amendment that repealed slavery. Do I think I could be effective on the local school board or the water board? Sure, I have a back ground in administrative rules, public employee relations/bargaining units and local ordinances. Do I think I would be a good candidate for national public office? No. I don't want average Joe Blows, like me, running the country. I want well educated, well informed people doing that. There's a line in a Clint Eastwood movie where he tells another guy "a mans got to know his limitations." I think that's good advice. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

11-08-2010, 11:04 AM	#59 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	in france after world war 2 there was a reworking of part of the educational system to produce "technocrats" who would have both the academic and procedural background to be able to inform (and sometimes block) political policy choices. the reason this got started was in part because there's a body of administrative law that lays out the procedures for how bureaucracies operate. it's boring stuff, but it's more transparent in its way that you find in other places. the existence of the administrative law made policy formation a more obviously technical matter than it appears to be in the states. the other main reason for this was the expansion of the state after world war 2, which found itself nationalizing some areas on planning grounds and others, like renault and parts of the banking sector, because of the excessive enthusiasm (ahem) that folk who ran the show during the war showed for working with the germans. so the state expanded rapidly in part as a matter of circumstance. to qualify things: it's not that the development of technocrats enabled the french system to avoid problems--but alot of those problems derived from other features of the political system than are concerned with the technical matters of policy development and implementation. i mention all this to echo tully's point above---there is a real problem, particularly in more social-democratic style systems, of a technical understanding of how governance works. the american system, which is mixed, a kind of weak version in which the state has long mutated in ways that basically save capitalism from itself (because capitalism generates crisis as one of its primary characteristics---and this is a matter of historical record, not open for debate) but in a context that is also characterized by a bizarre-o political aversion to the idea of government, to the idea of the state. one effect of that is that there's not really been the same kind of redirecting of the educational system to reproduce a professional labor pool for policy formation and implementation. during period of relative contintuity/inertia this isn't necessarily such a big deal---but when you hit periods of deeper crisis that require basic rethinks that goes beyond merely tweaking arrangements already in place, the fact that the american system is subject to the continual learning curves of the politicos that run the show is a real problem. this doesn't seem something that can be just fixed either. it'd require something like a system failure it seems to me. maybe we're on our way to one. hard to say. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-08-2010, 11:59 AM	#60 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	rb, that's all very interesting but it's not fundamentally democratic, at least not in the sense that most Americans understand the term. Handing over governance to unelected technocrats doesn't sit well with most Americans (at least, unless the person being asked is a technocrat or part of the technocratic class).

11-09-2010, 08:28 AM	#62 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I'm not worried about Rand Paul; he sold out to the GOP to get the financial backing he needed to win. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

11-09-2010, 08:39 AM	#63 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Paul already back tracking from the "no ear marks" platform he ran on. Depending on who you read he's either now stating "they're fine as long as Ky gets it's share." Or "it's ok as they're not called ear marks." That didn't take long, not even in office yet. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

11-11-2010, 09:03 AM	#64 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Interesting how congressional republican leadership did Michelle Bachmann, and she isn't really all that good of a tea partier. I think their relationship with her is a pretty good microcosm of the relationship between the republican party and the tea party. Should be interesting to watch.