Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:11 pm    Post subject: Digesting the American election Reply with quote

Digesting the American election ...

It's a dreary day anyway ... why not think about it?

A few things that have attracted my attention since the quite decisive win by the Obamacrats. First, this ... (excuse the author's snark).

Quote:
[b]What Luck! Obama Won Dozens of Cleveland Districts with 100% of the Vote[/b]

President Obama must have run a great campaign considering the tremendous numbers he put up in numerous big cities. Over in Philadelphia, he was lucky enough to get 90% percent turnout in some districts with over 99% of the vote.

In Cleveland, in some districts he did even better with an astounding 100% of the vote in dozens of locations. For example, in Cleveland's Fifth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts E, F, and G 1,337 to Mitt Romney's... 0. And in case you're wondering, Gary Johnson received more votes than Mr. Romney.

Well, maybe that's just a fluke. In the Ninth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts D-G with a paltry total of 1,740 to... 3. Hey, at least Romney got .2% of the vote!
1,337-0.

Okay, what if we look at an entire Ward? No way this trend continues, right? An entire ward. Why not do the First Ward? Obama won that one 12,857 to... 94. This time Romney got .7% of the vote. He's moving up in the world!

In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout. What a coincidence!

By the way, in case you are thinking that Romney did so poorly because maybe those districts were not very populated: Nope. In those 44 districts, Mr. Obama won 14,686 to 23. That's .16% of the vote for Romney.

But Ohio's not important in the electoral college, right?

Update: Mr. Obama won in St. Lucie County, Florida, which had over 140% voter turnout.
http://www.punditpress.com/201.....l?spref=tw


This is what the journalists call the 'ground game' of the Democratic Party ... They write glowingly, but stand back in awe ... but their noses do not twitch ... there's nothing about that that the public would want to know about ... they avert their eyes from these Stalinoid totals.

There have been other similar reports from Philadelphia, but why would Chicago, Detroit, New York, Baltimore, and so on ... be any different?

In every one of the battleground states, someone can vote without identifying themselves except verbally! To get into a Washington DC office building these days, you have to show picture identity. To catch an airplane, you certainly do. But you can vote just for showing up.

Barrack Obama, the guy who brought Kenyan standards to America!

==================================

Then there's the other thing ...

Quote:

It’s Not the Economy, Stupid
It’s racial politics. And you don’t beat them by adopting them.

by Mary Grabar

Sadly, racial identity politics, originated as a divide-and-conquer propaganda campaign by the Soviets in the 1920s, and then picked up again in earnest in the 1960s by those like communist history professor Howard Zinn, determined the election. Today, Weatherman founder, terrorist, and former professor of education Bill Ayers continues the Soviet disinformation campaign of attributing racism to capitalism.

To my dismay, not only did the usual suspects, like George Stephanopoulos, promote this old propaganda line, but many “conservative” analysts fell into the trap on the day after.

The George Soros-funded site AlterNet celebrated with an article titled “What Propelled Obama to Victory and Sent the Plutocrats and Racists to a Brutal Defeat”:

Quote:
The diverse, creative, younger coalition that propelled the first black president — a guy whose middle name is Hussein — to the presidency, beat back what may well have been the last stand of Ronald Reagan’s coalition of plutocrats, white working-class men and religious conservatives.



The GOP’s most reliable supporters remain white, married couples who identify themselves as Christians, a group that continues its sharp decline in numbers.


The same site fulminates at the large size of Christian families, and hyperventilates about overpopulation. But the celebration over a “sharp decline in numbers” reveals an ideological callousness. I think of Bill Ayers’ plans to eliminate about 25 million Americans who would refuse to be reeducated after the revolution.

But celebration over changes in ethnic and racial makeup happens in more respectable venues. Back in September, at the last Decatur, Georgia, Labor Day Book Festival, a political science professor and author of The Polarized Public? Why American Government Is So Dysfunctional predicted to the almost all-white audience that Democrats would prevail this election season. Political polarization was attributed to “extremism” on the part of conservatives, whose numbers were thankfully diminishing due to demographic changes. The fact that audiences at Obama rallies consisted of large numbers of minorities (according to the slides shown) was heralded.

What struck me about the audience, many of whom wore Obama insignia, was the applause and sighs of relief upon hearing that the Democrats were going to win on the basis of demographics. These middle-aged, college-educated book lovers had no qualms about the fact that their winning strategy did not rely on ideas or even ideology. An air of moral self-congratulation, carried over from the “marches” of the 1960s, was displayed in the facial expressions and comments.

This audience may not consciously register that they are using minorities (and therefore stereotyping them) to advance progressive politics, but the late Howard Zinn did. In 1969, he wrote in an essay titled “Marxism and the New Left”:

Quote:
In the United States, the traditional idea that the agent of social change will be the proletariat needs re-examination, when the best-organized of the workers are bribed into silence with suburban houses and automobiles, and drugged into compliance with mass entertainment.

Presaging the Obama strategy, Zinn suggested that “unorganized workers,” like “white collar workers, domestic workers, migratory and farm laborers, service industry workers,” may play a part in social change.

Then he tellingly posited:

Quote:
Recent experience suggests that Negroes — and perhaps Negroes in the ghetto — may be the most powerful single force for social change in the United States. Marx envisioned the industrial proletariat as the revolutionary agent because it was in need, exploited, and brought face to face in the factory. The Negro is in need, exploited and brought together in the ghetto
.


The article continues, and is well worth reading in its entirety, at
http://pjmedia.com/blog/it%E2%.....my-stupid/

It leaves me with the thought that this last election shows that. even after half a century of liberal 'multiculturalism', the pivotal election of 2012 showed only that racial politics trump an impending depression.

Romney, squeaky clean by all accounts, gets smeared for his class and race ... because he allowed the Democrats to 'define' him -- and, of course, the media only amplified and legitimized the effort.

I have dark thoughts about the future. Anyone else?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The GOP controls the purse-strings being in control of the House, and the Tea Party is finally being seen as a detriment to winning the Senate and the White House.

That's my silver lining that I take away from the Election.

Its not doomsday; its wake up day.

For all this complaining about Romney and being define by the media, what the heck do you think happened in 2004? The difference was that Bush seemed Presidential and took stands right or wrong on everything that was significant.

Now the GOP is basically in a position where they will need to concede on somepoints, while they will secure others;

The focus however after the "Fiscal Cliff" is dealt with has to be:

Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia in 2014
No more wacky candidates.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what you're expecting, as a strict political behaviorist ... I thought you just dealt with the facts on the ground. Surely you don't expect the Tea Party to disband, and dissolve itself into a mass of obedient Republicrats -- just so your vision o the future prevails in the Oval Office?

You should understand ... the Tea Party doesn't like the Republican Party much better than they like the Democrats. They are fed up with the government's spending. They are not trying to serve the Republican Party so much as take it over.

The Tea Party is a natural response to the legislative absurdities that were taking place in Washington, having to do with the bailouts, the stimulus package, and Obamacare -- overall, the uncontrolled expenditures and the spiraling national debt. You sniff, because you blame the Tea Party for events that they touched, but which did not turn out to benefit the Republican Party.

Maybe the losses you note were due to the awesome Democrat ground game, which can bring whole cemeteries full of 'voters' to the polls? This is an election that marked a new recent low ... and shows that the Democratic Party is moving to a new base, and means to beat the drum in a new, permanent rhythm of 'race' and 'class' politics.

Call it 'Stereotypes for Liberals' ...

Obama's team has proven that, by using this mix of class and race slanders and accusations (spread free by the Democrat's allies in the mass media) the worst administration in over a century, stuck in an economic quagmire of stagnation and decline, and with a foreign policy that is unwinding before our eyes -- can survive, and retain power.

In fact, they beat back and defeated the Republican hierarchy's man by a solid margin, when he had everything going for him -- except his white skin and the success he'd won in the world.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Almost 1K ballots found in Broward elections warehouse Reply with quote

More on the subject of gaming elections ...

Quote:

Almost 1K ballots found in Broward elections warehouse

Nearly a thousand ballots that were not included in Florida's final count have been found in a warehouse in Broward County.

Tuesday morning and into the night, there was a buzz of activity at the Voting Equipment Center in Lauderhill, a week after the general election. There was a recount going on for two commission seats that were too close to call, one in Hallandale Beach and another in Dania Beach. Workers had to count those votes manually.

Also keeping elections officials busy is the fact that 963 filled ballots were found in a warehouse. The supervisor of elections, Dr. Brenda Snipes, said this happens all the time, especially when dealing with paper ballots. Her department is not the only one to have seen more ballots added to the final number after the election, and they have until Nov. 18 to certify all the votes.

Snipes noted that it is a routine thing to look for these kind of mishaps after election night and she is just glad that they are now being tallied into that final count.
Read more: http://www.wsvn.com/news/artic.....z2CFLnSyBJ


(Just so you know ... a package of printer paper is 500 sheets ... so 900 ballots, each ballot having 5 pages, would form a pile about 9 times than that -- at least 15" high!)

In every election, the absentee votes sent in by serving members of the military are 'misplaced' or 'delayed' or the ballots don't show up on time ... election after election.

Hmmmm.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I don't know what you're expecting, as a strict political behaviorist ... I thought you just dealt with the facts on the ground. Surely you don't expect the Tea Party to disband, and dissolve itself into a mass of obedient Republicrats -- just so your vision o the future prevails in the Oval Office?

You should understand ... the Tea Party doesn't like the Republican Party much better than they like the Democrats. They are fed up with the government's spending. They are not trying to serve the Republican Party so much as take it over.


The Tea Party on its own simply becomes Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, or the Reform Party in 1993, 97, and CA in 2000.

A means for principal to outweigh practicality while a center-left agenda is unveiled an implemented unabated while you can scream from the sidelines about "principal" without any means of moving it forward.

I would imagine the only difference is they are well aware of that which is why they haven't created their own party.

The problem is that in politics the only ones who can afford not to compromise are the ones who have no power.

I would sooner have Micheal Castle in the Senate over Chris Coons, in the same way I would rather have Olympia Snowe in the Senate over Angus King.

The Tea Party has led to a situation where the Democrats run the Senate, I would sooner take a Senate Majority filled with Micheal Castle's and Olympia Snowe's over a Democrat majority filled even with Ben Nelson's & Heidi Heitkamp's.

If you want change you need to win elections, the Tea Party isn't doing that, but they sure are principled.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Almost 1K ballots found in Broward elections warehouse Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
More on the subject of gaming elections ...

Quote:

Almost 1K ballots found in Broward elections warehouse

Nearly a thousand ballots that were not included in Florida's final count have been found in a warehouse in Broward County.

Tuesday morning and into the night, there was a buzz of activity at the Voting Equipment Center in Lauderhill, a week after the general election. There was a recount going on for two commission seats that were too close to call, one in Hallandale Beach and another in Dania Beach. Workers had to count those votes manually.

Also keeping elections officials busy is the fact that 963 filled ballots were found in a warehouse. The supervisor of elections, Dr. Brenda Snipes, said this happens all the time, especially when dealing with paper ballots. Her department is not the only one to have seen more ballots added to the final number after the election, and they have until Nov. 18 to certify all the votes.

Snipes noted that it is a routine thing to look for these kind of mishaps after election night and she is just glad that they are now being tallied into that final count.
Read more: http://www.wsvn.com/news/artic.....z2CFLnSyBJ


(Just so you know ... a package of printer paper is 500 sheets ... so 900 ballots, each ballot having 5 pages, would form a pile about 9 times than that -- at least 15" high!)

In every election, the absentee votes sent in by serving members of the military are 'misplaced' or 'delayed' or the ballots don't show up on time ... election after election.

Hmmmm.


Are we really going to argue that Romney won the election and it was electoral fraud that cost him the White House?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not really arguing anything. People can draw their own conclusions.

They say the Democrat's ground game can affect the results from 2 to 5% ... not me, these are journalists and pundits assessments. Not all of that is fraudulent, but the thing about racial politics ... there are large numbers of people who are willing to do 'heroic' things against the racial enemy ... if they get a ride, and maybe a little 'incentive' ... not necessarily cash ... and if the cities have to 'make up' for voters in the country, who vote the other way ... in some places, there must be a very evident 'operation' going.

In the US, the lineups at big city polling stations can be huge. It amounts to vote suppression, if you ask me. Often enough, you hear of people waiting hours, and others who vote at 7 am, so they only have a half-hour wait. If you can just hold places in line, make it longer, you may do your side good.

In all the battleground states, voters can vote without identifying themselves. Unscrupulous people could easily match individuals to names, and vote in the names of people who don't vote ... for example ... Acorn has been involved with voter registration going back into Clinton times. And they paid people!

If this were not America, you'd be thinking that some of this 'purple finger' stuff ought to be used.

I am not saying anything about who won the election. It's too late now. But look at the evidence ... all the battleground states are dominated by big cities, where there are entrenched Democrat political machines in place, civil service unions, and large Afro-American and Hispanic communities ... and you don't have to have ID to vote ... what could possibly go wrong? Especially if enforcement is in the hands of the Democratic machine.

You can't even get into Eric Holder's office building without photo ID. But an illegal immigrant can vote.


Last edited by Bugs on Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To Cosmo, on the Tea Party thing ...

I don't think you understand the Tea Party very well, frankly. They are the political expression of a large group of mainstream, middle-aged, middle class people who don't like either party much, and who don't want to lay off all this debt onto their children and grandchildren. They don't like Bush very much, and they like Obama even less, and their main political project is to stop the spending ... and their long-term goal is to take over the Republican Party from inside. They want to capture key posts, and to control the selection process ... through democratic means.

If they cost senate seats -- and in some cases, it's certainly arguable -- then what happened to establishment Liberals like Linda Lingle, in Hawaii, 'what's-her-name' McMann in Connecticut, Tommy Thomson in Wisconsin, and Brown in Boston? ...

All liberal Republicans who lost, all of them establishment-backed. And all of them wishy-washy on spending cuts.

You find yourself putting them down for their 'principles' ... I understand what you're saying ... but what you forget is that the Tea Party doesn't owe anybody their allegiance. It's a federation of local groups, with no real 'head' or spokesperson -- by design.

Do you want to put that in the scale against the lack of principles we see coming from the people who want to borrow endlessly? ... the ones for whom Paul Krugman speaks ... who think that the national debt is free money because it is never repaid ... a kind of giant fraud which is OK, as long as everyone pretends that the whole mythology about debt and repayment is true ... meanwhile, they act as if money is just something that exists for the convenience of our rulers, so they can extend their powers into every nook and cranny.

It isn't the principles of the Tea Party you really object to, is it? It's their lack of professionalism, no?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
To Cosmo, on the Tea Party thing ...

I don't think you understand the Tea Party very well, frankly. They are the political expression of a large group of mainstream, middle-aged, middle class people who don't like either party much, and who don't want to lay off all this debt onto their children and grandchildren. They don't like Bush very much, and they like Obama even less, and their main political project is to stop the spending ... and their long-term goal is to take over the Republican Party from inside. They want to capture key posts, and to control the selection process ... through democratic means.


They were principled fiscal conservatives;
Now they have become fiscal and social conservatives in a time where chasing down social principals can wait two or three years.

In the same way that I blasted the President for passing Healthcare over Economic policy when he was first elected I have blasted the tea party for allowing a social conservative platform to allow them to have their message on economic policy clouded.

They are a horse built by committee;
They want to do a lot of things but as a result of them simply not getting how "it" works have resulted in a hyper liberal agenda getting passed.

The exact opposite of what they originally stood for.

If they want to take over the GOP, tossing out GOP Senators to run their guy who gets smacked by a Democrat isnt the right way to do so, and Romney becoming the candidate is a pretty clear indication that they have a long long long way to go.

Bugs wrote:
If they cost senate seats -- and in some cases, it's certainly arguable -- then what happened to establishment Liberals like Linda Lingle, in Hawaii, 'what's-her-name' McMann in Connecticut, Tommy Thomson in Wisconsin, and Brown in Boston? ...

All liberal Republicans who lost, all of them establishment-backed. And all of them wishy-washy on spending cuts.


Dick Lugar was polling double digits over the Dems in Indiana,
Micheal Castle was ahead 22 points in Delaware,
Sue Lowden was ahead by a fair margin in Nevada,
Claire McCaskill was behind "Any GOP Candidate" by 9 points till Akin crapped the bed.

There isnt a question of "if" seats were cost, there is just a stark reality that they were.

Linda McMahon is certainly not a Liberal, Tommy Thompson may be socially but fiscially i would place him smack in the middle of existing GOP Senators but that's neither here nor there.

When we get to Lingle and Brown you raise exactly the point that I was discussing above;

The Democrats run candidates that can win and will agree with them 80% of the time which is better then a GOP Senator,

Brown and Lingle were both products of the right mentality, if you had run a social and fiscal conservative in Mass the election Brown won he/she would have been destroyed

The question really becomes was Brown's election breaking the filibuster proof majority in the Senate worth the fact that he would vote with Dems 20% of the time?

The Dems backed Heidi Heitkamp and she snatched a GOP victory right out from under Rick Berg.

In seats you have little chance in, sometimes it pays to run someone a little softer.

Bugs wrote:
You find yourself putting them down for their 'principles' ... I understand what you're saying ... but what you forget is that the Tea Party doesn't owe anybody their allegiance. It's a federation of local groups, with no real 'head' or spokesperson -- by design.


My endgame is very simple;
More fiscal conservative policy.

The Tea Party is an animal onto itself, however its a movement more stained with loss then it is victory.

The road to more rational policy on spending is not by trying to cram Richard Murdouch down the throats of Indiana voters because you didn't like the fact that Lugar didn't want to call Obama a socialist or whatever he did to agitate them.

Its to have 51 Senators who vote with you most of the time, and vote with you nearly all of the time on fiscal issues.

Had the Tea Party not been as effective in the Senate nomination processes do you really believe we would be in the same situation we would be now?

Do you think a GOP majority in the Senate (even with guys like Micheal Castle) and majority in the House would be in this same sorry state trying to spend their way out of recession like the Dems are doing now?

Bugs wrote:
It isn't the principles of the Tea Party you really object to, is it? It's their lack of professionalism, no?


That is a a very interesting question;
Believe it or not it caused me to think about it and come back to this post a few times.

Its both.

Their lack of professionalism doesn't bother me as much as their lack of understanding regarding how to actually implement change, but their lack of professionalism ultimately leads to a situation where their growth is limited much like Perot and Manning.

I hold that movement responsible for the fact that the President now holds an upper hand for the next two years, and has held one for the last two.

I firmly believe we would have had a very different more ration (certainly not ideal, but nothing like the Democrats have moved forward with)

Preston Manning was one of the most principled conservatives I ever had the pleasure of hearing speak, however in 14 years as leader of the Reform party he accomplished nothing other then that he can hold his head up high and say he never gave up his principals.

In that time we saw 11 years of Liberal Majorities passes some of the most hideous infringements on our personal and fiscal freedoms, all while Preston Manning sat in the opposition benches being principled.

As I said above, its really easy to be uncompromising and principled when you have no really ability to do anything.

I view the Tea Party in the same way;
Fiscally I like what I am hearing (most of the time) but they have no real way of implementing any change unless they want to Kamikaze the economy for some token concession.

I would sooner have a GOP party with Senators like Rand Paul and Dick Lugar with a majority in the Senate moving forward to the right of where we are (even if slowly), then I would having "principled" Senate candidates like Richard Murdoch who lose safe seats.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This connection between social conservatives and the Tea Party surprises me. In fact, one of their principles (as I understand it) is to keep quiet on the issues they don't agree on, so that Independents can work with local Republicans and Democrats to stop the spending.

You're talking about the two senate candidates that said stupid things about abortion. But, jayzuz, can't you smell a media trap in that one? Red meat.

There's lots of fractures in their coalition, but if they focus on fiscal conservatism, they can be swept away with kooks. But Akin isn't a kook in his neck of the woods. But he stepped into it chiefly because he confirmed a narrative that the Democrats were already writing -- that Republicans would ban fucking if they ever get power.

====================

The Tea Party was the means by which their constituency could bring their pressure to bear in the mid-term election of 2010 -- which was an earthquake, the biggest turn-about in a long time. That surge left them in firm control of the House.

It was perhaps most successful in putting some fiscal conservatives in the governor's mansion in different states.

With the Senate, they have been less successful. About people like Lugar ... the Tea Party would say that he was a big-spender. Were they wrong?

Everything you say about the present arithmetic is right, and if that were all there is to it, it'd be impossible to disagree. But the challenge for the Tea Party is to stay in existence, and to keep it up ... that's my view.

At the heart of the problem ... to bring the budget into balance, a $trillion or more has to be found in some combination of increased taxes and service cuts. What politician is going to take that on without a politically organized part of the population forcing them to?

===================

I am flabbergasted that you think that Preston Manning accomplished nothing. He was playing chess with Joe Clark at that stage ... and exposed himself to being usurped as part of legitimizing the CA as a developmental stage beyond the Reform Party, designed to facilitate former PC voters. Most of all, he started a party that funded itself from its own membership, through donations ... it was the foundation that we built upon by the CA and later the Conservatives, and ended up giving them a huge advantage.

I don't mean to lionize Manning, but he took a bunch of disgruntled, unconnected complaints, and wove them into an organization that, after it was taken over by others, came to be the government of Canada. He was a kind of John the Baptist, perhaps ... but he accomplished a great deal.

You narrow your focus and get very hard with these things. You want to see a social policy change, for instance ... or a new law, or a new bridge built ... and, of course, there are none of these. Isn't that harsh, under the circumstances?

And is he an illustration of the case you lay out -- was he betrayed by his stubborn sticking to his principles? Or did he understand that if he didn't risk his own leadership in an open election, the CA would be written off as a Reform Party front organization.

He lost a gutsy gamble.

As for sitting on his hands ... I don't know what you refer to ... he won a lot of respect for the way he handled things during all the Meech Lake squabbles.

I guess, at bottom, I understand you as saying that the common man is no longer welcome to a direct role in politics. It's for the specialists, now. It goes along with the use of TV in a campaign to create 'narratives' rather than making much real contact with ordinary people outside the capital.

Sad.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
This connection between social conservatives and the Tea Party surprises me. In fact, one of their principles (as I understand it) is to keep quiet on the issues they don't agree on, so that Independents can work with local Republicans and Democrats to stop the spending.

You're talking about the two senate candidates that said stupid things about abortion. But, jayzuz, can't you smell a media trap in that one? Red meat.

There's lots of fractures in their coalition, but if they focus on fiscal conservatism, they can be swept away with kooks. But Akin isn't a kook in his neck of the woods. But he stepped into it chiefly because he confirmed a narrative that the Democrats were already writing -- that Republicans would ban fucking if they ever get power.


Any GOP campaign should have the sense to know that the abortion question is coming, and find a smart yet tactful way to address it.

Women having a mechanism to avoid getting pregnant during rape isn't quite that tactful response.

Anytime the Democrats are spending money during a GOP primary to get their candidate of choice (in this case Akin over John Brunner & Sarah Steelman) there should be some concern, however the Tea Party chalked it up as a win and went forward and got crushed.

Bugs wrote:
The Tea Party was the means by which their constituency could bring their pressure to bear in the mid-term election of 2010 -- which was an earthquake, the biggest turn-about in a long time. That surge left them in firm control of the House.


I know the Tea Party loves to take credit for that;
However the second largest surge in GOP seats taken in the House occurred in 1994 when Clinton tried to pass healthcare.

Same legislation by a Democrat President, same result in the House. '

Locally in some ground battles they got "their guy" elected, however I am not entirely convinced that the GOP wouldn't have taken back the house regardless and likely the Senate.

Bugs wrote:
With the Senate, they have been less successful. About people like Lugar ... the Tea Party would say that he was a big-spender. Were they wrong?


I guess that raises the question;

Who will be worse for the spending agenda;
Dick Lugar or now Democrat Senator Joe Donnelly?

Even if I considered Lugar a fiscal moderate, I would still that over what Joe Donnelly will bring and Donnelly is ultimately the doing of the Tea Party.

Purging the Senate of "non true believers" is something you do when you have a 60-40 majority, not something you do when you are several seats down.


Bugs wrote:
I am flabbergasted that you think that Preston Manning accomplished nothing. He was playing chess with Joe Clark at that stage ... and exposed himself to being usurped as part of legitimizing the CA as a developmental stage beyond the Reform Party, designed to facilitate former PC voters. Most of all, he started a party that funded itself from its own membership, through donations ... it was the foundation that we built upon by the CA and later the Conservatives, and ended up giving them a huge advantage.

I don't mean to lionize Manning, but he took a bunch of disgruntled, unconnected complaints, and wove them into an organization that, after it was taken over by others, came to be the government of Canada. He was a kind of John the Baptist, perhaps ... but he accomplished a great deal.

You narrow your focus and get very hard with these things. You want to see a social policy change, for instance ... or a new law, or a new bridge built ... and, of course, there are none of these. Isn't that harsh, under the circumstances?

And is he an illustration of the case you lay out -- was he betrayed by his stubborn sticking to his principles? Or did he understand that if he didn't risk his own leadership in an open election, the CA would be written off as a Reform Party front organization.

He lost a gutsy gamble.

As for sitting on his hands ... I don't know what you refer to ... he won a lot of respect for the way he handled things during all the Meech Lake squabbles.

I guess, at bottom, I understand you as saying that the common man is no longer welcome to a direct role in politics. It's for the specialists, now. It goes along with the use of TV in a campaign to create 'narratives' rather than making much real contact with ordinary people outside the capital.

Sad.


This has nothing to do with the common man and any objection to that; our Prime Minister is about as common man as it comes.

I respect that Manning is the sacred cow;
The first thing I stated about Manning was how much I respected him for his principals and his ideals;

However the LGR passed as he helplessly sat in opposition;
The largest expansion to MP's pensions passed as he sat in opposition
The single biggest growth of social spending to date occurred while he sat in opposition

It was better to divide the right and stand on the principals of being a "western conservative" then it was to compromise and stop one of the most damaging governments in Canadian history.

Manning sat in the Commons for two full terms;
Point to the revolutionary conservative legislation that was passed during that time?

He certainly had a lot to say on opposition days, and his party introduced legislation that died during first reading that was very interesting, but at the end of the day he was a principled voice in a sea of Liberalism.

Much like the Tea Party being uncompromising leads to a scenario where you get the exact opposite of what you wanted.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cosmo ... I hope I'm not treating Manning as a sacred cow, though I do respect his achievement ... and I think you do, as well.

You are looking at the historic consequences ... and probably, as a PC loyalist. And that's how you judge Manning's career. It let Chretien have an easy time of it. That's the same reason that I despise Joe Clark, though it must be said, Joe was trying to put a stick in the other folks' wheels, and mess them up ... determined that the Reform Party, in whatever dress it wore, would never breech the Ontario border, if Joe had to keep Jean in power for decades.

As soon as Joe Clark left the scene, the political skies brightened, and the PCs and the CA merged in a twinkling ... and never looked back.

============================

This all goes back to Meech Lake, which is nothing the Progressive Conservatives should be proud of. You'd have to say that English-speaking Canada used the Reform Party to do what could be done to thwart Meech Lake. Not that that was in Manning's plan, any more than it was in any of the political elites ... who banded together in one harmonious chorus ... until ...

Until the provincial premiers who supported Meech were, one-by-one, picked off. First, in New Brunswick ... then across the land ... Dave Peterson, to everyone's surprise ... Manitoba was different because all the leaders had supported Meech ...

English-speaking Canada ate a lot of shit for Quebec, but it gagged on Meech Lake. It tore the nuts off the Progressive Conservative Party, and brought the 'Canadian Alliance' more and more to the fore, as the party of English-speaking Canada ...

The intellectuals have ignored the biggest turn-around in Canadian electoral history, or certainly one of them. Manning wasn't the cause of what was happening, but what he did do was to bring together a highly motivated group of political outsiders and regional barons into federal politics. He turned out to be John the Baptist, or, if you prefer, Moses, who never got to the promised land either ... was Moses a failure?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 6438
Reputation: 246.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Cosmo ... I hope I'm not treating Manning as a sacred cow, though I do respect his achievement ... and I think you do, as well.

You are looking at the historic consequences ... and probably, as a PC loyalist. And that's how you judge Manning's career. It let Chretien have an easy time of it. That's the same reason that I despise Joe Clark, though it must be said, Joe was trying to put a stick in the other folks' wheels, and mess them up ... determined that the Reform Party, in whatever dress it wore, would never breech the Ontario border, if Joe had to keep Jean in power for decades.

As soon as Joe Clark left the scene, the political skies brightened, and the PCs and the CA merged in a twinkling ... and never looked back.


Believe me;
Joe Clark certainly isn't a "hero" in my eyes.

I find both parties to be equally at fault, and folks like David Orchard to be just as much at fault as someone like Manning.

I was in favor of a merger after 1997;
The PC and Reform popular vote was nearly equal to that of the Liberals who secured a majority, and 30 seats in Ontario had the LPC candidate run up the middle and the two conservative parties combine for greater than 50% of the vote.

Could you imagine how different of a situation we would be in if the Liberals had won a minority government in 1997?

I may very well be from the PC branch of the party; however political reality hit me early and often and as much as i liked what I heard from Manning I would have sooner had his message diluted by Jean Charest and seen some of it implemented rather then dwelling on what could have been years later and seen none of it implemented till 2006.


Bugs wrote:
This all goes back to Meech Lake, which is nothing the Progressive Conservatives should be proud of. You'd have to say that English-speaking Canada used the Reform Party to do what could be done to thwart Meech Lake. Not that that was in Manning's plan, any more than it was in any of the political elites ... who banded together in one harmonious chorus ... until ...

Until the provincial premiers who supported Meech were, one-by-one, picked off. First, in New Brunswick ... then across the land ... Dave Peterson, to everyone's surprise ... Manitoba was different because all the leaders had supported Meech ...

English-speaking Canada ate a lot of shit for Quebec, but it gagged on Meech Lake. It tore the nuts off the Progressive Conservative Party, and brought the 'Canadian Alliance' more and more to the fore, as the party of English-speaking Canada ...


I generally agree;

However Meech is a situation brought upon by Pierre Trudeau wanting to make history with the Constitution Act and screwing Quebec and every other member of the "Gang of Eight" in the process. His vision of a Utopian Canada controlled by Ottawa and his arrogance in how he dealt with this left a ticking bomb for every single Prime Minister to follow.

The thing with the "night of long knives" is that René Lévesque wasn't even being that unreasonable, he was completely on side with Nova Scotia, Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They simply wanted an opt out of that aspect of the Constitutions so they could continue to use John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights which had been on the books since the 60's.

If Trudeau takes five minutes to consider the long term best interest of the country over which picture he hopes will end up in Canadian history books we don't end up with a situation where Mulroney is battling Premiers and Quebec is demanding the kitchen sink because the Constitution Act is signed and over with by all 10 Provinces.

Bugs wrote:
The intellectuals have ignored the biggest turn-around in Canadian electoral history, or certainly one of them. Manning wasn't the cause of what was happening, but what he did do was to bring together a highly motivated group of political outsiders and regional barons into federal politics. He turned out to be John the Baptist, or, if you prefer, Moses, who never got to the promised land either ... was Moses a failure?


Sure, I think that he has a great legacy in the eyes of most Conservatives but at the end of the day Manning did nothing more then a less impressive version of what Jack Layton did in 2011.

He divided voters from the same political spectrum in such a way that it allowed the opposite spectrum to control the House of Commons and create a majority in both the Senate and the Supreme Court of politically opposite appointees which will take over a decade to reverse.

Moses may have never got to the Promise land, but he got his people most of the way there and at least got to see it before handing the reigns off to Joshua.

If we want to go Biblical in our comparisons I would say Manning is more Jacob then anything, and the old PCers being Esau.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 2383
Reputation: 165.1Reputation: 165.1
votes: 6

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought about this for a long time ... and then forgot about this thread ... but what struck me is how you lay the blame for Meech on Trudeau ... and we probably agree that Trudeau's last term, when he 'patriated' the Constitution ... cost us a decade and probably put us back as far as our real personal liberty is concerned.

But (it seems to me) we both have to accept that Canadians love the Constitution, particularly the Charter!!! You'd have to say that Trudeau won that one.

I'll spare you my critique. The point is that Mulroney wasn't interested in perfecting the Constitution ... he was interested in institutionalizing what would be most unacceptable to English-speaking Canada -- the deux nations notion.

This next bit is going to be hard to accept because it says something good about the Liberal Party. Are you sitting down?

The old Liberal Party -- the one set up by Mackenzie King, possibly going back to Laurier and Blake -- was a true alliance between definable political groups in Quebec and Ontario. What I mean to say is that it was institutionalized as a pact between the two language groups from the first. Of course, it was made up of the political contenders in each province, people that, between them, could elect enough MPs in each province to be a contender for power for the rest of the 20th century.

This reflected itself in the leadership institutions of the party, as well as its culture. There always was a leader of the Quebec wing of the party, and another was the leader of the English-speaking party ... thus, Mackenzie King had Ernest Lapointe, St. Laurent had C.D. Howe, and the great failure of Pearson's term was that he failed to groom a French-speaking 'next leader' ... Dief picked them off, one by one, for accepting political gifts -- not even bribes, and Pearson found his bench thin, which is why he recruited 'the three wise men' -- Pelletier, a journalist, Marchand, a union leader, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. a dilettantish law school professor. He was looking for a future French-speaking Quebecker to be the next leader of the Liberal Party, and Marchand insisted the a cadre of French-speaking Quebeckers had to be selected for him to join the Liberal Party.

There was more to it, of course ... but the Liberal Party, internally, operated as a forum in which the deux nations, acting as equals, 'brokered' all the deals that -- essentially -- English-speaking Canada wanted, so that the western part of the country could develop. It started with the CPR, after all ... The understanding was a continuation of the policy that Macdonald started, as part of the CPR political deal ... that is, the west is opened up for development by the railways, giving it future access to world markets ... Ontario (and Quebec) got industrial protection and Quebec's piece of the pie was the patronage.

The magic of the Liberal Party was that it was the place where the ten provinces became the deux nations. That is the secret of the classic Liberal Party, and I think Conservatives should think about it with an open mind. It was the winning formula through most of the last century.

The Liberal Party brought that together with a competent and efficient civil service -- the other element in the classic Liberal Party power base. It was that Liberal Party, working on those principles, that saw Canada through a depression, a world-war, a conscription crisis, and developed the economy into the 1960ies, when the torch was passed to Trudeau.

And Trudeau trashed all these traditions within the Liberal Party. He didn't need a Anglo lieutenant, for example ... he was the perfect linguistic hermaphrodite ... his name made him appear French, but his English made us feel he was 'one of us'. And his Scottish mother instilled somewhat anglicized values intro the young Trudeau. That made us feel comfortable with him, as well.

(Of course, we had already entered the time of multi-party politics. The NDP began to split the English-speaking vote.)

All these changes enabled Trudeau to diminish the traditions of the older, classic Liberal Party. I don't even know if Trudeau meant this, as policy, but what is for sure is that all of the old-style English-speaking Libs of any heft resigned or were pressured out. Only Turner remained, and he only lasted awhile. Trudeau never really had an other-language deputy that could veto his plans, the way Mackenzie King and St. Laurent had and which Pearson searched for. And, after all, he was trying to 'modernize' Quebec and the rest of the country. Remember how they imposed 'metric' on the country because metric was the way of the future? Hmmmph ... it was supposed to make the math easier ... now we have 796 ml cans instead of 28 oz cans.

My point being that Trudeau thought nationalism was passé ...

And after Trudeau came another linguistic hermaphrodite, only this one had an Anglo name, and was culturally much closer to being a quebecois ordinaire. Brian Mulroney, whose idea of how to get political success was to outdo the Liberals in Quebec. Meech revived separatism rather than satisfying the desire for revenge ... At that time Quebeckers talked about negotiating with an knee in English-speaking Canada's figurative crotch, and an allegorical knife at our metaphorical throats. The ensuing referendum came within 1% of passing, admittedly, in the Chretien administration!

And, of course, he fragmented his public support, and left a hole that the Bloc Quegecois occupied through the next two decades. The Reform Party sprang to life, soon to become the official opposition, thanks to Meech Lake. The public backed Mulroney through free trade and the imposition of the GST, and endured a depression to squeeze the inflation out of the Canadian economy. He left Canada with a strong dollar. His economic policies inflicted pain, but people stayed with him, and it makes him one of Canada's best prime ministers.

But Meech Lake virtually negates all that.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Digesting the American election

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB