You stated that you doubted our sanity. That we are misguided. In other words, you are saying that if we were just as smart as you are, then we would be smart enough to vote for your candidates. Sorry, that smacks of elitism.
The choice for Senate was quite clear for most of the voters ---
Meek, a nice guy but a traditional, big government Democrat who would vote with Obama 99.9% of the time;
Crist, a once Reagan Republican (or so he says) who has flipped on several issues and who most of us think he is nothing more than a political opportunist; or
Rubio, a conservative Republican who believes in smaller government and more personal freedom.
The choice for Govenor was different - and very, very close. However, the idea of voting for a Tallahassee-insider Democrat who was in the pocket of state employees and unions was a bit too much for most of us.
And so we disagree with each other. But wouldn't it be great if we could disagree without calling each other names?
Florida Voters Board the Crazy Train
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by FR7 Baptist, Nov 3, 2010.
Page 2 of 3
-
FriendofSpurgeon Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
When I read posts like this, I wonder if the poster knows the history of political movements in the United States. That, for instance, the Democrats held continuous power in Congress, both the House and Senate much of the time since the Great Depression without more than a 2 year break here and there. There were several moderate and one semi-conservative Republican presidents during that time, but the agenda for the nation was set by the Left.
Eisenhower held a Republican Presidency with both houses of Congress for 2 years in 1953, and the next time that occurred was during George W. Bush's first term in 2003 (mid-term elections). That means that between 1929 and 2003, Democrats had continual influence and/or compete control of our government, with the exception of one 2-year term -- 74 years!
We do indeed need "change." But that "change" is not that dictated to us by the Obama administration, which is not change at all, but rather a new look at how we run this Federal Republic (yes, not a Democracy as is so often said these days), Of, By, and For the People, according to rule of law as handed down in our Constitution.
Below is a list, as the title indicates, of the President and his party affiliation, plus both the Senate and House and their controlling party affiliation.
Think of all the legislation that came down the pike during that time, then ask yourself if we can find answers for our nation by "returning" to the same party that has set us up in our current condition.
Party Control of Congress and the Presidency -- (1921-2000)
Year *=Divided Government
President
Senate
House
2009
Obama (D)
D
D
2007*
Bush (R)
D
D
2005
Bush (R)
R
R
2003
Bush (R)
R
R
2001*
Bush (R)
D
R
1999*
Clinton (D)
R
R
1997*
Clinton (D)
R
R
1995*
Clinton (D)
R
R
1993
Clinton (D)
D
D
1991*
Bush (R)
D
D
1989*
Bush (R)
D
D
1987*
Reagan ( R)
D
D
1985*
Reagan ( R)
R
D
1983*
Reagan ( R)
R
D
1981*
Reagan ( R)
R
D
1979
Carter (D)
D
D
1977
Carter (D)
D
D
1975*
Ford (R)
D
D
1973*
Nixon (R)
D
D
1971*
Nixon (R)
D
D
1969*
Nixon (R)
D
D
1967
Johnson (D)
D
D
1965
Johnson (D)
D
D
1963
Johnson (D)
D
D
1961
Kennedy (D)
D
D
1959*
Eisenhower ( R)
D
D
1957*
Eisenhower ( R)
D
D
1955*
Eisenhower ( R)
D
D
1953
Eisenhower ( R)
R
R
1951
Truman (D)
D
D
1949
Truman (D)
D
D
1947*
Truman (D)
R
R
1945
FDR/Truman (D)
D
D
1943
F D Roosevelt (D)
D
D
1941
F D Roosevelt (D)
D
D
1939
F D Roosevelt (D)
D
D
1937
F D Roosevelt (D)
D
D
1935
F D Roosevelt (D)
D
D
1933
F D Roosevelt (D)
D
D
1931*
Hoover (R)
R
D
1929
Hoover (R)
R
R
1927
Coolidge ( R)
R
R
1925
Coolidge ( R)
R
R
1923
R (Coolidge)
R
R
1921
Harding (R)
R
R -
-
Since when did taking a view that resembled Madison, Washington, and Jefferson--instead of King George--become "radical?"
What's also disturbing is how you throw those perjoratives out there, yet doing so without any cogent explanation as to how on God's green earth someone is "extreme" simply because they wish to promote the foundational principles on which our country was founded?
You want to fine and imprison folks for not buying health insurance--but I'm "radical?" Riiiiiight. You don't mind the government taking over private business and running it...but yet Rubio is "extreme?" Riiiiiight.
-
1. Are you ever willing to re-examine your views? Maybe--just maybe--you could possibly learn something from the hundreds of thousands of newly informed voters who did their homework and voted against the anti-American, anti-freedom agenda promoted by Obamareidelosi?
2. It's pretty obvious this cycle saw the most informed electorate in recent memory. People went to the polls armed with specific knowledge about specific candidates and positions--all the way down the line to the local level. Compared with that silly "Yes, we can!" drivel in 2008 that offered nothing but empty promises.
Folks said "no" to the silliness. And that bothers you? Yikes.
Well said, sir. -
It's quite honestly shocking how quickly the dems lost the support of the country. Just two years ago the Republicans were disgraced and soundly defeated. Americans were tired of their rule, and I don't blame them. Obama and the Democrats were red hot. 2 short years later we find Obama's approval ratings in the 40's and the American people so angry and fed up with Democrat rule that they voted them out all the way down to the local level. Mississippi voted out a 21 year congressman in Representative Gene Taylor, a blue dog Democrat who backed Pelosi as House Speaker. In two years they riled up the American people far worse than the Republicans did. It's really quite remarkable what they accomplished. The American people were quite enthusiastic 24 months ago. Now they are fed up and angry, and what we saw Tuesday was something I didn't think I would ever see - an informed and motivated American public who showed up and voted according to their views. Liberals are whining, but really they have noone to blame but themselves. The American people said they didn't want Obamacare, but Obama didn't care and Congress went along for the ride. Well, if you won't listen to America, America will vote you out.
I'm not surprised to see a liberal with his nose in the air looking down on those who voted out his beloved politicians in favor of all of those extreme, far-right republicans. After all, the mantra of the Democrats these past two years has been, "we know what's best for you, even if you don't." That type of attitude is exactly why we had the results of Tuesday. Newsflash: America doesn't want your agenda. -
One must put this anger into perspective...
We were fed up with "Republican rule" by the end of the Bush term because he was not conservative, and despite his best efforts to come off as if he were, the truth is that he signed into law every bill put forward by the Democrats in Congress until his last 2 years in office when they finally took a majority and got so stupid that no one (except Obama) could possibly sign their stuff into law.
Then, with a carefully cultivated (by a national media that is admittedly 98% left leaning and supportive of the Democrat Party) media blitz, America was coached into hating our President and ANYTHING he said, even if it was Ted Kennedy's bill (No Child Left Behind) that he signed into law.
That media PR blitz worked to perfection. There was a national landslide for a man that campaigned on "Change!" But that "change" was never defined, nor did that same media (again, admittedly) EVER ask the very simple question, "What do you intend to change, Mr. Obama?" A super-majority was elected that no one could stop (even though they continued to blame the Republicans for any and every possible thing, before and after the election, further poisoning the minds of the American people) and bills passed that made even the CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA) sit up and applaud!
The people, or at least some of them, realized how they had been manipulated by the press, including allowing the press (by their coverage) to select the Republican candidates for them, and finally started to rebel against the new administration. The true agenda of the new administration came out early on, when in an effort to "appear" transparent (to validate a campaign pledge) held town hall meetings, but where when real people (not planted operatives) asked real questions, all hell broke loose, and any pretense that the "change" would actually be what was hinted at during the campaign process went out the window.
It was those early town hall meetings that led to the formation of the Tea Party, where citizens decided to wrestle back a true representative form of government. With each attack against them (back woods hicks, gun-toting rednecks, etc., etc., etc.) the opposition to the current administration grew larger. And, for once, instead of just looking at the Congress or President, they looked at EVERY race, down to local dog catcher.
The lack of quality representative candidates stems from the fact that a majority of local offices -- training ground for future national political leaders -- were solidly in the hands of the Left. Taking back this ground by starting the process at the grassroots level with local politicians means that new qualified persons will be vetted into the political machine, giving qualified conservative candidates down the road. And, so the battle begins to re-take America. -
-
The Founding Fathers also never envisioned a world in which we'd have far more politicians than statesmen. Had they, the constitution would probably include term limits. They also never envisioned a world in which the American people were apathetic concerning who they elected to office and what they did while in office. Also, the Founding Fathers never envisioned a world in which the American people elected Senators.
While the things you listed are clearly unconstitutional, and stand as evidence of why the Republicans lost out last time (and should have), we can just as easily point out many other departures from what our founders set in place. -
-
I do think that among the good of the Civil Rights act of 1964, gerrymandered districts that border on the ridiculous have been an unfortunate consequence.
The new battleground this go-around will be between black and hispanic groups, over what entity will "get" a majority district.
Maybe one day we will reach a situation in which folks don't vote 95-5 as an ethnic bloc. That would fix a great deal of the issues...when we have groups who think before voting. -
FriendofSpurgeon Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I think it was Crist who flip flopped, not Christ. -
-
FriendofSpurgeon Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sorry Paul. Couldn't resist.
Medicare for all sounds great. It just wouldn't work. Why? The problem is that Medicare simply doesn't pay for itself (neither does Medicaid). One of the major reasons why private health insurance costs so much is due to the cost shifting that medical providers have to do to stay in busienss. In other words, both Medicare and Medicaid pay providers so little that they then have to overcharge those of us remaining in the private healthcare system. As more and more move into government funded (tax payer supported) programs, the costs for private health insurance will continue to increase. That is why some medical providers are no longer taking or limiting Medicare and Mediciad patients --- they simply cannot afford to do this. -
FriendofSpurgeon Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I agree completely with your opposition to such unconstitutional, tyrannical measures. I absolutely despised the Republicans who supported them in the last administration, including GWB, and I was furious when he called the Constitution "just a G-D piece of paper"!
Obama is no better, either. He has no intention of repealing any of this and only wants to expand them. -
I am sick of the false dichotomy of left-wing statists and right-wing statists. For crying out loud, it's time to get the government off our backs. Get rid of the PATRIOT Act, the warrantless wiretapping, the spying, the foreign adventuring, social security, Obamacare, the Federal Reserve--all of it. Also, let's implement term limits to avoid career politicians.
Let's return the government to its limited constitutional role of protecting the life, liberty, and property of the individual. -
-
Your desire for a socialist state would render the Constitution absolutely impotent, insignificant, and devoid of the greatness it nonw posseses. -
I should point out that what I refer to as European-style socialism is really more along the lines of social democracy than pure socialism. Basically, I support bringing in elements of actual socialism while still having a form of regulated capitalism and harnessing it for the public good. So even though my views of economic policy are more social democratic than socialist, I'm not going to run from the "S" word because it can mean, in common usage, social democracy as practiced in Europe.
Page 2 of 3