Skip to main content

This headline would have cracked me up before November 2nd.  But the results of that election raised some interesting questions.

  1. What does the election really say?
  1. Who are the Tea Partiers, really?
  1. Why was Delaware different?

To get the answer, one had to ignore the media (and those sycophants of causes who butter up to that media).  To get the answer one has to go to the people who voted and find out exactly why they felt the frustration and voted the way they did..  The answer, if one takes the time to listen, is that they wanted change.  Ironically, as some of you may remember,  that was Obama's message from the last election.  2 years ago we voted Obama in for a change. 2 weeks ago we voted tea partiers in... for a change..

The common denominator between both elections, is that the electorate is unhappy with the status quo.
The common denominator between both elections, is that the Republicans lost big.. first to the Democrats, then to the Tea Partiers.

The Republican Party is in crises.  They may lose party leadership battles,  adopt or absorb the Tea Party's doctrine, but from what Tea Partiers are saying, they want nothing to do with Republicans. Here locally, Mike Castle's and Tom Ross's bashing proves it. Party activists on the ground floor,  see the Republican party only lip syncs to their libertarian streak; then turns a blind eye, tending to keep things locked down in status quo.

Funny thing was, when Tea Partiers talked after the election, as I listened I was agreeing. I was saying to myself, " Hey, that sounds like me 2007-2008... the exact same thing.'..  For one, Tea Partiers are infuriated that costs for small businesses are climbing, while multinational corporations are able to buy their congressmen to slip in a waver so they can import specialty chemicals duty free.  Is that fair?  NO.  For two, Tea Partiers are infuriated that they had to scrape and scrimp to pay their tax obligations, and Exxon-Mobile was given a $23 Billion dollar tax break during a period when gas was $4.25 a gallon.  Is that fair?  NO.  For three, Tea Partiers are infuriated that the Republican Party, diligently undercut, undermined, and underfunded their candidates, thereby pushing them to independent status.  Only after smashing party endorsed candidates, did the Republican Party cold heartedly endorse who ever it was they had on the ballot...   Is that fair?  NO.

If one looks at the political landscape. .. .. The two parties out there, are the Tea Party and the Democrats.  The Republicans are non existent, except in name and corporate donors...  Only because of the financing laws as they are today is the Republican organization still a player.  Were this the 1850's, they would be as dead as the Whigs.

Secondly.  The wave of Democrats elected to Congress in 2008, meant that some very Republican districts, dismayed with everything the Republicans had done under George W Bush, went blue with the Democrats.  

Therefore, during this past session even though their representative was Democrat in name, they were answerable to their conservative electorate.  It would he suicidal for those congresspersons to vote for any liberal causes.  It appears the restraint of the Blue Dogs wasn't enough; each of those went back Republican this time around.  

Of course Republicans would be fools not to spin this as an indictment of Obama Healthcare and Economic Salvage.  After all, they have nothing else going for them.  We should expect they spin something positive out of their own collapse, and point out to all that is exactly what they are doing.  Though they do so, not everyone out there agrees with them.  After all, the electorate remembers the havoc Republicans did to our economy.  After all, the electorate remember that Clinton actually helped all five quintiles of America grow richer over his tenure...  

They don't have faith in Republicans. Their faith is in America, ie, as in American values.  What they saw over the past two years is that the Democrats were ineffective in making a dent against Republican stall techniques. And so, ... they pushed back and made change happen within the party.

So what did the election really say?  It says the GOP failing streak has continued. It says the population has no confidence in their leadership.  Ironically, the old time Republican values are alive and well. They are in Tea Partiers instead.  Those possessing them, are disillusioned that  Michael Steele's official Republican Party, as it stood Nov. 2nd, could deliver.

So who are the Tea Partiers?  Most are new at politics.  Most came to politics in 2009 as their incomes shrunk back, and tales of stimulus corruption spread rampant.  Most are small business persons, either running a family business or a small corporation. From their viewpoint, they see a government still cut back from the Bush years, unable to deliver services while asking for more and more money.  And they didn't see results coming from Democrats.

And Tea Partiers were furious at corporate meddling in the election process.  All of them had to plow through tremendous amounts for corporate money thrown against them.  All had to overcome big bucks coming from just a few people.  All of them are cynical as to how the election process works.  I took some comfort, in how in almost every post election interview, the Tea Party candidate emphatically made a point to scold the Republican Party.    The Republican party is corrupt. It is bought and owned by corporate interests.  It only pretends to want to alleviate peoples pain and suffering, until it gets their votes.  Then, it is about assuaging the large corporations who keep their campaigns afloat.  

The Tea Partiers realized that money doesn't vote.  People do. And whether for a Tea Partier, or for a Democrat, overwhelmingly, people voted anti-Republican which loosely translated, means they voted anti corporate.

So this is the crystal.  Americans are fed up with the corporate takeover of our government.  Leave small businesses alone, both Tea Partiers and Democrats say.  But stick it to the corporations.  They are fed up that a conservative court can scuttle the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.   They are fed up with robo calls, fed up with character smearing literature appearing daily in their mailbox, fed up with talk-show blathering ad nauseum, and they know,...  they know.. that the only reason that stuff is getting spit out,  is because someone with a lot of money is paying someone else to do so.

Money is ruining our politics.

On this Tea Partiers and Liberals agree.  They were attacking the exact same problem: the corporate political takeover; just tackling it from two different directions.  

Why didn't Delaware follow this same trend?  

Delaware is different.   But in a certain way, it did follow the same trend as the nation.  Delaware supported Christine O'Donnell while she was an outsider.  But as soon as the Republicans stepped in .... she lost that support.  Republicans told her not to speak to reporters.  She did what they said and lost.  Republicans told her not to talk to the media.  She did what they said and lost.  Had Christine done a full court press with the entire media immediately after her win, and personally engaged in all the attacks with which she was presented, the electorate would have been tired of all that witch stuff by election day and would have begun to listen to her message: that its the people who matter..  In the general election, the voters voted for the anti-Republican:  which in this case was Coons.

Vance Phillips lashed out at the Republican leadership.  He won.  Winners don't attack their own party unless something is seriously wrong.  With Delaware's Republican party, something is seriously wrong.  Vance Phillips is not a corporate sponge. He's a candidate in touch with his electorate.

Delawareans gave their vote to Coons because he is the better guy.  Christine is great, but seeing her standing next to Coons it was obvious to all but her most ardent supporters, that he was simply a better fit for Delaware.  Nothing against Christine.  Had the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tony DeLuca been the Democrat's choice, she might be sitting in Congress right now..

Likewise, Delawareans gave Flowers the treasurer's spot because they saw through what Bonini was.  Everything bad about the Republican party... he exuded from foot to toe... and it stunk.  Against two unknowns, they went for the one which smelled like flowers.  

Korn just did not win the State Auditor's spot. His opponent, Wagner is not a Republican despite whatever political party is attached to his name.  He is a good guy, and though very few people know the details of what he does, they do know that he hasn't messed up anything so far, and therefore between two unknowns, the one currently doing ok appeared to be the safer choice.  No doubt, Korn would have made the better auditor.  He didn't make his case out where it could be seen by most of the electorate.  

But had Wagner come out like Bonini,  spitting Republicanisms left and right.. ... Korn would have won.

What's different in Delaware is that with it's small size, it has a rather active blogging community.  A citizen's news-rag so to speak, made up of many individuals that simply talk about what they know.  In that environment it is hard to spread lies.  "Obama is a Socialist"?  I don't think even Urquhart muttered as such.  Yet such statements were commonly printed in red state's editorials, where there is no independent source to discredit that slant.  Delaware's one paper, The News Journal tried to spin royally up through the primaries, but Christine O'Donnell flatly put them in their place with her win.  They licked their wounds all the way past Nov. 2nd, afraid to get caught propagandizing again....

If you have an outlet for truth to be heard, it usually rises to the top.  That is why totalitarian governments work so hard to suppress truth anywhere they find it.  If you don't kill it.. it kills you.   In Delaware the electorate had a balanced opinion.  They were able to listen to both educated citizens and corporate shills.  

They chose wisely.

To succeed this next session. Tea Partiers and Liberals will need to kill corporate money influencing elections.  After all, it goes against one of the values instilled by our founding fathers, that our nation would rise, or fall, upon the principal of one man... one vote.   We desperately need campaign finance reform eliminating all corporate sponsors from donating to campaigns; so our elected officials can return to worry about what 'We, the People' think, and not the thoughts of just a handful of their campaign donors.  

Originally posted to kavips on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:00 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "Christine is great, ..."???? WTF? (14+ / 0-)

    Great at what, exactly? Claiming she's not a witch? Not masturbating?

    1. I haven't seen any proof that she's not a witch.
    1. Might be true. She seems uptight.
    1. Teabaggers are not independent of the Repugs. The teabaggers is an attempt to re-brand the GOP

    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:36:21 PM PST

    •  To 3: Yes and no. (5+ / 0-)

      Teabaggers are socially conservative, this is true. Their economic views, however, are peculiar and almost incomprehensible. They want the government to cut spending and do more to create jobs and cut taxes and balance the budget. But, aside from tax cuts, those are abstractions -- buzzwords with no particular meaning behind them.

      We've been talking about Obama's failure in messaging for a few days as if it's the main problem. The real truth of the matter is something Senator Obama nailed on the campaign trail and took a lot of heat for:

      You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

      The truth is that for those most of those twenty-five years, the space between the mainstream of each party on matters of economics has barely been wide enough to accept a credit card. So you've got a whole generation of voters for whom "Republican" means keeping the gays in their place (and out of yours), enshrining their religion into law, and making sure they can keep their guns.

      But they're not all idiots. They know times are hard. They might not necessarily understand why, but they definitely see, for example, the offshoring of jobs as a bad thing we should take steps to stop.

      The problem, much as I hate to say it, is Democrats. Republicans are the lapdogs of their corporate masters. We're not going to be able to beat them by running on social issues for another twenty years or so, so the failure of Democratic leadership to beat Republicans bloody on economic policy (and even more unforgivable failure to fix the problems bipartisanship caused) cost them.

      The first party to master economic populism will have the majority for a generation. Let's hope it's us.

      "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

      by Geiiga on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:22:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well you are right about winning the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LynneK, Tortmaster, SoCalSal, allergywoman

        propaganda war, but it's not all the Dems fault, as Rachael Maddow explained...

        'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

        by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:45:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have to agree with this. (0+ / 0-)

        Evidence is overwhelming.

        The republican's got everything they wanted, and we imploded with a second Great Depression.  Mindful of course, that the exact same Republican philosophy also led to the first Great Depression.

        The Democrats under Clinton raised taxes and the economy took off.

        How can that be?  Blasphemy!!!!!!!!

        It is actually obviously simple.  When you cut taxes, you induce corporate profit taking. That money is sucked out, bled from every nook and cranny, then funneled into areas offering high returns.  During this decade, those areas were third world countries, often turning over 24-25%  profits per quarter.

        Now if you instead,  raise ...the tax rate on corporate income, a business has a very strong incentive to bury that money somewhere within it's business. Simply put, better to waste the money yourself than give it up to the Feds.  Therefore if you were a business owner, you would spend more in R & D, or develop a new manufacturing site, or take your crew out to lunch, or spend a little more on their health insurance benefit plans, or possibly put some cash into a pension plan or retirement account.... all which create jobs here in the US. As those new people work, they spend, and their spending... creates even more demand for goods and services which cause more jobs to become available, and the cycle continues..

        This is why the Clinton years were bountiful; for every layer of society; whether you lived in poverty, or rode in a Bentley, you benefited from Clinton's higher tax rate....  

        Essentially the Democrats follow through on this Republican argument: let businesses invest their money back into the economy.  Unfortunately the Republican method, doesn't do that, but the Democrat method does.


        The Republicans tried to offer business a carrot to get them to invest back into America.  It doesn't work when higher profits can be reaped overseas.  The Democrats used the stick.  It worked pretty damn well...

    •  Great at beating Mike Castle (0+ / 0-)
  •  Tea Partiers realized that money doesn't vote??? (4+ / 0-)

    the problem in many areas was the tea party sending in money.  They had lots of it.

    "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

    by statsone on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:42:53 PM PST

    •  And the poor TBers voted for a party that (8+ / 0-)

      promised to stop unemployment benefits, and reduce social security and Medicare.

      I've never seen such a dumb group willing to vote against their own economic interests. And ALL of them don't know their taxes went DOWN under Obama.

      "Don't knock's just like chess but without the dice" - john07801

      by voracious on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:52:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is true. (0+ / 0-)

        Every time I gave out facts about this administration, Democrats were incredulous.  "Why don't you tell people this? I never knew that!  We aren't hearing it."

        Their answer:  well, it's on our website.

        Problem is that this administration did not understand ... people don't have time to peruse websites. They work, take care of kids, watch their team and go to bed. If that sounds simple, you're a Democrat.  Republican know that most Americans like to keep things simple.

        People need to be told what is happening. And most Americans don't know that the TARP money is being paid back. Out of the $460 Billion, we've collected $283 billion back already!  We invested, saved the world economy for about 187 billion, 66 billion of which we'll never get back from AIG.

        Whose going to tell the American people this great news? Republicans?  

    •  Not quite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The outside money was coming from the likes of Karl Rove and the Chamber of Commerce, whose interest was to elect someone who would vote with the Rethugs.  

    •  I would clarify that. (0+ / 0-)

      The millionaires had a lot of money. A candidate like Christine O'Donnell was bankrupt, until she took on Castle and won.

      The people who voted tea party all the way, tend not very wealthy themselves.  In fact you could call the Tea Party a populist movement paid for by very few wealthy backers.

  •  "tales of stimulus corruption spread rampant?" (6+ / 0-)

    Where?  At, fox or drudge?

    Please return there at once.

  •  Long diary that is clueless: (8+ / 0-)

    For one, Tea Partiers are infuriated that costs for small businesses are climbing, while multinational corporations are able to buy their congressmen to slip in a waver so they can import specialty chemicals duty free.  Is that fair?  NO.  For two, Tea Partiers are infuriated that they had to scrape and scrimp to pay their tax obligations, and Exxon-Mobile was given a $23 Billion dollar tax break during a period when gas was $4.25 a gallon.  

    Tea Partiers are people who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans but are really the deepest red of the GOP. If you think they are against tax breaks for corps then you don't have the first clue.

    Their hero is Jim DeMint for fucks sake. If that jackass had his way billionaires and corps would get massive tax breaks and the middle class would be taxed higher.

    I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

    by Mike S on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:26:31 AM PST

    •  Depends on who you define the Tea Partiers are. (0+ / 0-)

      Standing outside the polls in Delaware i talked to around 400 Tea Partiers and only one knew who DeMint was,

      They were there for Christine O'Donnell.. who was them.
      This was a populist movement that got spun by the media into something useful for the corporate establishment.

      The people voting.... were voting frustration. It was not aimed at Obama. It was not aimed at Coons. It was not personified at anyone.  

      If anything, they were Republicans fucking mad  at the incompetence of the ridiculously stupid people their party structure had shod them with.

      Most spoke out against corruption; the collusion between government and big business.

      Now, if you were in a Liberal state reading newspapers, you certainly would have the idea that DeMint was leading a revolution and that was simply because as his name came forth, newspapers called him up and talked to him. So of course as a little known reporter you're going to take the easy route, report what you're told, and to out for a beer later...

      (Will continue later. I'm going our for a beer.)

  •  The Tea Party was created by Republican (8+ / 0-)

    operatives.  The Tea Party got its start, harassing and disrupting the Town hall meetings of Democratic constituents with their filibustering distracting garbage, like comparing Obama to Hitler.  By people who said they were just citizens but were really local operatives and affiliates of the Republican Party.

    The Tea Party has been aided, every step along the way, by the sensationalist media and the aid of antidemocratic billionaires by the Koch Brothers.

    That Republicans are being inconvenienced by the organization of morons and idiots they created?

    Pfft.  But they're not somehow a good thing for progressives, nor if I had anything to say about it would there ever be an alliance with them and their homophobic racist nonsense.

    "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:54:02 AM PST

    •  Apparently you prefer the status quo? (0+ / 0-)

      where everything is corporatism?  Where no matter who you elect, in the end,they'll sell you out for a campaign contribution?

      All levels of politics are invaded. from top to bottom. and the media, who is also corporatized, looks the other way.  often they'll demean populist candidates, and white-wash corporate ones.

      The point of this article is that progressives and tea partiers are united on returning power back to the people of America. They are enthusiastic over removing corporate money from politics.

      Together with progressives, they can pass campaign reform which now,thanks to the Supreme Court, is the only thing that can return politics back to the people.

      A personal fortune of 148 million was spent in California.  Another 75 million was spent in Florida... In case you didn't notice, state governments are for sale.

      All Americans need to be concerned.

  •  I think there are some great points.... (0+ / 0-)

    for example I agree that the first party that really attacks corporate buying of elections will gain a lot of credibility.  For example when Republicans started to apologize to BP Obama had a perfect opening to go after them as corporate whores, but he missed an opportunity there.

    •  Ralph Nader has attacked corporations for years (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, allergywoman

      Why don't the Tea Partiers support him?  

      No, its all a lie.

      They came into existence in a big way on Obama's election day.

      Suddenly they had a problem with anything the government was doing.

      Their populist  makeover  is a mirage.

      •  Would you support Ralph Nader? (0+ / 0-)

        The Tea Partier's wouldn't either.

        "President Nader, missiles detected in flight, will reach here in 20 minutes. What are your orders?"

        Ahem.... I... don't... think... so....

        And again, there is a discrepancy with who you call tea partiers and who I do..

        Certainly some organizers did what you said.  They showed up on the DC Mall and shouted.  But those voting, are not a mirage. Perhaps if you'd take the time to talk to them, you would comprehend the opportunity this election has given us to buckle the knees of the corporate masters.

    •  Going after corporate whores... (0+ / 0-)

      Just don't get caught in the sting.... lol.

  •  A Clue(tm) for you (3+ / 0-)

    Nobody who thinks that scientists have put human brains into mice is "great" or an even passable candidate to represent the American people in congress.

    •  That's silly: (0+ / 0-)

      We actually elected people who've said "stupider" things...


      "Deficits don't matter."

      "I'm absolutely convinced that the threat we face now, the idea of a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon, is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures to deal with it."

      "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."  

      I'll take mice with brains any day....

  •  Mmmmm . . . koolaid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, jimmylutherking, allergywoman

    Perhaps you missed the part about corporate interests funneling hundreds of millions into the Tea Party movement. The Koch brothers alone pumped in over 10 million into Teapublican organizations. That makes your "game plan" of having the Tea Party kill corporate money and participate in serious campaign finance reform somewhere between naive and laughably ridiculous.

    Any inclination to take you seriously went out the window when you called Christine O'Donnell great. You could fill the Grand Canyon with what she does not understand about our legal foundations. Her social conservativism is unfit for 20th century, much less the 21st. She is one of the least talented and most psychologically unstable individuals on the public stage in this or any other election in the past century.

    Be radical in your compassion.

    by DWG on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 04:32:51 AM PST

    •  Based on your comment (0+ / 0-)

      You seem to be unfamiliar with both the Tea Party and Christine O'Donnell.

      Perhaps you got your sources from some corporate sponsored news media?

      And based on your analogy, I sincerely doubt if you've seen the Grand Canyon. If you wrote everything down as you say, that you could find that she didn't know about our legal foundations, it would probably fill nothing more than a paperback book, one you could hide under any rock in the Grand Canyon and no one would ever find it..

      From the tone of your comments, I deduce you've never run?  For had you, you would be more appreciative of how hard it was for her to push forward, despite some rather demeaning criticism, I mean, how would you like one of your poor sexual performances published with pictures, made available to the world?  Yes, I'll stand my ground here, She is a pretty great person, probably the greatest most of her followers will chance upon in their lifetimes.  

      Lastly, you should be thankful. She took out Castle and put in Coons.  For us who've campaigned against Castle ineffectively for the past four years...  that makes her pretty great! :)

  •  Tea parties are a bunch of racist corporate shill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK, jimmylutherking

    I disagree with the writer. I think that the rise of the tea party has everything to do with the preservation of white privilege. Lots of those working class whites became unhinged that a black guy won the presidency and they became alarmed at a United states that is becoming more diverse and tolerant. The big monied people and fox news preyed on tea partier fears and exploited them to their own advantage. This segment of the population hatred for Obama  overruled voting for candidates that might helped them economically. Instead, they voted for candidates that might screw them up more, and they might get what they deserve. It is the fear of changing America that scares middle America the most: that explains the push back against gays, moslems, hispanics and everybody who is different.

    •  2 Billion New Dollars Spent This Election (0+ / 0-)

      just by global corporations, beyond the the spending normal even for a big Presidential election. Trust me, the world economy is not campaigning to put 12% of nonEuropean descent American citizens back in their place.

      Race is the tool not the goal they're after.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 05:03:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When you campaign.. (0+ / 0-)

        you use any tool possible.  If race will give you an edge, that card gets played...

        Same as football.  If something will give you a win, you do it.

        I heard actually 4.2 billion was spent. More than any election in history, even 2008.

        Sadly, according to Bill Clinton, we could stop world hunger by making sure every person on this planet had sufficient edible resources for about 30 billion.

        Just locally, 4.2 billion.... at $50,000 a job, 84,000 American jobs.

        We definitely got to start taxing these guys...

    •  some people think everything is race. (0+ / 0-)

      Quite often, the problem is in the content of their character.

      Are some people racial?  Yes.. I couldn't find any previously done studies, but..

      It is about time that someone do a comparative study, to illustrate the percentage of blacks who are racially motivated verses the percentage of whites.

      I would be curious how that would wind up...

  •  Tea Party was taken over almost immediately (0+ / 0-)

    By corporate-funding tapping into the unhappy emotional information-challenged and mostly xenophobic fearful people that were screwed over and over again by the very policies they were tricked into voting for.

    The Tea Party, as a whole,  absolutely does not represent old school Republican values.

    Its just the phony populist rebranding of the new fascist Republican Party.

    Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford...even Reagan and probably Bush I ....would not be welcome in this new Republican Party.

  •  Good God (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    how much kool aid can one person drink without exploding?

    I should have stopped at this bit of conventional wisdom and tea party talking point:

    The common denominator between both elections, is that the electorate is unhappy with the status quo.

    •  obviously that makes sense. (0+ / 0-)

      Why would anyone object?

      You don't have to know rocket science to understand that:.

      Obama ran on change.
      Tea Party ran on change.


      No one can deny that.  The only people who lost out. Republicans.  If that bothers you, that Republicans lost two elections back to back, you are on the wrong blog. :)

  •  what amazes me most (0+ / 0-)

    is that you probably posted this and were not laughing your ass off at how ridiculous the diary was (like i am right now)...


    There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

    by dadanation on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:49:15 AM PST

    •  sorry.. but to be blunt. (0+ / 0-)

      If you are laughing at this diary, you are a prime reason Democrats lost the House, almost lost the Senate.

      Should you continue laughing, we will lose everything in two years.  

      Instead,you should be thankful some of us are on the front lines, providing solutions, and ways to benefit from the circumstances which we have now been given.

      The plan of action is simple.  

      Phase back corporate financing of elections.

      Democrats lead, and tea partiers will follow. Show firmly who is, and who isn't a corporate whore.  

      Without outside financing, anyone running a second term had better get into his district and campaign again, in the old fashioned way.

      •  yeah, i lost us the house (0+ / 0-)

        i tanked the economy, i spent the clinton supplus AND i took us illegally into two wars.


        the economy took the house from us, not me.

        but go on, live in that world if you must.

        me?  i'll stay focused on this planet and on this congress and in real time.


        There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

        by dadanation on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 04:53:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I didn't bother reading beyond the headline. (0+ / 0-)


    But I'm guessing it won't end well.

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:57:17 AM PST

  •  Shouldn't you be off planning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George Pirpiris

    How to give Bristol Palin the win?  I mean the voting bloc isn't going to organize itself, y'know!

    •  uh, (0+ / 0-)

      In case you didn't read... I'm a Democrat ..

      That is rather obvious.... So why would I be interested in giving Bristol Palin the win?  

      You would get a more affirmative answer asking President Obama if he would be supporting DeMint in 2012....

      I gotta wonder where you're coming from with this...

  •  For those who missed the point. (0+ / 0-)

    To succeed this next session. Tea Partiers and Liberals will need to kill corporate money influencing elections.  After all, it goes against one of the values instilled by our founding fathers, that our nation would rise, or fall, upon the principal of one man... one vote.   We desperately need campaign finance reform eliminating all corporate sponsors from donating to campaigns; so our elected officials can return to worry about what 'We, the People' think, and not the thoughts of just a handful of their campaign donors.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site