Ugh. Just ugh.

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

BM

[so I have the opportunity to read H2oman's comments.]

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

The Democrats have been working hard at grinding the entire government to a complete halt for two years now. It's time to give the Republicans a chance to share the burden.

Yes, you said something similar above. I can only refer you back to what I responded then (in the last para of my previous post). I think you're being facile here.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

You're right about Joe Miller, but unfortunately not about Rand Paul:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/AK/senate/?chart=10AKSenGEMvM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/KY/senate/?chart=10KYSenGEPvC

As for Angle and Reid, has Angle built a lead or is it still, technically, a toss-up? Choose your interpretation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/NV/senate/?chart=10NVSenGEAvR

(I hate that pollster.com has moved to the HuPo, but the charts are still good. You can tweak them if you want them more sensitive or if you want to filter out certain polls too.)

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
The Democrats have been working hard at grinding the entire government to a complete halt for two years now. It's time to give the Republicans a chance to share the burden.

Yes, you said something similar above. I can only refer you back to what I responded then (in the last para of my previous post). I think you're being facile here.

Well, I agree with him to a certain point. The Republicans had proved powerful enough and the Dems weak enough that they basically couldn't pass anything. Obama has been rhetorically unable to take them on effectively and he has been unwilling to be directly critical to members of his own party.

But when that flips to the Republican side, well; I doubt he will be as unwilling to be vocally critical of those holding the process up, and how that hurts the nation. If we aren't doing better financially, he will blame the inability to pass programs to solve the problem on them (and probably rightly so). Eventually the Republicans will talk themselves into some sort of showdown situation, and they will likely lose, just as they did in the late 90's.

You're right that this will hardly outweigh the river of bullshit that Obama has to deal with if the Republicans take control. But I think that politically it isn't terrible for him.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I agree, Cyclo. Americans are always irritated with whoever is in charge, but it's happening faster and faster. Obama's been in the White House for less than two years. By the time we're going to the polls again in two more years, it will be obvious that the Republicans didn't fix anything, and Obama will be in a much stronger position for reelection.

0 Replies

@msolga,

ditto. I like good honest quippery interspersed by the insane ramblings of HOH Man

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Yes, you said something similar above. I can only refer you back to what I responded then (in the last para of my previous post). I think you're being facile here.

Thank you.

Oh wait, you probably didn't mean that as a compliment. It's so hard sometimes to know what people mean when they say "facile." The word actually means "easy" or "effortless," but it's mistakenly used so often to mean "superficial" or "simplistic" that now the mistake has become one of the accepted definitions. Same thing with "fulsome."

1 Reply

Habibi certainly doesn't like it when anyone questions his political "wisdom," which is about the only reason i can see for his comments to Joe. But i agree with Joe, the Republicans can take the Congress and things won't much change, other than that the Republicans will be held responsible for the idiocy.

Americans love this situation--the White House in the hands of one party and the Congress in the hands of the other. Maybe because it gives them a reason to bitch about everybody.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

It's so hard sometimes to know what people mean when they say "facile." The word actually means "easy" or "effortless," but it's mistakenly used so often to mean "superficial" or "simplistic" that now the mistake has become one of the accepted definitions. Same thing with "fulsome."

Good God, Joe. Google it:

fac·ile/ˈfasəl/Adjective
1. (esp. of a theory or argument) Appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial.
2. (of a person) Having a superficial or simplistic knowledge or approach.

EDIT (to clarify my point): So yes, it has become an "accepted definition", so any argument that it "actually" means something else is kind of pointless, isnt it?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Republicans had proved powerful enough and the Dems weak enough that they basically couldn't pass anything.

This is the part that I called facile. It's just wrong. We may have wanted more from the Obama admin, but as a matter of fact they passed a shitload of things - certainly more than Clinton passed in his first two years.

I dont get the all-or-nothing attitude. It's possible to be upset about all the things he didn't get passed, either because he himself was too cautious or because the Blue Dogs obstructed or because the GOP threw a spanner in the works, and yet acknowledge that they still did pass a boatload of stuff as well and not pretend that nothing much is lost when, in the next two years, gridlock will really be total.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

the Republicans can take the Congress and things won't much change, other than that the Republicans will be held responsible for the idiocy.

I would love this to be true, but I'm afraid I don't believe it. A lot of the failures of the administration to get things done, even things that would, in another time, have been wholly uncontroversial, are due to the GOP already having used anonymous holds and the threat of filibuster effectively enough to block them, but are the voters holding the m responsible? Obviously not. They don't particularly like them any better than the Dems, as the favo9urability numbers show, but they see the Dems as the ones in power and thus automatically place the responsibility on them.

If the GOP gets to hold the House but the more prominent Senate is still majority-Dem and, of course, the President remains a Dem, they will keep automatically placing the main responsibility for anything that goes wrong on the President's party. I think they'd have to go as far as trying to impeach Obama like they did with Bill before they focus the backlash on themselves. Just regular legislative obstruction just gets glossed over by the public at large, no matter how exercised we get about it.

2 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

If the GOP gets to hold the House but the more prominent Senate is still majority-Dem and, of course, the President remains a Dem, they will keep automatically placing the main responsibility for anything that goes wrong on the President's party.

This is mere ipse dixit. You don't advance any reason to believe this is what will happen, you just state that it will. I've already noted, i believe, that the Democrats will have to make the blame game stick to the Republicans to reap the benefits in 2012. But it always does amuse me to see you tell us what Americans think about our political situation.

1 Reply

Well, no, apparently i didn't yet mention that the Democrats will have to make an effort to profit by the situation--perhaps i mentioned that in another thread. At any event, i'm saying it now. The Republicans can be made responsible for any faiures in the next two years, if the Democrats have the sense to accomplish that.

0 Replies

Before you go all nerd on us and start posting charts and graphs, Habibi, maybe you should read this summay of a recent poll:

Quote:

That, at least, is the conclusion from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which finds:
-- that less than half the country approves of President Obama's job;
-- that the percentage believing the current Congress is either below average or among the worst is at an all-time high;
-- that the number viewing the Republican Party favorably is at an all-time low;
-- and that the Democratic Party doesn't fare much better.

What's more, nearly six in 10 respondents still say the country is headed in the wrong direction, and almost two-thirds think that the U.S. economy has yet to hit rock-bottom j(emphasis added).

Just because people are pissed at the Democrats doesn't mean they're in love with the Republicans.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Just because people are pissed at the Democrats doesn't mean they're in love with the Republicans.

No kidding, but that fact will not save Obama democrats.

0 Replies

Somebody should care? You're the only clown around here that gets worked up over these things . . . well, there is Habibi, too . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Before you go all nerd on us and start posting charts and graphs, Habibi ...

Boy, what a party pooper! Wink

I like nimh's graphs & charts!
They're very informative.
I'm hoping to see lots of them! Smile

1 Reply

There are plenty of liberal democrat assclowns getting worked up over these things.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Have any of them informed you that the American public has no use for the Democrats or the Republicans?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well I haven't seen any yet ... from this election. Obviously. Wink

But generally they tell me about voting patterns & stuff like that ...
Nothing to get all cranky about.

1 Reply

Ugh. Just ugh.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know