Today's US election

[Guard Dog]

So for GD, Enoch and the like, as the Reps look set to get the House majority, what does this mean for the Tea Party movement? Is it really a vindication & victory for them and their 'soccer mom leaders' like the media is suggesting, or, (as I suspect, given the way the media is raving) is it more complex than that? Can we demarcate between "traditional" Republican votes/gains and radical Tea Party ones, or is the Tea Party as a new / independent movement overstated?

 

To be honest, being a dumbarse about politics as a field, it's really difficult to make heads or tails of which policies are right and what party stands for what. Just seems like increasingly, even if you're fairly educated, trying to work out exactly where each candidate stands and, more importantly, how likely they will be able to carry through their promises, is just too much to bother with if you're not keyed in. And of course that's where my greatest concern with US elections post-Bush comes in - the absolutely massive role a select few individuals & bodies play in agenda setting & opinion leading.

Well, over all the self identified "Tea Party" candidates had a mixed bag of success. They got some big wins in Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Wisconson, and PA but the three biggest prizes, Deleware, Nevada (had Angle managed to defeat Harry Reid for the Nevada Senate seat the Tea Party would have become a permanent politcal force) and Oregon got away and they really were not that close. Going into next year I think they will be viewed as a force that you don't take lightly but certainly not one to be feared. As far as how Teap Party enthusiasum aided Repub prospects in general, that is hard to say. But I think it certainly made a difference. I do think the Repubs would have retaken the House anyway but margins would not be so great.

[Walsingham]

I think that all this hooha over prteis is balls. Every American voter I have heard from seems to be working on candidates, not parties. Meanwhile all this bushwah about referanda on Obama looks to me like we've got another split Congress as normally happens.

 

Thoughts?

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not what normally happens, there hasn't been that many seats to change since the 40's, it's a historic moment. There're a lot of reasons for this, but Obama is certainly a major one. Constantly whining how it's all Bush's fault and critisizing your own country abroad just doesn't make you look like a leader, and people pick up on that.

[Walsingham]

See that's another thing I don't understand. I mean, how could the state of the country NOT be Bush's fault? He was a two term president.

 

I'm not being partisan here. Just as many of GWB's foreign policy headaches came from Clinton.

[Wrath of Dagon]

See that's another thing I don't understand. I mean, how could the state of the country NOT be Bush's fault? He was a two term president.

 

I'm not being partisan here. Just as many of GWB's foreign policy headaches came from Clinton.

The President doesn't control everything, in fact his power is very limited contrary to popular belief. Nevertheless, even stipulating that a lot of the problems were Bush's responsibility, constantly blaming your predecessor only diminishes one's own stature and makes you look weak and defensive. You didn't see Ronald Reagan constantly complaining about what a mess Jimmy Carter left him, whether that was justified or not.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

Well I don't know about Reagan, but our current government is very keen to point out all the mess left over from Labour. And most everyone here seems to just nod their heads and agree. I mean, how can you have a debate on defence spending and not point out the bilions of overcommitment written into the budget by Labour? It wouldn't make the slightest sense.

[Enoch]

Well, the reality is that the biggest problems the country is facing are the result of an economy that has been allowed to mis-allocate resources at a fundamental level for the past several decades. If you want to pin blame on Presidents, there's some for all of the last five or more. And a lot more for their economic advisors and the academics and business leaders they listened to.

 

 

As for Tig's question on the TP'ers, well, there really is no such thing. Its a fun name adopted by some Republican voters (whether they're registered as such or not) who are generally on the rightward arm of the party as far as political-economy issues go. (The GOP is largely an alliance of religous social conservatives and economic conservatives-- many Republican voters are to the right in both areas, but not all are.) The TP-related fanfare has certainly gotten these people more excited and boosted their turnout for the election, but the longer-term effects are tough to divine. The 2012 GOP presidential primaries are going to be very interesting.

[Hurlshort]

I would say it is less a Republican movement and more of an anti-incumbent movement. I can see a lot of seats changing again in the next election if the country doesn't dramatically improve.

 

It'd be nice to see politicians start working together regardless of political affiliation as well. Things are very vitriolic in DC right now, and I don't see how the government can achieve anything without good will and compromise.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well I don't know about Reagan, but our current government is very keen to point out all the mess left over from Labour. And most everyone here seems to just nod their heads and agree. I mean, how can you have a debate on defence spending and not point out the bilions of overcommitment written into the budget by Labour? It wouldn't make the slightest sense.

It's not a bad strategy to point out the faults of your opposition, the problem is when the President himself dwells on it, not his underlings or other people in the party. People like their leaders to take resposibility instead of making excuses.

 

I would say it is less a Republican movement and more of an anti-incumbent movement. I can see a lot of seats changing again in the next election if the country doesn't dramatically improve.

 

It'd be nice to see politicians start working together regardless of political affiliation as well. Things are very vitriolic in DC right now, and I don't see how the government can achieve anything without good will and compromise.

Well, not really, virtually no Republican incumbent lost. It's more correct to say it's anti party in power. If the country doesn't dramatically improve, Obama will still get most of the blame.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

Are you sure it isn't just Machiavelli's point about new leaders not changing anything?

 

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm not sure what you're asking, if you're saying people turned against "hope and change", then yes, since there's no hope and they didn't like the change. However Obama also failed to sell his program because he failed to sell himself as a credible leader.

[kirottu]

GOODBYE FREEDOM GOODBYE!!!

[Meshugger]

So team Koch won against team Soros this time, i see.

[Oblarg]

At least Kim Buck lost the election here in Colorado.

 

He sort of shot himself in the foot with his recent comments on social policy, but it was still too close for comfort.

[Humodour]

Well I don't know about Reagan, but our current government is very keen to point out all the mess left over from Labour. And most everyone here seems to just nod their heads and agree. I mean, how can you have a debate on defence spending and not point out the bilions of overcommitment written into the budget by Labour? It wouldn't make the slightest sense.

 

Indeed.

[Monte Carlo]

If John Kerry had been President in September 2001 do you think he'd have ended up invading Iraq?

 

Honest question from curious Brit, I suspect he would have. All I'm saying is that Democrats are just as up for foreign military commitments when the situation demands.

 

Similarly, talking about blaming your predecessor, George W Bush inherited an anti-Jihadist problems that was fairly and squarely, 100% down to Bill Clinton and his tremulous, risk-averse White House. The Neo-Cons were in the driving seat not least because of the uselessness of the Clinton Whitehouse in the 1990's.

[Hurlshort]

Actually I'm not sure if Al Gore would have gone to Iraq. Afghanistan, for sure, but it is hard to say if another administration would have gone to Iraq. I'm not saying it is completely unlikely, but I can see more time being take before the commitment. Bush had a fairly aggressive foreign policy that I know Gore would not have had.

 

John Kerry ran for president in 2004, so I don't know what he would have done, but the war was already in progress.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Hurlshot

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't think either Kerry or Gore would've gone to Afghanistan, let alone to Iraq.

[Monte Carlo]

Clinton definitely wouldn't have. Clinton turned the US military into a risk-averse joke. Bush turned it back into an awesome war fighting machine. You can think of that what you will, personally I make it a good thing by the by.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If anything I thought Clinton was too agressive where our interests weren't involved, like in Kosovo. Anyway, I think Clinton would've handled 9/11 OK, may be better than Bush. The thought of Al Gore as president at that time scares the hell out of me though.

[Hurlshort]

I find it hard to imagine any president not going into Afghanistan. There was a very pressing need for a response to 9/11, and the Taliban made it very clear that they were not going to work with the US on going after Al Queda.

[Monte Carlo]

If anything I thought Clinton was too agressive where our interests weren't involved, like in Kosovo. Anyway, I think Clinton would've handled 9/11 OK, may be better than Bush. The thought of Al Gore as president at that time scares the hell out of me though.

 

I give you Somalia and the retreat thereof. I also give you Kosovo / The Balkans where the US army adopted their infamous Force Protection doctrine.

 

Not that the UN covered itself in glory in the Balkans but one expects a bit more gumption from the US Army.

[Walsingham]

You had attacks on US interests from Al Qaeda under Clinton. The general response being that the intelligence services were trying to pad their portfolio.

 

This is one of the big points people fail to grasp abou tthe threat. AlQ at al. isn't a response to some sort of aggression by us. Under Clinton they claimed it was because we weren't doing enough to help muslims by refusing to deploy troops!

[Wrath of Dagon]

If anything I thought Clinton was too agressive where our interests weren't involved, like in Kosovo. Anyway, I think Clinton would've handled 9/11 OK, may be better than Bush. The thought of Al Gore as president at that time scares the hell out of me though.

 

I give you Somalia and the retreat thereof. I also give you Kosovo / The Balkans where the US army adopted their infamous Force Protection doctrine.

 

Not that the UN covered itself in glory in the Balkans but one expects a bit more gumption from the US Army.

The reason for that was our interests weren't involved, at least not to the extent that anyone plausibly explained. Somalia was a humanitarian operations, no one signed up for heavy casualties. Also it was Clinton still learning the ropes and probably getting bad advice. The Balkans again, no one knew what the hell we were doing there, it was already unpopular, significant US casualties and Congress would demand an immediate withdrawal. I assume you didn't really mean to question the gumption of the US army, it was purely a political decision, nothing to do with the military.

[Walsingham]

I'm not sure if I'm arguing against you, WoD. But again I'd refer to this fantasy that you can do humanitarian work without casualties.