Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (84772)	11/4/2010 3:53:30 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I'm not sure why that was posted to me. Those are not quotes I have endorsed. It is a fact, however, that the people of the USA are disappointed with the government, which has been made clear to all by the 11% approval rating for congress. Their disappointment is justified and increased when they see Republicans pointing the finger of blame at Democrats and visa versa. "Besides whatever the House passes, the Senate can reject and even if a bill passes through the Congress, Obama can veto it and if it fails to get a super majority, then we are back to square one, the situation is decided by politicians of various shades. and that is taking the country back? No, that is partisan politics as usual, something that has been justifiably and broadly condemned for several election cycles now. Politicians of various shades have continually been told as a result, by the voters, to get out at each election cycle. Our politicians need to represent we the people not just we the lobbyists or we the party faithful. Republicans have not made a sincere effort at reconciliation so that we could see such representation and neither have Democrats. Voters don't by the, OK but you go first gambit. Obama has not figured out how to be a man of the people yet either, since he still comes across as an adversary to conservatives. He does seem to want conservative support but he doesn't come across as being on the unbiased side of the people. He will be a great president if he can figure out how to do that but his time is running out. How have you felt when your closest relations expressed disappointment in you? I consider it more painful that being physically beaten, as do most people. Apparently the politicians do not feel close enough to the people or they would feel that pain and do something about it far ahead of the next election cycle. "The elections results are a tragedy for this country." The election results are yet another attempt by the voters to express that disappointment and to make their expectations clear, 'congress step up and show us how you can work together to get things done or get out.' They are seeing how the two party system operates when it is at its worst. It is not a pendulum swing of partisan support as people all caught up in party loyalty interpret it, it is a condemnation of partisan polarization.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (84772)	11/4/2010 12:55:28 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

It was a referendum on the Blue Dawgs. They got trashed. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch. The progressives did just fine, for the most part. Shows you can't be a Dem and try to act like an R, even if your name is Lincoln. DINO blue tick hounds. I won't miss them. They upset my stomach more than R's do. Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election First Posted: 11- 3-10 05:52 AM \| WASHINGTON -- Tuesday was a tough night for Democrats, as they watched Republicans win enough seats to take back the House in the next Congress and began to ponder life under a likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). But one group hit especially hard was the Blue Dog Coalition, with half of its members losing their seats. According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, 22 of the 46 Blue Dogs up for re-election went down on Tuesday. Notable losses included Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), the coalition's co-chair for administration, and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the co-chair for policy. Two members were running for higher office (both lost), four were retiring and three races were still too close to call. The Blue Dogs, a coalition of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House, have consistently frustrated their more progressive colleagues and activists within the party, especially during the health care debate. Blue Dog members pushed to limit the scope and the cost of the legislation and resisted some of the mandates of the bill. Last summer, seven of the eight Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee even threatened to block health care reform unless it met their cost requirements. Other areas where Blue Dogs have helped put the brakes on ambitious progressive priorities are global warming measures and legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize. "Since they can vote with the Republicans in order to get their way around here, that doesn't sit well with progressives -- who don't want to vote with Republicans ever," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Cali.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, told the Wall Street Journal in July 2009. In fact, some progressives blamed the Blue Dogs for losses on Tuesday across the ideological spectrum within the Democratic Party. "From our perspective, our members did all that they could do and really left everything on the field," said Levana Layendecker, communications director of the progressive grassroots organization Democracy for America. "Of course we are disappointed with the results tonight, but not surprised. Unfortunately, progressive champions became collateral damage tonight in a toxic environment created by Blue Dogs who refused to stand up for real change." The Blue Dog Coalition formed after the Republican Revolution of 1994, with some lawmakers believing that Democrats lost so many seats because the party drifted to the left. It remains to be seen whether the remaining lawmakers will be able to find new members, or whether the Progressive Caucus -- which lost far fewer members, in part because many of them are in solidly liberal districts -- will instead see its hand strengthened. huffingtonpost.com