You mean the guy who predicted the 2008 almost perfectly? Yes, he can safely be called an authority.
Again, however, that poll he cites is highly suspect.
Yes, I mean the pompous (“Politics done right” :rolleyes:) liberal darling who had no idea whatsoever about the special Senate elections in Massachusetts. Or badly failed to predict Maine’s same-sex marriage vote. Or said that the unemployment rate wouldn’t get to 10%.
I think I did that in post 62 when I linked to their Contract from America.
I’d grant that there are a bunch of Tea Party folks who are just concerned citizens angered by the economy and the government involvement in business. A conservative friend of mine just told me they also want to get rid of the weak republicans who gave away the farm. I’m all for both party’s cleaning house a little bit but their contract from America , while perhaps well intended, doesn’t appear to have any cohesiveness. They didn’t mention campaign finance reform which IMO needs to be high on the list , and although they mentioned repealing health care, they didn’t mention the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to donate directly to our policy makers.
Right after the Federal Budget of 1993? Remembered (barely) on prestigious forums like this one, and almost nowhere else? A budget which led to one of the greatest eras of prosperity in American history, and which passed with 0 (zero, aucune, kein) Republican votes? And which then led to nasty and willfully-stupid declaiming by paid right-wing declaimers?
To paraphrase Ted Koppel: “It’s been said no one ever lost a dollar underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
What data and what reasoning there do you take issue with?
I’m at a complete loss as to what your point is. Firstly, I’m not accepting a causal relationship between the '93 budget and an era of prosperity. Secondly, are you saying we are poised for an era of unprecedented prosperity now?
The topic of the 1994 elections was brought up by none other than you, John. Perhaps you might explain what your own point was intended to be?
The Tea Partiers are the mental militia of the right wing. They are skirting with dangerous mantras that help increase the anger the followers. The question is will they go to violence or not? The anger is palpable and politicians are exploiting it. I do not think it will end well.
I interpreted it as “the modern conservative movement knows how to get their base out best when there’s a Democrat in office”. Not to mention “look at how little this stat matters, since you-know-who got re-elected pretty easily in 1996.”
Whether or not that’s what he meant is irrelevant.
Well, I didn’t think it was necessary to remind most people here what happened in the midterm elections in 1994. I let you look that up in wikipedia if you don’t.
I think Republicans are trying to ride a tiger here. It’s one thing to have a crowd of nuts out there yelling about lowering taxes and cutting welfare and closing the borders - these is just normal items in the conservative agenda. So some Republicans are happy to get in bed with the Tea Partiers.
But the Tea Partiers are a loose cannon. Eventually the whackos are going to become too noticable to hide off camera. The racists and the conspiracy nuts and the general idiots will become seen as the public face of the Tea Party movement. Or worse yet, somebody in the movement will decide to try some “propaganda by the deed”. And then politicians are going to find that being associated with the Tea Partiers is a liability not an asset.
Look at Squink’s list. Notice that serious potential candidates like Huckabee and Romney are keeping their distance.
Scott Brown himself stayed away from their Boston rally.
It wasn’t necessary, no, but thanks anyway.
The question to *you *was what *you *intended *your *point to be, since points are apparently important to you. To what did you want the 1994 elections to be analogized to, and on what basis, and what may the rest of us learn from you about it?
I’m just trying to understand what that guy was getting at. It was an honest question. I honestly had no idea what point he was trying to make. Please let him respond.
I thought it was obvious that my “point” was there was a “throw the bums out” attitude then as there is now, and that seems to be one of the major themes of the Tea Partiers. They seem to be on to something. Do you disagree? If so, why?
I’ll answer your question, but let me ask one of my own first:
Did you think I was “saying we are poised for an era of unprecedented prosperity now”? Does that seem a reasonable deduction to draw? Is that a deduction you draw? Just answer me please. Don’t think about, or try to compound your insult. And pardon me if I’ve not memorized John Mace’s opinion on every political subject; I just react to certain posts (irrespective of poster) that seem to need a corrective nudge.
You referred to a specific year. I commented on the same year. That’s all. I let the reader connect his or her own dots. If you need something more concrete than that how about this: The 1993 Federal Budget was a refreshing flash of sanity in an increasingly unfortunate political environment. Duped right-wing voters than replaced rational Congressmen with demagogues and hypocrites. You drew the analogy with the 2010 climate and election. I’m afraid you may indeed be quite correct about this lamentable parallel.
I’m afraid now your deeper point is lost on me. Is it nothing more than an election-year prognostication? If so, are you happy about it?
Oh, I agree we should throw the bums out. The bums being 80% Republicans and 20% Democrats; do you disagree?
I disagree. I think the biggest event of the 1994 elections was the Contract With America. The Republicans did not run as just a party of opposition - they had declared a specific list of legislation they promised to enact if elected. They were offering solutions not just complaining about problems. The Democrats had done essentially the same thing in the 1932 election. People may not agree with the ideas that were put forth but at least candidates were running for something rather than just against something.
I’m not seeing that this year. The election seems to be about the election. The Republican agenda is to defeat the Democrats on election day with no particular plans for what they’re going to do afterwards when they take their seats. I’m not saying that won’t work - as you point out, sometimes “throw the bums out” is enough to win. But I’m not seeing 2010 as a replay of 1994.
Yeah – why is that? The GOP has plenty of intellectual talent, or used to not so long ago. How come the Pubs don’t seem to have any ideas any more beyond “No!”?
Because they have invested so heavily in the “Intellectuals Are Leftists/Communists!” meme they don’t dare come out with anything that smacks of intelligence.
Some would argue that “throw the bums out” is a good enough idea if it works. We won’t know until November whether it is.