Let's be honest, its not a slim majority. It's a pretty robust one when its done. The biggest casualties tonight btw? Blue Dogs.

28 of the 54 members of the blue dog caucus lost.

IMO, "Messaging" has jack squat to do with anything except the defeats of the crazies at the margins.

 

Getting your message out doesn't make 9.6% unemployment acceptable, and it won't make 10% unemployment acceptable in 2012 after the government goes for spending cuts.

 

I think the 60 seat loss could have been a 30 seat loss had the party actually forced the GOP to hold middle class tax cuts hostage for the highest tax brackets keeping their cut.

Already talking about dismantling HCR

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn...0,7938061.story

 

Of course, picking up some seats in the Senate and taking back the house in a strong showing = clear mandate. Landslide victories in the House and Senate to get supermajorities and taking the White House doesn't mean mandate, and trying to enact any policies you campaigned on = "shoving it down our throats".

 

Gotta love the cognitive dissonance in politics.

Already talking about dismantling HCR

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn...0,7938061.story

 

Of course, picking up some seats in the Senate and taking back the house in a strong showing = clear mandate. Landslide victories in the House and Senate to get supermajorities and taking the White House doesn't mean mandate, and trying to enact any policies you campaigned on = "shoving it down our throats".

 

Gotta love the cognitive dissonance in politics.

 

It's just posturing relax.

Oh I know, the next two years will be great for the lulz.

But to Sylvester Stallone, the elections were an opportunity to possibly put a stop to something far more sinister: Yesterday he tweeted, “I voted did you? Gotta get the Manchurian Candidate out of the drivers seat before were ALL soaring off a cliff into Oblivion ... Be smart.” He then added, “The Manchurian Candidate was a movie about fake president who was put there by foreign enemies to destroy America. Scary concept. Rise up!”

 

via

I think the 60 seat loss could have been a 30 seat loss had the party actually forced the GOP to hold middle class tax cuts hostage for the highest tax brackets keeping their cut.

Really, I don't buy that. It might have helped in a race or two...but the 2010 blowout was decided very early on in 2009 when the nation decided it was content with unemployment leveling off around 9-10%.

 

If the Dems wanted to prevent a blowout, they could have (in no particular order): 1. Gone harder after the banks (ridiculously politically popular), set up a program to get the foreclosure mess solved and keep people in their homes (wholescale bankruptcy cramdown would have been one option, but anything other than the foreclosure-generating HAMP program would have worked in the right direction), and 3. Pushed a much, much, much larger stimulus package through.

George W. Bush: Dissenting Voice on the Iraq War

 

(nevermind all those documents leaked recently showing that it was a focus in early 2001)

28 of the 54 members of the blue dog caucus lost.

 

There is a "progressive caucus" too. 79 members. Call them the Anti-Blue Dogs. Only four of them lost.

George W. Bush: Dissenting Voice on the Iraq War

 

(nevermind all those documents leaked recently showing that it was a focus in early 2001)

 

BTW, here's those FOIA documents I was referring to:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

 

of note:

This compilation further shows:

 

-The preliminary strategy Rumsfeld imparted to Franks while directing him to develop a new war plan for Iraq

 

-Secretary of State Powell’s awareness, three days into a new administration, that Iraq “regime change” would be a principal focus of the Bush presidency

 

-Administration determination to exploit the perceived propaganda value of intercepted aluminum tubes – falsely identified as nuclear related – before completion of even a preliminary determination of their end use

 

-The difficulty of winning European support for attacking Iraq (except that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair) without real evidence that Baghdad was implicated in 9/11

 

-The State Department’s analytical unit observing that a decision by Tony Blair to join a U.S. war on Iraq “could bring a radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority of whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign”

 

-Pentagon interest in the perception of an Iraq invasion as a “just war” and State Department insights into the improbability of that outcome

There is a "progressive caucus" too. 79 members. Call them the Anti-Blue Dogs. Only four of them lost.

39 Democrats voted against the Affordable Care and Patient Protection act of 2010. 12 will keep their seats.

BTW, here's those FOIA documents I was referring to:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

 

of note:

That shows what I was thinking previously anyway. Things were being engineered around Bush, and he was talked into it. Bush was a terrible executive who lacked any real courage as a leader.

 

Already talking about dismantling HCR

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn...0,7938061.story

 

Of course, picking up some seats in the Senate and taking back the house in a strong showing = clear mandate. Landslide victories in the House and Senate to get supermajorities and taking the White House doesn't mean mandate, and trying to enact any policies you campaigned on = "shoving it down our throats".

 

Gotta love the cognitive dissonance in politics.

 

If the republicans would have picked up 1 seat in the house, republicans would be bragging that it's a referendum on the Obama administration.

 

I just can't wait until the tea party voters figure out they were played by the GOP.

Kanye West interviewed about the earlier comment Bush made and Kanye actually sounds like a grownup: http://www.celeb****y.com/124650/kanye_wes..._george_w_bush/

 

(You will probably have to type the word "b****" in the URL bar manually for the swear filter)

Too lazy to see if this was already posted but Maher's interview with President Carter was quite good.

 

Interview with former President Jimmy Carter

Edited November 4, 201015 yr by BigSqwert

Most hilarious (if unnecessary) headline/subtitle combo I've seen in a long time: http://www.slate.com/id/2273344/

Edited November 4, 201015 yr by lostfan

pinky and the brain?

pinky and the brain?

holy f***. see edit

haha, that made my night.

Am I missing something?

What are your thoughts on what Obama said today? Is it possible for the two parties to work together or are we as Americans just going to see nothing get done over the next two years?

What are your thoughts on what Obama said today? Is it possible for the two parties to work together or are we as Americans just going to see nothing get done over the next two years?

As I said in another thread, Obama, Reid and Boehner have a choice. They can choose to be Gingrich/Clinton and get some things done, or they can choose to make it a fight. Its ultimately in all their best interests, and ours, if they work together.

 

Its ultimately in all their best interests, and ours, if they work together.

Frankly, I think I disagree here...and I think that Boehner/McConnell have made it quite clear that they do as well. ""The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Frankly, I think I disagree here...and I think that Boehner/McConnell have made it quite clear that they do as well. ""The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

See my post in the other thread. Boehner has said nothing of the sort - that was McConnell. And at this point, I am not so sur they belong that/close together. I think another dynamic will play out here.

 

See, if the GOP, or Obama for that matter, try the fighting route here, not only will they lose every effort, but they will lose support from a frustrated public who wanted something done. No one wins if these people just yell at each other over a brick wall, including them.

 

As I said in another thread, Obama, Reid and Boehner have a choice. They can choose to be Gingrich/Clinton and get some things done, or they can choose to make it a fight. Its ultimately in all their best interests, and ours, if they work together.

i would argue it's in the GOP's best intrest to stonewall Obama.