Bit of a laugh before tomorrow's election

[cariad]

For all of you American voters (courtesy of Anthony Jenkins, Globe and Mail):

[MooseMom]

I'm mad that so much money is being spent on these elections.  I thought that this country was in debt and that everyone was on the verge of bankruptcy, so where the hell is all of this money coming from?  And I'm worried about the Citizens United decision, and I'm mad that it seems that only rich people are able to run for office.   I thought that buying elections was something that only third world countries had to deal with.

I'm also rather angry that there seems to be no debate about foreign policy.  I know that mid-terms tend to be about domestic issues, but I have to wonder what some of these candidates will do if they are elected to Congress when faced with global concerns.  How will Christine O'Donnell vote regarding Afghanistan, for instance.

Yeah, I'm mad.

[BigSky]

Yep alot of money is getting spent on campaigns.

There should be a tax on such campaign contributions.  Good starting point is 50% and that money can be directed towards Social Security of paying down the National Debt.

[cariad]

I'm mad that so much money is being spent on these elections.  I thought that this country was in debt and that everyone was on the verge of bankruptcy, so where the hell is all of this money coming from?  And I'm worried about the Citizens United decision, and I'm mad that it seems that only rich people are able to run for office.   I thought that buying elections was something that only third world countries had to deal with.

I'm also rather angry that there seems to be no debate about foreign policy.  I know that mid-terms tend to be about domestic issues, but I have to wonder what some of these candidates will do if they are elected to Congress when faced with global concerns.  How will Christine O'Donnell vote regarding Afghanistan, for instance.

Yeah, I'm mad.

Hmmmm, did not mean to set off a debate - I just thought the cartoon was hilarious and I think it was more speaking to the fact that voters are so angry that they are mindlessly voting out incumbents, because experience=WASHINGTON INSIDER!!!

We have a scary election on our hands in Wisconsin. This is not one of 400+ reps that we are about to lose, this is Senator RUSS FEINGOLD who, let's face it, has represented the 'little guy' in congress for as long as I remember. I overheard the following statement at labs between two older men who had just had transplants:

I just want to take these people who are going to vote for this Johnson guy and shake them and say 'Put yourself in my shoes!' (Johnson is the challenger for the Senate)

Christine O'Donnell won't be voting on anything to do with Afghanistan, so that is hardly a concern of mine. The minute she won the primary, one pundit remarked "Congratulations, Senator Chris Coons!"

Anyway, just thought the cartoon was funny, meant no political statement by it.

[MooseMom]

There should be a tax on such campaign contributions.  Good starting point is 50% and that money can be directed towards Social Security of paying down the National Debt.

On the surface, that sounds like a great idea, but it would never fly because the argument against that would be "You can't tax our freedom of speech." 

[MooseMom]

Cariad, the cartoon brings up a very important point, and that is that there seems to be this mindless disregard for experience when it comes to politics, just like you've said.  Don't we want experienced people giving us dialysis or working on our teeth or fixing our plumbing?  This isn't a political point, rather, it is a philosophical one.  Do we really want government run like a business?  Do we really want "average" people running the country?  I don't necessarily want a senator who is "average" and who would have a beer with me.  I want someone educated and extraordinary, better than "average".  Our local congressman has been in Washington only two years, but his opponent is yapping on about him being a "career politician" or some such thing...aren't we going to allow people to gain experience in government?

I am truly confused about what it is exactly that the American people want.  I am unsure exactly how we define "smaller government".  Remember how people wanted the government to "do more" regarding the BP oil spill?  Why?  Why is that the government's responsibility?  Doesn't that just make for bigger government?  I dunno...I am just not happy that people are voting out of frustration instead of clearly defined goals, but I understand it. 

[MooseMom]

Oh, and here's something else I am mad about.  I'm mad that a senior member of Congress would tell the nation that his party's number one priority is to ensure that this president is a one-term president.  I do not care which party is in the minority nor which occupies the White House...for a member of Congress to say something like that borders on treason.  Defeating our duly elected President is his number one priority, NOT serving the American people?  I find that to be infuriating.

I think I've been watching too much political TV.   I'll just go vote tomorrow and hope that no matter the outcome, our new Congresspeople will serve us well.

[greg10]

For all of you American voters (courtesy of Anthony Jenkins, Globe and Mail):

That's nothing.  Wait until 2012 to see the real fireworks:

But those Americans, like all the others on the short end of the 2008 crash, have reason to be mad as hell. And their numbers will surely grow once the Republican establishment’s panacea of tax cuts proves as ineffectual at creating jobs, saving homes and cutting deficits as the half-measures of the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress. The tempest, however, will not be contained within the tiny Tea Party but will instead overrun the Republican Party itself, where Palin, with Murdoch and Beck at her back, waits in the wings to “take back America” not just from Obama but from the G.O.P. country club elites now mocking her. By then — after another two years of political gridlock and economic sclerosis — the equally disillusioned right and left may have a showdown that makes this election year look as benign as Woodstock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/opinion/31rich.html?_r=1

[cariad]

Cariad, the cartoon brings up a very important point, and that is that there seems to be this mindless disregard for experience when it comes to politics, just like you've said.  Don't we want experienced people giving us dialysis or working on our teeth or fixing our plumbing?  This isn't a political point, rather, it is a philosophical one.  Do we really want government run like a business?  Do we really want "average" people running the country?  I don't necessarily want a senator who is "average" and who would have a beer with me.  I want someone educated and extraordinary, better than "average".  Our local congressman has been in Washington only two years, but his opponent is yapping on about him being a "career politician" or some such thing...aren't we going to allow people to gain experience in government?

I am truly confused about what it is exactly that the American people want.  I am unsure exactly how we define "smaller government".  Remember how people wanted the government to "do more" regarding the BP oil spill?  Why?  Why is that the government's responsibility?  Doesn't that just make for bigger government?  I dunno...I am just not happy that people are voting out of frustration instead of clearly defined goals, but I understand it.

I don't doubt that you are confused about what the American people want, because it is a nation of 300 million, and not everyone wants the same thing, and I am sure many people vote simply on what is best for them, not what is best for the country or the people who most need the help. I know Gwyn and I will survive just fine in a Republican administration, it is not us I am worried about, it is people like the kids in my son's school - 75% of them are on the lunch program, which is code for 'living on the poverty line'.

Tea Party definition of smaller government seems to mostly have to do with letting businesses run roughshod over all of us, as in deregulation. My definition of smaller government is 'stay the hell out of my private life - Oh, and I am not a Christian and do not give a flip what Jesus would do!' (Although Gwyn and I did see the most adorable bumper sticker the other day: Get real! Like Jesus would own guns and vote Republican! OK, that one is unapologetically political.)

Speaking of the Tea Party, I volunteered for Obama's campaign in 2008 (briefly, though I wish I had done more). What is this nonsense about Tea Party members 'challenging' voters as to their registration status? We are a target city for them, because you cannot swing a cat without hitting a liberal who would then scold you for swinging a poor, defenseless animal. If I remember correctly from my crash course in this from 2008, "poll monitors" have zero authority and can be barred from the premises if they attempt to interfere with voters or the process in any way. I ask because my husband is a US citizen with a British accent. If we encounter anything like this at the polls, to whom do we complain?

Greg, I agree with you that 2012 will be a wild ride if the Republicans make huge gains tomorrow. I hardly think that this will help Sarah Palin though. Eventually, even her diehard fans are going to start to realise that she has some sort of persecution complex and that not every one of her numerous failings can be blamed upon the 'lamestream media' and 'the elites'. I once heard an average (as in non-famous) Republican say that liberals can never explain why they don't like her, that all they say is "I don't know, she's stupid." When on earth did that become insufficient reason to not like a politician?!

I think a Republican landslide could actually turn out very well for Obama. Gwyn and I just watched Rachel Maddow where she meticulously listed every one of Obama's accomplishments since January of 2008. I was cheering and laughing the entire time - no wonder the Republicans hate him! My favorite was Health Care Reform. It was signed into law while I was still in hospital recovering from the transplant.

[Zach]

Gwyn and I just watched Rachel Maddow where she meticulously listed every one of Obama's accomplishments since January of 2008.

Actually, January of 2009.
A lot done in just 22 months.

[jbeany]

I'm in Michigan, and the leader in the race for governor is a non-politician/businessman who ran under the slogan "One tough nerd."  No one thought he had a chance when he started, and now he's miles ahead in the polls.  We're all just sick to death of what we have now, and we're grasping at anything that might change things.  I do have to wonder how anyone who makes it into office this round is going to manage to carry though with anything they promised.  No one has a way to get rid of the recession-induced handicaps they are entering office with. 

Michigan is also voting on if we should rewrite the state constitution - a question that comes up for vote every 16 years automatically.  Oh, yeah, great idea, NOT.  You couldn't get a Democrat and a Republican in this state to agree whether or not it was Wednesday, let alone agree on how to rewrite an entire constitution!

Regardless, just vote, everyone, please!  My local county has a website where you can look up your voting location and the ballot and print it off so you can see exactly who you are voting for (or against!) when you get to the polls. See if your local precinct does the same.

And ladies, please cast your vote for Alice Paul and Lucy Burns - if they could stand getting beaten, arrested and tortured a hundred years ago so we could vote tomorrow, then we should be able to stand in line to do so!
 

[cariad]

Gwyn and I just watched Rachel Maddow where she meticulously listed every one of Obama's accomplishments since January of 2008.

Actually, January of 2009.
A lot done in just 22 months.

Oh my goodness, there are not enough blushing icons!!!

Well spotted, Zach. And yes, I agree!

[MooseMom]

Rats...I missed Rachel Maddow tonight.  I was watching CNN because David Gergen was on, and as a fan of his once said, he's just so "Gergen-y".

As for people voting for what is best for themselves, I don't know about that.  I'm beginning to wonder why there seems to be so many people voting against their self interest.  I think most people, whether they are on the left or the right, perceive that the middle class is in jeopardy, yet those same people seem to be quite satisfied in allowing corporations dictate how they receive their health care, for instance.  I would like to know what is going to happen to farm subsidies, for instance.  Farmers have been doing quite well (especially those connected to large agricorps), and they are quite heavily subsidized.  So, will those subsidies be slashed in a drive to cut government spending?  The devil's in the details.  If the big spending cuts really do happen, it will be interesting to see just how many groups feel that THEY should be exempt.

Anyone following the story about the coalition govt in the UK slashing spending?  I'm very interested in that particular situation.  And the French are upping their retirement age from 60 to 62 in order to reduce their deficit.  Does anyone see that sort of drastic action being taken in the US? 

[jbeany]

MM, do you mean the drastic action by the government or the citizens?  They did up the retirement age here in the US, from 65 to 67, with ongoing discussions about bumping it up to 70.  We just didn't riot about - we were too busy working our 3 part-time jobs to go on strike!   

[YLGuy]

I'm mad that so much money is being spent on these elections.  I thought that this country was in debt and that everyone was on the verge of bankruptcy, so where the hell is all of this money coming from?  And I'm worried about the Citizens United decision, and I'm mad that it seems that only rich people are able to run for office.   I thought that buying elections was something that only third world countries had to deal with.

Yeah, I'm mad.

Meg Whitman spent $163 million on her campaign for California Governor through Oct. 16. 

[paul.karen]

Good thing that Rachel Maddow is touting all of President Obomas accomplishments because all the democrats i see on tv less one or two seem to be avoiding all the great claims made. Not wanting to talk about most anyting from the previous 18 months.
Much of Obomas accomplishments have been forced through congress.  Sadly we still dont know what is even in the healthcare bill.  As pelosi famously said.  If you want to see whats in the bill pass the bill. Talking like this least to me is pretty scary stuff.  These bills are passes by both sides and rarly does congress even know what are in these bills.  They just go ahead and approve of them if they get what they want.  IE..  three senators were bought off to get healthcare passes.  Others approved of the bill if just one little pc. of the bill had something they liked in it.  Totaly blinded by what might be in it that they hadnt read.

[YLGuy]

This is nothing new to Congress. 

[MooseMom]

A lot of Democrats certainly are not Profiles in Courage, that's the damn truth!   They can be like any politician...tout what they think is popular and ignore what is not.  Case in point is John McCain.  I didn't agree with many of his policies while he was running, but I didn't doubt that he had some courage and honor, but even that is gone now.  He now refutes his own efforts in immigration reform.  So if McCain, of all people, run in the face of "popular opinion", then there's not much hope for anyone else!

The health care bill was out there for all to see.  All congresspeople have offices filled with people who comb through bills so that the congressperson doesn't have to.  John Boehner famously complained about the size of it (a fair argument), and it truly was enormous.  He had the bill right in front of him, so you can't really say that it was some big secret.  It was complicated, yep, but not exactly secret.  I agree it was rushed through, though.  If you want to know what's in the bill, it is available online.  Good luck in wading through it, though!

And yes, congresspeople are more likely to pass a bill if there is something in it for them or for their constituencies.  And yep, I am certain there was a lot of lobbying and promising and so forth.  We the people may not like that and might love for it to change, but there are special interest groups out there all wanting this, that or the other.  What we sometimes fail to recognize is that we all have a special interest.  Renal groups out there fighting for better dialysis and more generous funding for our needs is, selfishly, a special interest group that I would want to see being powerful and effective.

My overall point is that no matter how we may all disagree about certain issues, we all want a strong, fair country, so our vote has to be based in the same virtues.  Voting out of anger and frustration, while understandable, is fine if that is what compels you to vote, but I don't feel it is quite so good a way to determine HOW you vote.  Instead of voting just for "smaller government" or "more supportive government", take some time to define for yourself just exactly what those things look like in your view.  Do you want government out of your private life?  What about a gay person's private life?  Or a pregnant woman's private life?  Do you want smaller spending?  Does that mean you'll cut Social Security and Medicare and services for D patients?  You want a bigger, stronger safety net, especially with an ageing population?  How will that be paid for?  Are you willing to pay more taxes?  Are you willing to draw down our armed forces overseas to pay for that?  Do you want to protect our borders?  "Of course!," you say, but are you willing to spend the money it will take to fight the drug lords that are menacing our border towns?  Security is prohibitively expensive.  You have to secure everything and everyone to prevent that one person from doing that one thing.

I'm just hoping that however this election goes, we do not spend the next two years in a deadlock.  Our country cannot waste any time.  We don't have time for power plays or ego-stroking or planning for 2012, but that's exactly what might happen.  I'd really hate to see that. 

[paul.karen]

True it is nothing new to congress.

This is why so many are mad about the CHANGE that was promised and the transparancy that was said to be going to happen.

I agree MM with most of your points. 

Sadly our public servants from the local all the way up to the senate and congress think it is about them.  it is not it is about us the people who they are suppose to work for.  But it all to often looks the other way.  I dont think policitcs was ever meant to be a lifetime job but a way to serve your country.  Term liimits may stop alot of the power hungry minds thast are running roughshot in DC.   And also alow new ideas in the door.

I wonder if my vote even counts.  I mean there is so much voter fraud it is disgusting.  Animals voting the dead voting our military not being able to vote ect ect.  After so many years you wouild think we would have this down and fraud proof.

[YLGuy]

I did.
Did you?

[cariad]

Sure did, Marc! Gwyn is now officially registered in Dairyland, but his first American vote will always be for Obama from the great state of California, and mine will always be for Clinton, from the same great state.

Beginners luck! 

[greg10]

...
I wonder if my vote even counts.  I mean there is so much voter fraud it is disgusting.  Animals voting the dead voting our military not being able to vote ect ect.  After so many years you wouild think we would have this down and fraud proof.

I would ask those who claim there are rampant voter fraud to document their charges and bring those fraudsters to justice.  The fact is there are plenty of charges from both sides, but there are very little documented proof.  Think about it.  In a mid term election, there are only 40% turn out, 50% for a presidential election.  America is a nation that doesn't vote.  If there is a lot of voter fraud, you would think the turn out percentage will go up, but it doesn't.

There are many other ways that voter representations are manipulated that are more sinister than voter fraud, such as gerrymandering, redistricting, disenfranchisement, misinformation etc.  Those methods are a lot more prevalent and more effective than voter fraud.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/11/election-day---also-voter-fraud-accusation-day/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

[paul.karen]

Well another election cycle down.
Hope some positives come out of it by/from BOTH parties.

[cariad]

Well, that certainly was nowhere near as bad as some cassandras were predicting.

My own state of residence is completely hosed, but then, I live in a fairly inconsequential state, truth be told. Given the choice, I would rather see California stay blue than Wisc. And Harry Reid sending that ghastly whatever-that-was back to her hole is worth every seat lost in the house to me.

I think whinging about the health bill being too long is idiotic. Sorry. I can hold it in no longer! Have you ever tried to read an insurance policy? How about the books that Medicare sends out with that seemingly benign "Medicare and You" title. I read these things and am not compensated one dime. These people are paid generously and work about 8 months out of the year, with perks everywhere they turn. Read the damn bill. If you cannot handle it, perhaps that is more a comment on your capabilities on the job. Representatives are swarming with interns and aids, so have someone else read it and summarize if you're too busy.

I went to school with a number of high-level political relatives. In my dorm alone we had the daughter of a governor, the daughter of a representative, and the niece of a representative. The rep who was a student's uncle sat down with our American history class and talked to us about his job. He said that it was standard practice to pick members of the house that you trusted, who held most of the same views as you, and whenever you lacked the time to thoroughly research a bill, you could look on a board that showed how everyone around you was voting and just cast your vote the same as that rep. So, I've known about this practice for most of my life, and frankly there is a reason why this is not a well-advertised strategy. This is the only congress we've had with the audacity to moan and make this seem like a failing of the bill authors and not themselves. These are legal documents.... in America. We settled a lawsuit recently and the paperwork was 30 pages long. For one little suit that never went to trial....

About the bill being rushed: it probably did not seem rushed if you happen to be facing a catastrophic illness and could not get insurance. When people are dying and killing themselves rather than face the future, there is no "too rushed". I think paying for it can be handled by cutting bureaucracy and changing over from a treatment focus to a prevention focus. I wholly trust that this bill could pay for itself. I've seen prevention medical bills and I've seen treatment medical bills and there is a virtually limitless amount of money to be saved there.

MM, while I am sure you are not asking me personally with your queries, I can tell you that yes, I want government out of everyone's personal lives. The motivation behind most of these laws that try to restrict certain behaviours is a religious one, and therefore a separation of church and state issue to me. Since I do not adhere to any religion, there is nothing I find immoral in behaviour that has some Americans clutching their pearls. (I did live in San Francisco for years, so just try and shock me!) I find cruelty immoral.

Anyhow, I am strangely hopeful today. I'm sure that will pass quickly enough. I join Paul in hoping that both parties work toward positive change.

Welcome back, Jerry Brown!

[YLGuy]

I do not know how much Meg Whitman ended up spending to lose to Jerry Brown but it was over 150 million dollars.  Let me repeat that, yes, I said over 150 million dollars.  We are so happy to turn on the TV and not have to watch the political bashing anymore.  I would hope that the parties would compromise and work together for the good of the country but with the House held by the GOP and the Senate held by the Dems I have a feeling that nothing will get done for the next 2 years. Sad, so very sad.