Election Results: A Speaks Perspective

[speaks]

I am dissapointed that the Republicans Swept the house in such large numbers. I feel that anyone making less than $500,000 a year or so that votes Republican is voting against their own interests. There are some that vote on 'moral' issues. My mom will basically vote for whomever promises to outlaw abortions, despite the fact that Roe v. Wade is

Comments

[chapel_of_words]

Interestingly enough, the answer to any failure in life is almost never to continue to do more of the same of what you were doing. The key to getting out of debt isn't to take more on (either at personal or national levels); you can't eat your way out of being overweight (after losing 80lbs I've learned this the hard way); you won't get less speeding tickets by speeding more etc. etc.

As I've pointed out numerous times however, I'd urge extreme caution that the incoming "it-party" not mistake this vote as a mandate for their own particular messianic view of crazy. I tried to warn Dems back in 2008 about the danger of sliding up to the bar, mocking and laughing at the drunken wretch of Bush in the corner, taking shots telling themselves "We'll never end up like that."

Now the incoming folks can come in and see the Dems AND Bush both wretched drunks in the corner. The lesson to take away is to GET OUT OF THE BAR! Drinking is spending and overreach of the federal into every facet of life. Stop drinking, stop spending, stop trying to centralize everything in one place and you might get a better outcome.

Hell - you might have single payer and public option at least get a vote in the committee and floor if they hadn't written healthcare from on high and passed it down with no ability to modify it. At least then we'd have some transparency of what the vote on single payer was, and we'd be able to discuss this false meme that it would've won the day if they'd at least tried.

Tim C.

[chapel_of_words]

Hey - the drinking metaphor is my creation, going all the way back to Obama's victory in 2008, and my warning to those who I saw, like frat boys coming into the bar to laugh at Bush, and starting to take shots. I'm looking for the first post but LJ's search functions are styming my effort. Here however are early warnings I gave in Oct 2008 BEFORE the win:

"There's going to be a transition over the next few weeks....- pointing the finger at the "other guys" will no longer work, with the power comes the responsibility. I truly think the GOP lost their way...
The cautionary tale of what happened to the GOP is that sometimes the worst thing that can ever happen is to get all the power, because it will corrupt what you thought you had going into it."

http://chapel-of-words.livejournal.com/255672.html

Going back to that time is interesting, and might make an interesting exercise. Go back to LJ and look at the posts made right around Obama's win. I know I conceded and congratulated the winners...apparently dignity in losing is itself a lost art...

http://chapel-of-words.livejournal.com/256867.html

Tim C.

[lightbearer]

Actually, what I find interesting is that you pretty much had a quick congratulations, then absolutely nothing having to do with the elections for the week. It's not so much dignity in losing as ignoring the matter entirely.

On the other hand, no one took over your LJ for a limited public conversation pumping themselves up over the Democratic win, either. Perhaps dignity in winning is also itself a lost art.

[chapel_of_words]

Maybe that was the smarter move - offering a congratulations and some space, giving it a few days (besides my Horde v. Alliance humor posting). But I was back at it with I certainly wasn't feeling compelled to visciously attack entire swaths of people I don't know by claiming they're racists, misognysts or homophobes...but sure...sometimes a little space was good. When you lose you give the field to the other team, allow them their celebrations. (You also may mistake me as a member of a Tea Party, which I'm not, they'd never have me for my stance on how to resolve illegal-immigration).

You may also have missed that Speaks made the same statement/inquiry about how could I possibly think that this was anything other than a repudiation of the Tea Party on my LJ, about 30minutes before posting it again here. My first response is largely a repeat of my response on my LJ.

http://chapel-of-words.livejournal.com/346593.html

On the other hand, no one took over your LJ for a limited public

My LJ gets taken over plenty of times, especially when I say bone-headed, stupid, inaccurate, and insulting things. I actually *hope* it gets taken over and people beat some sense into me. Then the argument breaks out, and from the argument a greater understanding emerges. Look at the threads on this page and how they have morphed...LJ's like speaks and my are like coffeehouse shops; we may start the conversation with a post, but we don't try and control where it goes.

Denial is a problem for anyone in power, as is feeling it's okay to belittle the opposition. The Democrats/liberals have been in denial for a long time about the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin. I have warned them for a long time that underestimating the phenomena would be their downfall...and from what I can tell, Palin's win-rate based on endorsements is much higher than Obama's...based on *outcomes* (not inputs like magazines read), I'd wager she displays more creative intelligence than Obama. Something to chew on.

Tim C.

[lightbearer]

I have to admit a certain degree of curiosity concerning from where the straw-man last paragraph came. Was it a complete guess at my own political stance, or did my default political icon remind you of a point you wanted to make to the universe in general anyway?

[kingfrog]

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever mentioned it, but I LOVE your politics icon. :)

[chapel_of_words]

You'll find that I meander in almost all my posts, offering thoughts, because (again) this is kind of like a coffee house. I also type like I would talk, occaisonally moving into a new subject.

The opening observation of the last paragraph that "denial is a problem for anyone in power" is not aimed specifically at either group, becuase both GOP & Dems have had that problem (depending on if they were in power), and the TP specifically might have that problem going forward. I've said as much recently in my post-election predictions, misreading these results could be as dangerous for TP as it was for Dems in misreading 2008. The second observation, obviously aimed at Democrats/liberals, would only apply if you considered yourself a Democrat/liberal - as they have been the ones in power for 2-4 years depending on how one gauges that power. Specifically though I have noticed a trend going back to the harrassing of Palin for Democrats/liberals to underestimate her influence, and continually misread warning signs (NY 23, VA & NJ elections etc.) However, for lack of a better objective measure right now, is by all appearances more capable than Obama when comes to electing candidates throughout this cycle. That is indeed something to chew on.

Failure should promote examination, reflection, and changes to acheive the ultimate outcome you want. Name-calling and flinging around insults is ultimately destructive, A) because you don't learn anything, and B) you alienate those who you probably shouldn't be alienating. I've now received (and this is not directed at you) *worst* treatment from so-called liberal/progressives because I don't agree with their fiscal policies, than I did from neo-cons because I didnt' support the Iraq War. In other words vocal, self-identified liberal/progressives have come across as more condescending, more uninformed, more insulting, and more immature than the neocons. And that's not an easy feat!

This concerns me because I strongly support a wide range of social freedoms that would normally put me in line with liberals (gay marriage, drug legalization, less government security powers). But I find myself quickly being alienated from wanting to have anything to do with a group that can't muster the maturity or tolerance to have a discussion with someone who's viewpoint they disagree with without calling them racist, homophobe or misognyst.

Is this aimed at you? No. Again...I'm probably just speaking to the universe in general here.

Regardless of your political persuasion you're welcome to come over to my LJ and offer your thoughts. If you want to get into discussions (which I thought we were having) feel free. We're currently discussing QE2. You won't be called any names for your beliefs, whatever shade they might be; but you will be challenged to discuss them, if that's your cup of tea.

Tim C.

[kingfrog]

This concerns me because I strongly support a wide range of social freedoms that would normally put me in line with liberals (gay marriage, drug legalization, less government security powers). But I find myself quickly being alienated from wanting to have anything to do with a group that can't muster the maturity or tolerance to have a discussion with someone who's viewpoint they disagree with without calling them racist, homophobe or misognyst.

Thanks! You and I agree on a remarkable range of stuff, as these are all things I've thought over the years. We need our own party. :)

[chapel_of_words]

Radical Moderates, it's where *we're* at! =)

Tim C.

[kingfrog]

Dignity is a vanishing art, in losing or winning. Sadness.

[logiphage]

The media and the leadership in both parties has framed teabaggers too well as 'messianic crazy' as Tim puts it. They do the same whenever there's a popular fiscal conservative movement. Tim, like many libertarians (oh, i mean, "radical moderate";) is too keen on being accepted by the cool kids. We call them cosmotarians, intellectual libertarians, who sound like liberals at cocktail parties because they still want hugs from liberals;)

I can explain what the TP is really about but to most people 'reality' isn't what they see with their own eyes, or could see if they attended a local TP meeting, reality is a picture of a couple of extroverts in tricorns they see on the news, or the evil Koch conspiracy, or the 'Family' they hear about on NPR.

Personally, by now I enjoy the confused look when I tell people I'm in the tea party. I know they are wondering where my 'garb' is, and if I have a musket in my car. I think it appeals to the punk aesthetic of unapologetic nonconformity that I apparently never grew out of:)

[speaks]

I like the fact that the evil media is doing this.

It couldn't be that most of the big name candidates for the tea party for the senate were bug-eyed nuts.

I'm speaking of O'Donnell, Angle, Rubio and Paul.

[logiphage]

It's nuts to observe that social security is a ponzi scheme that is way way past broke and needs to be fixed?

[speaks]

Given that the large majority of the tea party are the elderly. I don't think that is a tea party issue. The republicans as a whole have said they don't plan to touch social security medicare or medicade. They also took defense spending off the table.. Why does ANYONE think the republicans or the tea party is fiscally conservative. They talk a lot about deficit reduction but really they are just for tax cuts.

[logiphage]

Given that the large majority of the tea party are the elderly. I don't think that is a tea party issue.

Right. We keep getting told this isn't our issue, yet we still apparently are mistaken about what our issues are..

The demographic is as you say, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the reality that SS is broke. To ignore the problem you have to be delusional enough to think it's sustainable or selfish enough not to give a shit so long as you 'get yours' before it collapses. This isn't the sort of people in the tea party.

Granted you have a lot of the AARP crowd who are quite willing to push more debt onto succeeding generations to make sure they get every single dime of their government dole, but that's not the TP.

They also took defense spending off the table.

The GOP did. The tea party didn't.

Why does ANYONE think the republicans or the tea party is fiscally conservative

Lol if the GOP was fiscally conservative the tea party would not even exist. No offense but you're emotions seem to be clouding your reason on this.

They talk a lot about deficit reduction but really they are just for tax cuts.

The tea party is against spending. Taxes are just the consequence. Generally teabaggers want a balanced budget but they certainly have no interest in raising taxes unless there's a spending is cut. Promises to cut spending aren't gonna cut it.