I was originally going to write about Elizabeth Warren being nothing like Ted Cruz, but as it turns out, many people smarter than I have already done so. This is great! These kinds of rebukes (that the vast majority of democrats are really nothing like republicans) should come swiftly and more often.
I should explain why. In comparing Elizabeth Warren to Ted Cruz, it paints a picture of "Both sides do it" and "democrats are no better than republicans!". At best, this gives advocacy to mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road "third way" types. But, more noticeably, it feeds into the idea of "government is the problem".
Which, if it sounds familiar to you, is the stance of the modern republican party.
Not a long entry today, but I feel the need to write about these things more than ever because it's important. So, yeah.
There is a good chance, by now, you've heard the news of this:
Which has, admittedly, made the internet lose their collective mind. And rightfully so.
Except there's a problem. Buying into the premise in the first place means ceding ground on Obamacare.
In a previous diary entry I wrote a while ago, I outline how the systemic nature of our federal parliamentary procedures favors the republican party. I never fully expanded on that idea, but I should probably do so now in light of the results of the 2014 midterms.
That idea is, Americans are apparently not entitled to liberalism.
I'm writing again on the 'Kos, I guess because I'm angry like most people at this election result.
So, I try to find comfort in facts and truth. And I like uncovering truths. The real truth from this election: The tea party is the dominant force of the republican party.
So, unexpectedly, Chris Christie won a second term in New Jersey.
The shocking, and sad part, is the democratic crossover: 32% of democrats voted for Chris Christie. This is highly perplexing to me, as this is the same man who degrades teachers, vetos minimum wage hikes, and other various things that should infuriate democrats.
There are a multitude of articles out there that are lay out Christie's conservative credentials.
Christie reminds me to another politician who used to be in a similar situation, one I wrote many a Kos diary about. Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts (and, amusingly, Scott Brown may have been more moderate than Chris Christie).
I have several friends lamenting about how the Tea Party has seemingly taken over the republicans, and they wonder if there are any SuperPACs out there who are going to primary any sitting members of the tea party.
I then point out that this is what Karl Rove is exactly planning on doing.
Then they are aghast that they might actually have to root for, and be on the side of Karl Rove.
I then remind them that this is six of one, half-dozen of the other.
In my previous diary, I outlined the concept of "Heads I win, Tails You Lose" politics, where our government is designed to be thrown into a screeching halt by those who do not like government, and how being either a majority party and a minority party is of favorable circumstance to the republicans.
With this entry, I sort of continue on that approach with the nihilistic attitude of those disengaged in our government, and how that too favors the republicans. I'm tentatively calling this a "feedback loop".
Didn't think I've actually come back and reactivate my Kos diary again, but I guess that's what happens when you've become fed up and need to vent.
It's all a bit narcissistic, but I feel the need to explain what I've been calling "Heads I win, Tails You Lose" style of politics.