problem is that the other side has no interest in doing anything that might be viewed as something positive for the country and a "success" for President Obama (even though they would be able to claim some credit too, of course).
It may take some time for Scott Brown's vote on THAT to register with the Massachusetts electorate. Warren is not officially the nominee either and doesn't have a lot of name recognition as of yet. There's still time to make up the gap. I have a hard time believing that Scott "finger in the wind" Brown is going to just run away with this election. The thing that I find strange about this is that Warren was closing in on if not slightly ahead of Brown at one point but then polls started coming out showing Brown wildly ahead. Did Warren say or do something between those two time periods that were controversial or caught a lot of flak for (I mean, other than with the Fox News crowd)? Brown seems to be somewhat of a moderate and has voted to the left on some things of course but I'm not sure how easy it will be for him to explain away his otherwise obstructionist behavior not to mention his vote on the clearly extremist Blunt Amendment.
as are all retiring (or retired) politicians and beltway pundits preaching the same real but seriously misguided lament about about the worse-than-usual hyper-partisanship and gridlock currently running rampant in Washington DC. If they were really genuine in their beliefs, IMHO they should really be rallying around President Barack Obama because (smears from certain Fox News "Democratic" pollsters aside notwithstanding), no politician in modern history has done more to attempt, sometimes painfully, to "walk the walk" in terms of genuinely seeking a bipartisan working relationship with politicians of all stripes than Barack Obama since he was elected in 2008, something that he has actually been preaching himself from a national stage since 2004 and that served as the essence of his campaign in 2008.
What organizations and people like Americans Elect obscure and/or fail to recognize and point out is that the hyper-partisanship and gridlock that we have seen and experienced since 2008 has been the results of tactics engaged almost exclusively by members on the Republican side of the aisle, as well as the Tea Party machine that has largely been financed by wealthy right-wing corporate interests with a vested interest in stopping any kind of progressive reform in this country dead in its tracks. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have, at virtually every turn, bent over backwards- in the name of accomplishing significant reforms on health care, the financial industry, immigration, and climate change- to attempt to win over Republicans, some of whom spearheaded similar reform efforts in the past but time and time again have gotten their hands bit off (actually, more like torn off) by them either because of the Republican members' own craven hypocrisy, their sick desire to see President Obama to "fail", or their plain simple fear of being devoured whole by the Republican Tea Party machine in the next election. Even so-called "moderate" Republicans like Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Richard Lugar (R-IN), all of whom have shown themselves to be sensible and open-minded in the past, have, in nearly every occasion since 2009, closed ranks with their leadership to obstruct President Obama's agenda and refused to cooperate in any way, shape, or form with him and/or the Democrats in Congress. Of note has been retiring Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), whom some have even suggested would be a potentially good for an American Elects pairing despite the fact that she is actually emblematic of the dysfunction that has plagued Washington DC since 2009 and definitely NOT the solution.
With this in mind, what exactly does Americans Elect hope to achieve by putting together a Democratic-Republican ticket that we the people would be unable to achieve in the current political system? To anybody on the right, the concept of a Republican even considering cooperating with a Democrat has been reviled so much by their radical right propagandists and activists, it's practically considered heresy and/or treason. They simply wouldn't trust any Republican actually running in a combined national ticket for the WH. Also, since the Republican Tea Party machine doesn't believe in any kind of progressive reform, anybody elected via Americans Elect is going to have the face the same obstructionist mentality that President Obama has had to deal with since he was elected POTUS and will likely have just as much luck in actually getting substantial legislation through the buzz saw Congress has become. In short, Americans Elect might sound like an interesting and, in some ways enticing, concept on some level but the problems they seek to solve by working to elect a bipartisan ticket could be more readily solved by simply recognizing and supporting politicians and candidates whom genuinely believe in working together to govern the country and improve the lives of its citizens and against those whom do not.
IMHO the fact that Americans Elect and its supporters seem to ignore President Obama's effort to govern in a (much) more bipartisan fashion than modern Presidents (esp. George W. Bush) while continuing to pitch the same "both sides" false equivalency meme suggests to me that they are either not as aware of the current political reality as they like to pretend to be, are hopelessly brainwashed by the beltway punditocracy, or are simply pushing their own enigmatic agenda. I also have to ask, where were they during the previous 8 years when George W. Bush, flush from "victory" in a highly questionable election, decided to be a "divider not a uniter" in every way, shape, and form and practically made Republican hegemony the law of the land. Like with the Tea Party, they may have had a legitimate point about something or other a few years ago but the fact is they're late and they're blaming the wrong people for problems that extend far beyond the current situation in Washington DC.
I don't know what her record was like before 2009 but, aside from the stimulus vote, most of her votes went to support the cause of creating obstructionism and dysfunction in the US Senate and her "moderation" and "independence" have largely been a joke, particularly when it came to her hemming and hawing over health care reform, which she was willing to vote out of committee but unwilling to vote for in the end (despite essentially being the same bill) out of deference to the teabaggers. Her laments about the state of hyper-partisanship and gridlock (confined almost exclusively to the Republican side of the aisle) seem particularly stupid and/or hypocritical given that she supported the near-permanent state of filibuster that the Republicans have put on the Senate since 2009. Good riddance.
I don't want my hard earned tax dollars to pay for his vile rantings on Armed Forces Radio anymore!!! I mean, if Republicans can demand that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for abortions, why can't we demand that the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for Rush to be broadcast on Armed Forces Radio? How did THAT get started, anyhow? Do they broadcast any progressive programs too?
I'm not sure I quite follow your logic. If Romney's competition has been horrid (which it has), he should IMHO be doing much better than just "surviving" the primary like he has been. His personal fortune and Super PACs have largely been responsible for propping up his candidacy. I think that part of his problem is that he is not nearly as "conservative" as he claims to be and he's had to fit himself in a far-right mold that he, frankly, just doesn't fit in, in order to even have half a chance in today's GOP primary. He may come across as more relaxed and "at ease" moving back towards the center where he belongs in the GE but then it's going to become even harder for him to hold on to the far right (which hasn't really bought his lurch to the right anyway) and keep them eager to vote for him not to mention figure out a way to walk back some of the wacky far-right positions he's taken during the primary in order to win over independents. I'm just not sure he's saavy enough to "thread the needle" between the far right base he needs to win, as well as the independents he needs to court in order to win in the GE.
the tsunami of stupidity that seems to come out of him whenever he wins a primary contest?
BTW his wife is really off the wall too.
seems to turn Romney into a swaggering blustery lunatic more than winning a primary contest!
Taking responsibility for solving problems, not so much.
Profile InformationName: Mara Alis Butler
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,182
About Mad_Machine76Transgender Woman /Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.
- 2023 (41)
- 2022 (84)
- 2021 (111)
- 2020 (95)
- 2019 (141)
- 2018 (176)
- 2017 (254)
- 2016 (163)
- 2015 (267)
- 2014 (447)
- 2013 (374)
- 2012 (755)
- 2011 (36)
- December (36)