Election results go all (R)?
Submitted by P. Nicholson on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 22:48
What are the results and what does it mean to BO?
»
| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Just like '94
Clinton got in and the "republicans" went insane so they elected a supposed Republican congress....with that stooge Gingrich as the speaker.
What did they do for us? Nothing.
And that's EXACTLY what's going to happen this time around too.
That's why the Republican party funded the entire wretched Tea party movement. They want there jobs back as the private sectors knows they have no job skills worth paying money for.
I think a Dem won In NY
but who cares ....all this means is by 010 and 012
everyone will be ready for an Independent ....
In NY state that was a Republican district and a Dem won ....
what does that say ....
While it is a good response in VA and NJ to Obomba - letting him know that his endorsements didn't count there and there is mass frustration and disapproval with his leadership .....
just the beginning of real change.
Fulton County voting machines "malfunctioned".
http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Fulton-County-machines...
Sound familiar? I'm no fan of Hoffman, but this looks like another case of voting fraud.
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_el_ge/us_third_par...
It means that the establishment wins.
Mr. Obama may have to sit down in 2012 and let the establishment put in another player, but that's the kind of sacrifice that comes with the job of being the latest face man for the bankers and their darlings.
Meanwhile, the nation is predictably showing signs of riding the pendulum back toward the "right"---which direction is remarkably similar to the "left" when thoroughly analyzed.
Want evidence of this? Just today the Republicans in Congress are announcing that they have their own health care plan and it has only a couple hundred pages. They claim that it won't fund abortions and that it won't fund illegals.
OK, that's nice, but it's still a socialist plan.
And my point is that after all this hubbub, they are promoting this "compromise" that contains EXACTLY what the cartel has accepted and targeted as a bare minimum takeaway from this whole debacle. Yes, if it were not ticking off too many citizens, they'd keep the A team (Obama) in office for another term, because they can run faster down that slippery slope. But let us never underestimate the power of the B team to get the nation down that slope just as surely, even if it goes a bit more slowly.
So BO goes out to pasture and makes money every time he opens his mouth as America's first ever non-American ex-president. Some might think this would be a terrible alternative to another four years as the impostor-in-chief, but frankly, I think he might welcome the relief. He is looking quite tired these days.
Meanwhile, the nation will likely swallow this Republican health care compromise hook, line, and sinker. And in 2010, there will be a Republican sweep of the Congress. And by 2012, whatever states still remain in the Union will likely elect a Republican president because, hey, he's not a Democrat.
Sadly, the Republican Party does not have to reform itself to appear the lesser of 2 evils in 2010 or 2012. They just have to be "not Democrats" in this dull and reactionary game of state. It is hard to imagine the Republicans ticking off the nation to a great enough degree between now and then that they would surpass the Democrats in public disdain.
No, that won't come until 2016, when the Republican president of 2012 will have surprised everyone by continuing the Obama agenda.
How badly does this country have to be stabbed in the back by this "wonderful two-party system" before it finally figures out that it is being duped?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Nailed it
Exactly why voting is stupid an only sanctions the establishment.
http://goldsteinrepublic.com
Voting is not stupid.
Voting on electronic machines is stupid. Voting for lesser-of-two-evils candidates is stupid. Not seeing to it that there are no-evils candidates is stupid. Putting up with criminal and treasonous incumbents is stupid.
But voting in itself is most certainly not stupid. Indeed, if we were given no right to vote in this country, people would be having a fit about that, too.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
I agree whloeheartly with you
except Im glad this happened because it opens up the possiblty of getting OUR freedom candidates elected in 2010. Debra Medina for Governor 2010!
Not much chance of that, Lance.
I'm not trying to be patently negative about the freedom/Constitution movement, but it's proper to point out that, to an unthinking public, the biggest motivation in 2010 and 2012 will be "not Democrat". It will be highly unlikely that they'll do enough extra thinking to come up with the policy: "Not mainstream Republican, either". So most will end up going with whomever the media puts forward as the "frontrunners" against the Democrats.
They'll fall in a heartbeat for the old standard, "This is the candidate who has the BEST CHANCE of unseating the incumbent." And remember, they're only thinking "not Democrat". Thus will they be told that Freedom/Constitution candidate X is a nice guy with good intentions and all, but that he just can't win the race. And they'll buy it.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that this is what SHOULD happen---or even what MUST happen; it's just what is MOST LIKELY to happen, based upon undeniable historical trends. If the actual outcome will vary from this, it will only be because the Freedom/Constitution crowd made a united and strongest-ever effort to educate the public otherwise.
But here's the rub. The only way to get a dull public to change its mind quickly is that not only the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party must be given a huger-than-normal black eye by the Freedom/Constitution movement members. And this is where the snag occurs, for with most of the current candidates from the movement, wed' be saying, "Hey, that Republican Party is incorrigibly evil, so we want you to vote for this here Republican that's not like the rest."
That is an inherently compromised marketing message. It carries with it its own reasons for mistrust. It also says, "You guys are too weak to break away from the Republican Party". And more than all of these faults, it makes the fundamental error of expecting the voting public to become sophisticated enough to compare one type of Republican with another.
They simply are not that sophisticated. The label "Republican" is itself a divisive stumbling block. It matters not whether the guy wearing the Republican button is a good guy or a bad guy.
If I were a really suspicious person trying to figure out why in the world these Freedom/Constitution candidates insist on running as Republicans, and not as independents, I might come to the conclusion that they, too, are bought out by the establishment, and hiring themselves out as mere marketing agents to keep the Freedom/Constitution thinkers in the Republican game for a while longer.
And I could say right here that that suspicion is wholly unfounded, but then comes the question of whether any of them get any money from the Republican Party. And if they do, it begins to be more difficult to exonerate them so easily. The options are few, including:
1. They are indeed working for the establishment. Or,
2. They simply do not believe they can win a campaign based on the merits as an independent (with the attendant funding challenges), so they cling to the Republican Party hoping that campaign funds will be increased enough that they can win on mere force of name recognition and marketing.
What is needed is for them to reach the next step, where they step out from the Republican Party and tell it like it is. "Come out from them and be separate" would be a good theme here, for indeed they are quite separate in their philosophy. This idea of "taking over the Republican Party" is just silly and it is flawed from the beginning.
Imagine a Hitler critic saying, "Our strategy for this year is to take over the Nazi Party, so we really need you all to step up and support our freedom candidates."
"Uh, it's the Nazi Party, dude; I can't support that.", someone would say.
And this is exactly what more and more people are saying about the Republican (and Democratic) Party.
So HELP them say it. Get out of the corrupt parties and run on pure political doctrine, uncompromised by entangling alliances and by financial support from the establishment. If we continue to send mixed signals, we will NEVER help the 42% independents to solidify/legitimize their non-partisan identity. And if we don't, then partisan business as usual will remain the status quo.
Jack
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Outstanding, Jack
I agree, until we take back the ballots and the counting of them, thinking we will vote our way out of this is nearly insane. Trying to convince a hypnotized public that we are "the good Republicans" is a tough sell, to say the least.
What do you think about running as "Sovereign?" (Comments on the UCC1 version invited, but I was thinking more unofficial, just a declaration that one is a sovereign.)
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
"Sovereign"?
I never thought of that before, but in principle, I like it. Where I would shy away from it, however, is on the marketing end. Without having any polling analysis on the question, my hunch would be that the average American citizen wouldn't know how to get their hands around the term, as in "I'm running as a sovereign candidate". And as disinterested as most are in learning new things, I fear that they would view the candidate as an un-relatable "kook", rather than to take the time to look up the word "sovereign" and to ponder its significance in the electoral context.
From my own bitter experience, I'm leaning that you just can't campaign on what people DON'T know---expecting them to be interested in learning something new. You have to campaign on what they DO know already---on what ALREADY concerns them, on what they've ALREADY figured out.....
....Unless you have a few hundred million dollars to put the new idea in front of the public so much that they begin to catch on to it by "osmosis".....
Funny, Fox News has that kind of money, and yet the public remains largely uninformed about freedom/Constitution issues. I wonder why that is..... ; - )
Hmmmmm.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
I just heard on the news
Both Cristy and McDonell have won in New Jersey and Virginia.The dumacrats r probalbly pssing their pants right now.