BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election

Subject: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Claymore
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:51 AM

It's a small start but significant as the US Republicans swept the votes in VA, NJ, and as I go to bed here, the gay marriage act in Maine. It looks like a Democrat won in the special vote in NY but he will have to run again next year in a traditional Republican district. As a 30 year resident of Virginia I knew that as soon as the local and national groups started calling the Tea Party activists "Racists" and "KKK" members they were going to lose VA. VA has a long history of racial equality, voting for a black governor thirty years ago, which is still not repeated in modern history. (NYs Paterson was a secession, not an election)

Yet even during the 40 years of Virginia's all Democratic-control history in the 50s-90's, it was also a "Pay as You Go" state. Yet it went for Obama, by some 10 points, with only a relatively small black population. For the liberal chimps to call them "Racists" after they had once voted for Obama but were now protesting the tax increases, has set a new paradigm in future State and National politics.

I completely admit that many of the Tea Party and "Birthers" movement types are nuts, but but what I call the counter-nut over-reaction was what set the stage for the Obama/Democrat losses. These folks bombed their own runways and as one T-shirt now reads;

I voted for Obama
I protested higher taxes
I was called a racist
We still need a change...

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:11 AM

That traditionally Republican district in New York is not going to be Republican after 2010. It's going to be redistricted (is that a word?) after the 2010 census and it will become majority Democrat.

Some of the teabaggers are racists, although not all of them are, and those who are, aren't at all ashamed to put it openly on display. Those are the people most of those who used the word "racist" in the context of the teabagger movement were talking about.

What tax increases?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:16 AM

By the way, our county went for McCain, but our city just reelected the incumbent Democratic mayor. His opponent was a teabagger. So I guess that door swings both ways.

I didn't like either one of them, myself. They're both corrupt. But I would have voted for the opponent of the incumbent mayor had he not been a teabagger. The problem I have with the teabagger movement is that it has been co-opted by large and powerful corporate interests who are using it to promote their corporate agendas. I consider anyone still in the movement under the circumstances highly suspect as long as this is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:10 AM

CarolC, the use of the term "teabagger" is just like using "towelhead" or "honkie", "Bushites", or "Democraps"- it is insulting and objectionable.

The term is Tea Party /Tea Partiers, like in "Boston Tea Party"

Your term is not acceptable fot civil conversation... But I presume that is your intent.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: pdq
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:19 AM

It seems traditional to reduce your enemies to one short swear word.

Perhaps it keeps people from having to think.

Another example is "neo-con", which has nothing to do with "social liberal, fiscal conservative, pro-defense" stand of Strauss and the founders Neoconservative Movement.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:35 AM

I wouldn't make too much out of this off-year election. Incumbent often do poorly, and the governorship of two states isn't a significant statistical population. I'd look more to the mayoral races than the governorships.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM

The members of the teabag movement call themselves teabaggers. That's where I learned the term. Same goes for neo-cons. That's their word for themselves. I have no reason to want to call them those things except for the reason that that's what they call themselves.

The teabaggers call themselves that with pride, too. They were quite surprised to learn that there was another meaning for that term, but by then, it was too late. They had already invested a lot in promoting the use of the term.

I think if there is ignorance being shown anywhere, it's by the people who don't know history.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:41 AM

I note the presumption, too. Always the automatic presumption of guilt from some people.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:07 PM

Mark Morford writes from San Francisco:

"...we turn our gaze to the gaping hellmouth that is the U.S. Senate, that drab cauldron of grumpy old men, defeminized women and tiny handful of rebellious dissenters, all of whom claim to have your best interests at heart but mostly only really give a damn about which lobbyist will help them best make their next boat payment.

Do I sound a little bitter? I cannot imagine why. Let us watch the senate and see if we can figure it out.

Look at them shuffle and sneer, hem and haw! Watch as they willingly eat their own souls with an ice pick and some turpentine, then step up to the media microphones and try to sound ennobled and magnanimous when in fact they only make everyone within earshot feel lost and fatalistic. So cute.

It's the same old spectacle, isn't it? There they go, tossing around the health care reform issue like it didn't affect millions of humans every single day, throwing in massive compromises and snags just so the GOP can fellate its pals in the insurance industry and a gaggle of aggrieved Democrats can get their egos fluffed and you still won't be able to get a decent dental plan for your family.

But now, just for fun, let's take it a step further. Or rather, darker. Let's go ahead and step right onto one of those large, rusty nails sticking up from the senate floor, so painful as to make your stomach turn, a bit of your lunch jump back into your throat.

It's a story from the dark political underbelly that makes you question the entire setup, rethink humanity, and lean out your window and scream: what the hell is wrong with these people? Who are they, really? Why do we give them power?

Here is freshman Minnesota senator Al Franken's first-ever legislative action, a relatively simple, almost laughably surefire bill requiring the Pentagon no longer do business with any contractor -- hi, Halliburton! -- that requires its employees to agree that she cannot sue said contractor if she is, oh let's just say, gang raped by its employees.

You read that right. It's a can't-sue-us-if-you're-raped clause. In a U.S. government contract. Aimed squarely at Halliburton. Thanks, Dick Cheney!

First, you are required to get over your initial disgust that such legislation is even necessary, that such clauses even exist and that the Pentagon is already doing business with such contractors (hi, Halliburton/KBR!), and that there has already been a truly horrible case validating it, wherein a 20-year-old female employee was allegedly gang-raped by contractors, locked in a shipping container, abused every way from Sunday, and found out later she was unable to sue.

Let us pause to imagine if, say, Wal-Mart had such a clause. Or maybe Toys 'R' Us. Starbucks. Let us imagine the appalled outcry. But Halliburton? Dick Cheney's vile little spitwad of shameless war profiteering? No problem. Hey, it's Republican-endorsed military contracting. No one said it was ethical.

But that's not most the repellant part. Ready?

The most repellant part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.

Let us repeat, for clarity. Franken's amendment passed with a vote of 68-30. Meaning 30 U.S. senators voted against the elimination of the rape/sue clause. Meghan McCain, call your dad. He's one of them.

Here is where you try and do it. Here is where you bring in the filter mentioned above, try to figure out where to slot such wretched information, how to make even the slightest sense of it.

And then you discover a horrible truth: you can't. Turns out, when faced with such vileness, all filters fail. All balance is thrown off. You thought you had some sort of way to process and attain perspective? You are proven wrong.

So perhaps all we can do is ponder how pathetic and sad these various senator's lives must be, how these bitter old men will now go home at night and announce around the dinner table that, yes, today they worked very hard to help improve the welfare of the nation by essentially enabling rape and sexual abuse, tried their darndest to prevent women who've been viciously attacked from having much legal recourse. And lo, Satan will chuckle happily.

Then maybe these senators will try and hug their wives, or their daughters. And maybe, if there's any justice in the universe, their wives and daughters will slap them as hard as humanly possible, lock them in a shipping container, and never let them touch them again.

P.S.; Would you like a complete list of these 30 senators' names? Right here. (link is in original site page).

Why look, there's grandpa McCain. There's disgraced man-child John Ensign. Hooker-lovin' David Vitter. Saxby Chambliss. Inhofe. It's a veritable welfare-state who's who of Dick Cheney's sanctum of oily fluffers, and many more who would love to be. Shall we write a nice letter to them? Or maybe their wives and daughters?

From here.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:25 PM

"Your term is not acceptable fot civil conversation... But I presume that is your intent. "


The presumption is that YOU were trying to be acceptable for civil conversation. I was making THAT presumption, which YOU have stated is false.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 12:53 PM

geeze, bruce...if Carol said "the sun rises in the East" you'd find some way to object.

Saying "teabaggers" IS just repeating what some of them call themselves! It has no relevance to the idea of "ragheads" and similar insults.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: pdq
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:21 PM

Just for the record, the two House races both went to Democrats, with John Garamendi winning in California.

The candidate in Upstate New York won against a minor party candidate. Both new House members will provide certain votes for Nancy Pelosi's version of the health care bill.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:28 PM

The Democrats get lashed

By Michael Gerson | November 4, 2009; 9:19 AM ET


The most pathetic moment of Creigh Deeds's sad campaign came toward the end, with a gauzy commercial invoking last year's Obama campaign, featuring the tag line, "We can do it again." Jon Corzine ran similar ads in the Obama idiom. But the mystical incantations of Barack Obama's name did not perform miracles. It was like watching Democrats try to kindle a campfire in the pouring rain. In the end, they were reduced to mere nostalgia. It was not much of an electoral appeal: "We'll always have Paris."

Today, national Democrats are trying their best to dismiss missing limbs as flesh wounds. It is their job. But they are in deep trouble if they believe their own spin. Compared to 12 months ago, 24 percent more Virginians voted Republican at the top of the ticket. Independents broke decisively against Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey. If this is not a backlash against Democrats, then who, exactly, was being lashed?

These losses, for the most part, don't seem to be a personal repudiation of the president. But they highlight a political fact -- the political fact of the last year. In 2008, Obama won a broad, but not ideological, victory. Voters endorsed his reasoned, moderate tone in a moment of economic crisis, not the sustained, ambitious leftism of his current legislative agenda. Obama has massively overreached. During a summer of town hall discontent, and now in Virginia and New Jersey, citizens have begun to render their verdict.

A few other lessons:

* Both successful Republican candidates were conservative, but not strident or angry. They benefited from an ideological backlash against liberalism precisely because they did not adopt a scary, pitchfork populism. McDonnell, whom I saw on the campaign trail, was uniformly respectful of Obama -- even while reflecting public concerns about deficits, debt and intrusive government. He also offered a positive legislative agenda on transportation and economic growth. The Republican Party clearly needs more genial, upbeat, wonkish conservatives.

* Democrats, once again, discovered the dangers of being the first to escalate the culture war. Deeds went after McDonnell on abortion, women's rights and his ties to the religious right with persistent viciousness. But voters tend to punish candidates, from either party, who raise divisive cultural issues as the centerpieces of their campaigns. It was Deeds, not McDonnell, who ended up looking obsessed by abortion.

* Voters showed admirable maturity -- a refusal to be manipulated -- on a variety of issues beyond the culture war. Corzine's attempt to tie his opponent, Governor-elect Chris Christie, to George W. Bush fell flat. Corzine's classless attempts to call attention to Christie's girth also failed -- not least because Christie is such a good sport. (Christie observed during the campaign: "We got to spur our economy…. Dunkin' Donuts, International House of Pancakes, those people need to work too.") Voters seemed to punish over-the-top negativity.

Last night, a message was sent. Now a question remains: Is Barack Obama capable of listening? All his amazing talent and skill come packaged with arrogance. Shifting his approach in a more centrist direction on health care or any other issue will not come easily. But it needs to come.

By Michael Gerson | November 4, 2009; 9:19 AM ET

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:31 PM

The Senate make-up will change in 2012.
Twenty Democrats and nine Republicans are up for re-election.

The current tenor of the country suggests that some of the Democrats will lose to Republican contenders. This would mean that the Republicans will control the Senate.
Obama and the Democrats only have until then to get their programs through Congress, and some of their successes could be modified by succeeding legislation.

In the 2008 election, the Republicans garnered a respectable 46% of the vote; not much of a swing would put them back in power.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:40 PM

Amos - I read your post. Often it occurs to me that we allow a group of about 500 people to destroy our lives and our souls. Then we re-elect them. Go figure.

The repeal of Maine's Gay Rights amendment is a slap in the face. I expected a close call but I also expected to see the amendment retained. I guess I will have to settle for walking Seamus on Willard Beach.

The real shame is that fewer than half of eligible voters participated.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:50 PM

"Your term is not acceptable fot civil conversation... But I presume that is your intent. "

The presumption here being that it was my intent to use a term that is not acceptable for civil conversation, because it is not acceptable for civil conversation? Again, as I said, I note the presumption.

I find it highly entertaining that both the teabaggers and the neo-cons are so desperate to dissociate themselves from the names they chose for themselves. And who can blame them? In the case of the neo-cons, it's because of their own bad behavior, and in the case of the teabaggers, bad behavior as well as a really stupid choice of a name. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: meself
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:07 PM

"stupid"? I don't like those guys - but I don't think it reflects badly on them that they don't keep up with every new childishly-prurient term that the porn industry, or the internet, or teenage America gives us - which is what this term is, if I am not mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:11 PM

Whether or not it reflects badly on them, it has caused them a lot of problems that the choice of a less loaded name would not have created. And that's what makes the choice of that name "stupid". Note that I did not call the teabaggers "stupid". I called their choice of name stupid. And if they didn't also think it was stupid, they wouldn't be working so hard to dissociate themselves from it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:19 PM

Why on earth is "teabagger" offensive?

I can understand that "towelhead" or "honkie" are unacceptable, as being racist, while "Bushites", and "Democraps" contain faeces-related words - but what's wrong with teabags?

Just because it sounds a bit silly is surely no ground for complaining. Is the suggestion that there's a duty not to poke fun at political opponents?

That really would be, to use a very much over-used expression, political correctness gone mad.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:23 PM

On the subject of tea parties, it seems to be a little known fact that the original Boston Tea Party was not a protest against government taxation. It was a protest against a tax break that had been granted to a powerful corporation which gave it an unfair competitive advantage, and against the ability of that corporation to make governing decisions in the colonies. And for this reason, our current teabag movement is the exact opposite of the intent of the original movement that brought us the Boston Tea Party, since the current movement wants more power for corporations rather than less.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:26 PM

Teabagging is when someone puts someone else's testicles in their mouth. It's a very loaded term, and carries extra irony considering the nature of some of the difficulties that members of the US right wing have gotten themselves into over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: meself
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:37 PM

It was not a "stupid" choice of a name - it was an unfortunate choice. How on earth were they supposed to know - and why should they have known - about the alternate meaning? I think it speaks well of them that they did not know.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: pdq
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:49 PM

Back to the subject of elections...

The Democrats and Republicans will both risk 18 total Senate seats in 2010. Each has 5 seats where they have no elected incumbent.

All five GOP Senators are leaving for retirement, although Brownback will be running for governor.

The 5 DEM seats include Obama's and Biden's as well as two other members who went into the Obama Cabinet. All these may be competitive.

Arlen Specter will run...er, perhaps that is walk slowly...he will be 87 and has nothing to contribute anymore...kinda like "how can we miss you when you won't go away".

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:50 PM

Well, maybe I was thinking about how I would have regarded that choice of name had I applied it to myself. Had I discovered the other use of the term after choosing it for my anti-tax movement, I would have thumped my forehead with my palm and said, "that's a really stupid choice of a name. But perhaps I shouldn't project that on others. Maybe they see it as unfortunate rather than stupid. Whether or not it speaks well of them that they didn't know, I will leave to others to decide.

My criticism of them has to do with their ignorance of history, and their agenda of promoting the interests of and doing the dirty work for large and powerful corporations while portraying themselves as a grassroots populist movement that is concerned with the rights of the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:38 PM

If you are calling the gaggle of self-centered, Hannity-inspired, corporate sponsored reactionaries and their ignorant accomplices that specialize in shouting down speakers with whom they disagree, teabaggers is way too kind a term. "Fascists" rolls off the tongue much more easily.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:49 PM

Getting back to the subject, and the post by bearded bruce-
For those who don't recognize the name of Michael Gerson, he often writes opinion columns for the Washington Post, and was a former White House speech writer.
He also has deplored Obama's narcissism, exhibited in his speech to the United Nations.

"The thesis: pre-Obama America is a nation of many flaws and failures. The antithesis: The world responds with understandable but misguided prejudice. The synthesis: Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be. How great a world we all should see, if only all were more like---me."
Washington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:53 PM

I don't think Gerson is too adept at dialectics...

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:10 PM

Teabagging is when someone puts someone else's testicles in their mouth. A sort of trust game then... Though I would hazard that "someone else's" there is perhaps a little bit redundant.

No doubt there are equivalent secondary meanings for all kind of other kitchen items. I hesitate to speculate what a "jam jar" or a "potato peeler" might mean in some quarters. And as for "coffee grinder", the mind boggles. For that matter what visions of depravity may be implied by a word such as "boggles"...

Again, in politics itself, what else might a "hanging chad" or a "open caucus" mean to those in the know? And I am afraid we surely all know what is meant by "a lobbyist", though it's obviously not something to be openly discussed in polite company such as the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:34 PM

There are 34,750 registered lobbyists in Washington.
They are a necessary part of the American system of expressing opinion and giving suggestions to government agencies, Congress, Congressional committees and the President, as well as informing the public.

There are lobbyists, pro and con, for all aspects of conservation and preservation, climate change, charities, education, health, foreign relations and too many other subjects to name as well as the often denigrated business, insurance and banking fields.

No, I don't think "we surely all know what is meant by a lobbyist."

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:36 PM

I sincerely hope that the Democrats do not feel threatened by losing governorships in Virginia and New Jersey. I much prefer to see them going down the same old road they have trod since Obama was elected.

Because of these losses, and the very close call in New York state by a third party candidate, I suspect Obama's dreams of taking over the health care system in the U. S. is ...on very shaky grounds.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:37 PM

Another irony I note is the objection to the term "teabagger" by some people in this thread who seem to have no problem with insulting and objectionable language when it is aimed at those with whom they disagree (like the use of the term, "liberal chimps" in the opening post in this thread).

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:49 PM

You think he might have meant "liberal chumps" Carol C.?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:56 PM

If the Democrats don't pass comprehensive health care reform with a robust public option, and if Obama doesn't sign it, the Democrats will be in very big trouble in the next couple of elections. The majority of people in this country want comprehensive health care reform with a robust public option, and they will not be in the mood to vote for Democrats the next time if they don't get it. They probably won't be in the mood to vote for incumbent Republicans, either.

The election in New York being a close call is hardly reflective of the public's attitude towards Obama or the Democrats. That has traditionally been a Republican district and no Democrat has been elected there in many decades. The fact that a Democrat has finally won there after so long should give the Republicans more pause than the Democrats.

According to polls, the results in New Jersey and Virginia didn't have anything to do with people's opinions of Obama. In the case of New Jersey, it had more to do with the incumbent governor's ties to Wall Street. In Virginia, the Republican candidate kept his real political philosophy hidden and ran as a mainstream centerist, and has, as was noted by someone else somewhere, strong suburban Northern Virginia ties (the suburbs of Northern Virginia containing the largest segment of the electorate), while the challenger was socially awkward and seemed too different from that segment of the electorate, coming from a more rural part of the state. So the results in Virginia don't necessarily reflect on the Democrats or Obama, either.

I tend to doubt that had the Republican candidate in Virginia been more open and honest about his political philosophy, we would have won this election. That's just not the mood of the country right now.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 04:56 PM

No, I know Claymore pretty well. I think he meant liberal chimps.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 05:20 PM

No, I don't think "we surely all know what is meant by a lobbyist."

Clearly not...

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Electi
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 08:05 PM

"Just not the mood of the country right now." That's what I mean, Carol, the tide is turning in favor of Republicans. The Independent voters who flocked to Obama during the last election are abandoning him. Why? He camplaigned as a moderate and he has governed as a liberal.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: heric
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 09:01 PM

I don't think something can be perhaps a little bit redundant.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 09:49 PM

"The Independent voters who flocked to Obama during the last election are abandoning him."

*tsk*,,,It couldn't 'possibly' be just that not enough of those young ones bothered to go to the polls because they were not interested in who was Gov.....could it?

You are just spinning it, Doug....'abandoning' is hardly a conclusion you can draw from a couple of tests.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Janie
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 10:18 PM

According to NPR, voters in what I think of as this off-off year election were very, very focused on local issues, and the candidates who won tended to be those that kept themselves focused on local and regional issues, regardless of party.

I am inclined to think It is way to early to evaluate the effectiveness of the Obama administration or the divided Democratic House of Representatives. He inherited the responsibility for an unbelievable mess, and we are in uncharted territory as far as figuring what is going to work.

The problems didn't develop in a year, and they are not going to be fixed in a year.

What "fixed" means is also going to have to be redefined, and the American people steered toward acceptance of lower and more reasonable expectations about what it means to be prosperous and to have "enough." That is going to be a long, slow, incremental process that will take more than the 4 or 8 years allotted to any one administration.

The Republican Party continues in the midst of a struggle over what is going to define them. If the very active and vocal right wing of the party does indeed ultimately win control the party, they are likely to put up a significant number of candidates that can win the Republican primary, but not a general elections. If that occurs moderate Republicans and moderate and conservative Democrats will have much greater impetus to make common cause and find ways of building consensus to accomplish moderate change, and it is likely the Democrats will pick-up the votes of enough moderate Republican and independent voters to maintain a significant majority in the mid-term elections.

If the Democratic Congress is going to be effective in bringing about even incremental change, they are going to have to find more effective ways of building consensus among themselves, and moderate to conservative Democratic congressmen are going to need to be listened to.

There is not likely to be any revolutionary health care bill passed in the next year or so. Hopefully, however, something will be passed that will nudge us in the direction of actually assuring decent health care for everyone. As Bill Clinton recently said to my favorite "talking head", John Stewart *grin*, we just need to start stumbling down the road in the right direction.

By the same token, concerns by both moderate and more right wing Republicans about the cost and the debt burden we may leave for our children and grandchildren are legitimate concerns. I share the concern of Republican and moderate Democrats about paying for health care through reducing rates of Medicare reimbursement, unless measures are also put in place to reduce the cost to providers of providing the service. Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates by-and-large do not cover the cost of providing the service as it stands now. But talk about a complicated task!

If much of what I have posted appears to some to be thread-drift, I apologize, but it seems to me to be quite pertinent.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 10:50 PM

I think it's artificially optimistic to think that the tide is turning against Obama, and that such a turning would be attributable to his governing as a liberal. To the extent that people in polls have expressed disappointment in the way he has governed, it has been overwhelmingly because they expected him to be more liberal than he has been. His method of governing has been anything but liberal.

But you just keep thinking like that. You and your propaganda sources are deluding yourselves about the mood of the country right now, and that always helps the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:01 PM

I think it should be pointed out that the public option is the moderate position. The progressive position is single payer. The public option is the compromise between what the progressives in the party want, and what the right wing of the party wants (the right wing being the Blue Dog Democrats).

The public option is the middle of the road, moderate compromise between the left wing and the right wing of the Democratic party. If the left wing of the Democratic party doesn't stand its ground on this issue, and the public option does not pass, the Democrats will be in very big trouble in the next few elections, because they will have abandoned what their base elected them to do, and what the majority of voters (all voters, not just Democratic voters) want them to do.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Janie
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:07 PM

I agree the public option is the moderate position.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 12:31 AM

I'm surprised - although I suppose I shouldn't be (sigh) - to learn that, apparently, one cannot be both a liberal and a moderate .... Would anyone care to explain why this is impossible?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 12:39 AM

"current tenor of the country suggests.."

What a surprise.   Mr. Gloom and Doom, who never did like Obama and the Democrats--and is not even a US citizen-- still predicts major setbacks for them.

Anybody who thinks "the current tenor" of the country has anything to do with 2012 needs an elementary course in political science.   One year in politics is an eternity; 3 years equals 3 eternities.

Nothing has changed.   In off-year elections the party out of power usually gains. 2012? Nobody has any idea.

As I've said before, it hinges on 2 factors. If there is a hot war going on, the vote will be on that basis.   If not, the economy will determine it. If the economy is perceived to not have improved significantly from its current state (especially unemployment), President Obama and the Democrats will lose. If it has recovered substantially, both Obama and the Democrats will do well. And the Democrats will retain the Senate.

But why we should be impressed with Senate "control: is another mystery.   Even 60 Democratic seats do not mean Obama's program will pass--it's a "big tent" situation. Again, elementary political science.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 02:59 AM

From the article Amos posted: "what the hell is wrong with these people? (the politicians who make up the USA Senate) Who are they, really? Why do we give them power?"

Okay. One thing at a time.

1. "Who are they, really?"

They are political insiders...long time friends, servants, and fully-fledged members of the rich and powerful ruling elite. They are those who cooperate with that elite and enable it to enrich itself further...and that is why you heard about them in the first place in your controlled mass media and that is why they got enough monetary and political backing to get elected to the Senate.

2. "Why do we give them power?"

HA!!! You don't give them power. The $ySStem that puts them in front of you by way of the mass media gives them power. The $ySStem puts basically 2 of them in front of you in each Senatorial district. One is a Democrat and the other is a Republican. You (the voter) are the poor dumb domesticated animal who arrives at the voting trough where he or she finds 2 varieties of dinner being served...wretched Democratic slop and wretched Republican slop. Those are the only those 2 choices on the menu, realistically speaking, because the powers that be have paid for that to happen. The famished domesticated animal has then a choice. He can eat Democratic slop, in which case he elects the $ySStem's Democratic candidate to the Senate...or he can eat Republican slop, in which case he elects the $ySStem's Republican candidate to the Senate.

In both case he has eaten worthless slop, and the $ySStem has its way.

There are a couple more choices too. He can refuse to vote at all, in which case he has registered a passive protest, but that won't trouble the $ySStem one iota, because some people will still vote. Or...he can vote for some independent or minor party candidate...but with little or no hope of that vote knocking off the $ySStem's BIG 2 Duopoly candidates.

The voters do NOT give these servants of the ruling class power, the mass media and the lobbyists who put up most of a candidate's campaign funds and get them media coverage give them power. Your vote is just a rubber stamp on a done deal, and the deal was not made with you in mind.

3. "What the hell is wrong with these people?"

They sold out, that's what's wrong with them. They are creatures of a ruling system that is in fact a shadow government that controls both major parties ALL the time. They sold out a long time ago to a consortium of powerful interests (banks, corporations, and the military industrial complex which serves banks and corporations). They do not serve you, they cannot serve you, because their power did not derive from you, it derives from the SySStem that funds them...and that WILL destroy them if they don't serve it faithfully.

They are offered great rewards if they faithfully serve the $ySStem, and they are offered failure... or something considerably worse than that... if they don't.

You don't live in a true democracy. Neither do I. We live in an empty charade of a democracy, and it's about as phony as one of those western sets in the old Hollywood "B" films of the 40's and 50's. It looks real from the front....there's nothing behind it but an empty desert.

Your elections are a show that is put on for 2 purposes:

1. to divide and conquer the public by setting you against one another over partisan differences.

2. to keep you hypnotized into thinking you still have a genuinely functioning democratic system.

It's very much ths same situation in Canada as in the USA, though not as extreme, because we have a less extreme tradition and history behind us.

It's very much the same situation in the UK.

It's laughable that our nations would dare to attempt to spread "democracy" around the world, because we don't even have a real democracy at home! We have a ruling financially-based oligarchy that is untouchable through the voting process.

What do I recommend? ;-) I recommend that each one of you live the best, kindest, most honest and creative and loving life you possibly can while you're here...and don't waste too much of your energy imagining that your corrupt government is going to live up to its promises...because it isn't. And don't waste your energy hating each other over old partisan political differences either...because that will get you nowhere, and it will only strengthen the oppressive powers that rule the present $ySStem.

All political systems pass away in time. This one will too. But probably quite some time after you and I have departed this interesting mortal scene we are presently engaged in here.

But.......... if fighing the old partisan political battles turns you on and you still believe in it...? Well, fine. Do that if that's what moves you. It's entirely up to you, after all, because it's your energy you're freely choosing to spend, right? And that's your business.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:25 AM

BRAVO LITTLE HAWK!!!!!!!! YOUR POST WAS DEAD ON!!..EXACTO!!
STANDING OVATION!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:12 AM

"Liberal" means the same as "moderate" - look it up in a dictionary.

Obama can best be described as a "moderate liberal conservative".

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:18 AM

...Obama's dreams of taking over the health care system in the U. S. ...


Jesus, what planet does this clown live on?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:51 AM

I'm surprised - although I suppose I shouldn't be (sigh) - to learn that, apparently, one cannot be both a liberal and a moderate .... Would anyone care to explain why this is impossible?

It's not. But in US popular usage, "moderate" means halfway between "liberal" and "conservative", both of which are fairly meaningless and arbitrary terms. But if you use them here, people will think they understand what you're talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 09:25 AM

I saw a great bumnper sticker the other day, it said "Im in favor of Snowe removal"


I wrote to Senator Snowe a while back and suggested that considering that she took our salary of $174,000 to go to Foggy Bottom and look out for us, then took $130,000 from the drug companies, that she should refund what we paid her for not doing her job.
No response. Surprise surprise.

As far as the question of same sex marriage, it was defeated. The liars and fear mongers win again. Some people love to live in the dark ages.

I wish one of those "God Botherers" would explain to me how same sex marriage threatens traditional marriage.
Control freaks; a pox on them all.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 09:45 AM

I wish one of those "God Botherers" would explain to me how same sex marriage threatens traditional marriage.

You're allowing logic to interfere with the thought process, Kendall.

As an aside, its is a shame that the Republican party which I disagreed violently with on some issues but still respected, has allowed itself to be taken over by right wing loonies, for whom I have no respect at all.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 01:53 PM

Equating liberal and moderate is a bit of a stretch.

Liberal has a number of meaings; in relation to political opinions, the OED entry:
5. Favourable to constitutional changes and legal and administrative reforms, tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Hence used as the designation of the party holding such opinions, in England and other states; opposed to Conservative.

Moderate. Also several meanings. 2. of opinions and their supporters: not extreme; not strongly partisan. b. Hence (now with initial capital) used as the designation of various political and ecclestical parties and their views.

'Liberal' often is used by extreme left-wingers to disguise radical ideas and the destruction of the capitalist system.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 02:12 PM

In the US, "liberal" is more often used by radical right wingers as a pejorative against anyone with whom they disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 02:14 PM

( ...note, for instance, its use in the opening post in this thread - "liberal chimps")

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 02:22 PM

I wonder how you tell a "liberal chimp" from a "conservative chimp", or a "moderate chimp", for that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:31 PM

Only Little Hawk can tell.:-)

Kendall, my Rog wonders why the right-wingnuts don't pass a law against divorce. You'd think, if they are SO concerned about marriage, they would want to do all in their power to save all marriages, right? Isn't divorce a bigger threat to their marriages than any gay couple?!

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 03:52 PM

We should get Chongo to explain how liberal chimps and conservative chimps differ. He knows that from A to Z.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:03 PM

Carol is right. The Boston Tea Party occurred because East India Tea, a big corporate organization with King George being a principal stockholder decided to corner the market in the Colonies. The Colonists wanted to drink their own tea that they created. They got mad at East India Tea and it was a much larger incident involving more than just one ship.

The "Teabaggers" don't have a clue about the incident. Their idea is that it is just a rebellion against government. This is brought about by a resurgence of Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas. They haven't studied American history and of course in the Colonies,
there were tins of loose tea but the teabag wasn't invented until later.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:13 PM

I just heard that the Virginia candidate for governor was running against Obama's platform, and that he campaigned against the public option, saying he would opt out of it if he was elected and it passed as law.

If the Democrats are smart, they will take that loss as a big warning about what will happen to them if a robust public option is not included in whatever health care reform bill gets passed.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 04:19 PM

The Boston Tea Party was the result of the British Tea Act; the colonists objected to the Act because it imposed a tax not enacted by their own representatives. The tea that was dumped belonged to the British East India Tea Company; the British demanded that the Company be compensated.
The colonists had no tea of their own; the action was against a tax not of their own making.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: DougR
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:02 PM

Greg, Greg, Greg, you are a sight. You are quite an incorrigible little lad. Very naughty.

meself: I don't know how one defines a moderate in U.S. politics. In the Republican Party, I suppose one could say the Rockefeller Wing is moderate and the Goldwater or Reagan Wing is Conservative. Though there are some who would probably define the Rockefeller Wing as Liberal. I would say that John McCain is a "moderate" though he defines himself as Conservative. Some might say a moderate just can't make up his/her mind so they try to ride the "middle."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:14 PM

and most Republicans these days are picking a label that will get them re-elected, no matter what their actual beliefs are. Some are running with NO mention of their party on ads or posters.

I drove thru a yuppie area of Northern Virginia just before the election, and saw rows of McDonald signs (as in, 20-30 in the grassy divider near an intersection) with no indication he was a Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:19 PM

It wasn't a tax on the colonists that caused them to protest. The Tea Act of 1773, removed the export duty on tea only for the East India Company, and this is what the colonists were protesting because this exemption meant that they couldn't compete with the East India Company, and it was also a protest against the power that large crown corporations had in influencing the decisions made in parliament.

It was not a protest against a tax. It was a protest against a corporate tax break.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:25 PM

More digression-
CarolC is correct in essence, except for her assertion that "large crown corporations influenced [in this case] decisions made in Parliament," which with regard to this Act is untrue.
The whole affair was complicated by the fact that East India consigned the tea to particular merchants, cutting others out. The ships that were carrying the tea were American, Nantucket the home port. How much this had to do with the eventual separation of citizens into loyalists and those wishing to separate, could be the subject for a long dissertation.

"Initially, the East India Company had suggested that the 3d per pound tax should be removed to encourage the colonists to buy the tea. [Lord North's ministry] could not do this on principle, since the Declaraory Act passed by Rockingham''s ministry did say that the British government could legislate for the colonies, and Britain needed (in his eyes) to maintain the right to legislate."
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/tea-act.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 06:32 PM

Is teabagger the opposite of scumbagger?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 07:24 PM

To be "moderate" simply means not to go to extremes.

Buddhism, for example, is a philosophy that encourages moderation in all things, and that's a wise way to go if you want to live a stable and healthy existence. It's called "the middle path".

Fanatics and extremists of all kinds (political/religious/etc) tend to detest moderation, probably because it subconsciously reminds them of the fact that they are out of control.... ;-) They interpret it as a weakness. It isn't a weakness, it's a strength. It arises out of self-discipline and respect for others.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:43 PM

Unless I'm mistaken, the final score was that the GOP gained 2 governors and lost two congressman. A famous victory for both sides!

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 08:44 PM

LH: 'Buddhism, for example, is a philosophy that encourages moderation in all things...'

Moderation in all things...including moderation!

True story: Going into town Wednesday, I stopped by the nearest convenience store/gas station, where before going into the store, near the door, there are a couple of newspaper stands. Usually I stop at them, and peruse the headlines. Leaning against the stands, was an older gentleman puffing on his smog(cigarette). I asked him, 'So, what did you think of the elections?'

He answered, 'Well hell, you know who wins elections, don't you?'

'Who?' I answered.

'The one who lies the best.'

I grinned, and was ready to start my day...

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 12:44 AM

The Tea Tax and the Stamp Acts were among the notorious Navigation Acts which essentially both deprived the colonists of various rights and expected them to pay for such items as having the army quartered in their homes. One of the most infamous of these acts was that there was to be no manufacturing in the colonies, ie, they were to ship raw materials to the mother country in English bottoms and receive them back as manufactured goods. Since WW II, we have pretty much gone out of the shipping business and have farmed out most of our manufacturing. Go figure.

As one on the inside of the Corzine campaign, I began complaining sevral months before the loss that we were ignoring a major resource: We were not going into traditional Republicrat areas to encourage our own partisans. [nb, I was a team leader for a crew of canvassers in Somerset County.]

We focused on areas where we had significant majorities and encouraged them to vote. Many of them did but we lost in the marginal areas because we had not reached out to them. Had we done what Obama did and reached out to every single area, we would have won instead of being swamped by indifference.

All of the polls were based upon likely voters of both parties. Too many of the likelies stayed home. I knew for sure we were in trouble on Election Day when turnout was reported as light. In New Jersey, that usually means that the Republicans have turned out and the Democrats have not.

In the New York case, the Republican candidate was being beaten by the so-called independent candidate and would probably have won a three way race. The independent was supported by Palin, Beck, Cheney and others of that ilk. She pulled out and endorsed the Democrat so strongly that many of her voters switched to him. He won.

Passion makes for strong messages. It's lack and lack of clarity [on the issues] loses elections.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 03:01 AM

The paragraph you quoted from the page you linked to makes no sense to me, Q. I don't know in what way it is supposed to be in support of the assertion that the crown corporations didn't influence the decision to not tax East India Company tea.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 06:53 AM

I wonder if they ever found a psychic who read harbors?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 02:06 PM

"From: meself Date: 04 Nov 09 - 02:37 PM

It was not a "stupid" choice of a name - it was an unfortunate choice. How on earth were they supposed to know - and why should they have known - about the alternate meaning? I think it speaks well of them that they did not know..........."

Yes it was a stupid choice of names. They were creating a "brand" for their organization and neglected to see if if that "brand" was already in use ore in any way tainted. The fact that Fox news people did not have their producers check on this term and that US congress people did not have their aides check on it before using it was, indeed, stupid.

You could quibble and call them lazy, ignorant, stubborn, pig headed or just bandwagon jumpers, but really, stupid is as valid as any descriptor for that choice of names.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 05:26 PM

Frankly, the Teabaggers' use of the striped "don't tread on me" flag has removed a lot of the pleasure I have gotten in using it as a yacht ensign. The seven white and six red striped background indicates a privateer's flag, in contrast to the seven red and six white striped naval jack of the period.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 05:39 PM

L.H.: Define extremism please.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:16 PM

Anyone who believes that the end justifies the means.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:35 PM

From MSNBC this evening...

One of them tea-baggers had a heart attack yesterday at the anti-government health-reform rally and was treated by...

... a government health worker???

Things are getting very strange, indeed...

But nevermind that... Me thinks too many folks are putting too much importance on this weeks elections... They really didn't prove anything one way or another... 2 Dem wins and 2 Repub wins... Where's the big story???

I mean, only a True Believer partisan would spin this thing into anything that favored one party or another... Face it... It's spin, folks... Nothing more and nothing less... Spin...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 08:48 PM

Doug,

extremism = avoidance of moderation

(grin)

Extremism is usually pretty self-evident except that one person's extremism may be another person's idea of "normality".

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 09:30 PM

Little Hawk, Are you meaning to tell me, that we could be extreme moderates???

Grins...or just 'sane', to the extreme???

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 11:53 AM

East India Tea was attempt to monopolize the tea sales. Taxation was not part of this problem. They would have attempted to reduce taxation if they could have maintained
their preeminence.

Loyalists and non-loyalists abounded in those days. There were those who supported the King and his monopolistic practices.

It wasn't about taxation but about maintaining political power through the manipulation of sales of tea. Therefore, Carol is correct. Corporate power influences Parliament as it does Congress in the US today.

The fact that the Colonists had no tea of their own is false. They were able to develop private tea businesses that conflicted with Mother England's monopoly. Hence, The Boston Tea Party.

As to the notion of "centrist" as moderate, this concept is distorted. There are no centrists but those leaning in one direction or another. Moderation is a myth.
Witness the Blue Dog Dems and tell us that this is moderation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 04:25 PM

tending in the direction of freedom or democracy

Not the kind of thing that a moderate person would want, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:48 AM

The "Boston Tea Party"    " was not a protest against a tax"..."King George being a principal shareholder"

These statements--and some others on this thread--are so simplistic as to be misleading.

Various sectors of the North American population were annoyed at the situation for various reasons.

Some were still bitter at the Townshend Act taxes, of which the tea tax was the last remaining.

And the British East India Company was not an all-powerful monopoly. In fact it was in serious financial trouble, partly due to the fact that in many ways it was for all practical purposes a branch of the British government. As such it had among other things, led armed forces in India.   And it was in debt to the British government for 400,00 pounds per year, money the regime depended on.

The Americans had tried to find other sources of tea, among other things "Labrador tea". Mostly they had been smuggling " Dutch tea into the colonies to evade the tea duty" Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly, p 193. This had reduced "sales of the East India Company in the North American colonies by almost 2/3."

The East India Company also did not have a monopoly to sell tea in the North American colonies until 1773. Up to that point, it was required to sell its tea only in London, with a sizable duty, which created the smuggling opportunity mentioned above.

Nor were the colonists all against the 1773 change. Among other people, Benjamin Franklin was one who suggested allowing the Company to export the tea directly to North America without paying the burdensome tax it was paying in London.   Up to then the the arrangement had been that British firms, not the Company itself, bought the tea and sold it in the colonies.

As a result of the 1773 change the British in Britain themselves in fact paid a far higher tax than the 3 pence Townshend tax paid in the colonies--and the British also regularly patronized smugglers.    Reason for this is that the change cut the tax the East
India Company paid for re-export but restored the taxes the British themselves paid which had been repealed in 1767.   So sales in Britain dropped sharply and the East India Co. had a huge surplus of unsaleable tea.

When the Tea Act passed Parliament American merchants--and smugglers-- were indeed outraged at the underselling the East India Company could do:    "Shipowners and builders, captains and crews whose livelihood was in smuggling also felt threatened" Tuchman p 195. The North government had been in fact warned against keeping the Townshend tea tax, but insisted on on it--it was in fact used to pay salaries of colonial officials.   This in itself was also controversial in the colonies, since that method of financing colonial administration would insulate Crown officials from colonial influence.   So, contrary to the assertions of some Mudcatters, the tax which remained was in fact a major issue.

But the "monopoly" argument was not just aimed at the British East India Company itself--which as noted above was in serious financial difficulties in the early 1770's-- but also at its role as an arm of the British government, and that government's continued insistence that it could tax the North Americans for revenue without their own representatives' participation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:49 AM

"400,000 pounds"

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:05 AM

McGrath, freedom is a natural condition. I think I would say that it is THE natural condition. It is extremism of one kind or another which takes away people's freedom. Therefore I submit that a moderate person would be in favor of freedom and would not be inclined to take it away from others.

As for democracy, that's a particular form of governance that may or may not occur under either a moderate or an extreme social system...so I don't think it's particularly relevant to a discussion of what moderation is.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:50 PM

The essential point remains. The protest was not against all government levied taxes, as we are so frequently led to believe. It was a protest against an arrangement that gave one corporation an unfair competitive advantage, and the political system that made such unfair practices possible. Which is what I have been saying all along, no matter how much people choose to quibble with the details.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 12:56 PM

LH, how one considers the concept of "freedom" will determine how one decides who is a moderate and who isn't, if we use your definition. For instance, a libertarian will see any taxes at all as being an infringement on their freedom. But if we don't pay taxes for roads, that libertarian will not have the freedom to drive their car on any roads at all without paying a toll to the owner of the road. Would anyone other than the libertarian in question consider this position to be a "moderate" one?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 02:25 PM

Good point, Carol. ;-) There are a great variety of ideas out there about what "freedom" means and about what "moderation" means and what "extremism" means. I would regard that libertarian's view as an unrealistic one that is based on rigid dogma, not on an accurate understanding of the situation.

The way roads began was like this...

1. First you had trails through the wilderness. Trails were naturally created by animals and people just following the least difficult and clearest route to reach water, food, and whatever else they were after. Trails were free. The more they were used, the better they got, but they were still free.

2. With the advent of horseback riding trails became even better than before, but they were still free. No one owned them. Everyone used them.

3. With the advent of horsedrawn vehicles trails had to be improved upon considerably, specially when nation-states began needing to move large armies around on them. This resulted in funds being raised by various kings and emperors to hire workers (or buy slaves) and build genuine roads. All of a sudden trails weren't free anymore! Taxes needed to be raised to improve them into roads. It was the Romans who really put roads "on the map" and they raised a lot of tax money to do it. Their superbly paved roads made it possible for them to rapidly move huge armies long distances and to conquer many other nations and build an empire.

4. You've basically had a situation ever since where organized societies must raise funds to build and maintain their many roads. Those funds can either come from taxes...the usual method...or they can come from tolls if the road is built and run by a privately owned consortium.

Most of us would prefer, I think, not to drive on toll roads. ;-)

The libertarian longs for a world that simply isn't possible anymore...as long as we have money.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:00 PM

As long as we have money and private ownership of land. Because the cost of the road is not just the road itself, but also access to the land that the road is on. There were toll roads long before there were cars and paved roads. The tolls were paid to the people who owned the land. In the world of that libertarian I was talking about, there would be no government owned land. This means that all roads would be on private land. So even if they were only dirt tracks, tolls would have to be paid to the owners of the land for the use of it (possibly not all landowners would do this, but enough would to make the process of getting around pretty much impossible). And yet, this is the kind of world that the teabaggers are trying to force on us, saying that they are trying to take back our freedoms.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 03:03 PM

LH, normality. a real word.(Thank you)
Normalcy. a non word made up by one of our dimmest presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:16 PM

Bush coined that term, did he? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 04:31 PM

Main Entry: nor-mal-cy
Pronunciation: \ˈnȯr-məl-sē\
Function: noun
Date: 1857

: the state or fact of being normal


http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/normalcy


Most dictionaries don't seem to contain the word, "normality".

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 05:00 PM

Ha! W wasn't as stupid as he looked!

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 06:34 PM

"Normality" and "normalcy" both appear as words of common usage in the large dictionary I have here. "Normality" derives from Latin and French. I would think that "normalcy" is a more modern and recently used term than normality.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM

" It was not a protest against a tax."

Wrong.

It was in fact in large part a protest against the idea that a tax in which American representatives had no say could be used to further isolate the UK-appointed colonial administration from pressure from American interests. And it was feared that this would be the start--again-- of further encroachments of the sort.

Political agitators could and did use this argument: "Once Indian tea was accepted in America, the 3d duty would 'enter the bulwark of our sacred liberties' and would accomplish Parliament's purpose of taxation for revenue, nor would its authors desist 'til they have made a conquest of the whole'."   (Tuchman, p 195).

And with smugglers, shipowners, and merchants annoyed at Britain for their various reasons, the argument fell on willing ears.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:24 PM

Which Tuchman are you quoting in your 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM post, Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 12:58 AM

Anyway, Ron, none of your 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM post makes any sense at all. Which tax are you referring to with this...

It was in fact in large part a protest against the idea that a tax in which American representatives had no say could be used to further isolate the UK-appointed colonial administration from pressure from American interests. And it was feared that this would be the start--again-- of further encroachments of the sort.


And here...

"Once Indian tea was accepted in America, the 3d duty would 'enter the bulwark of our sacred liberties' and would accomplish Parliament's purpose of taxation for revenue, nor would its authors desist 'til they have made a conquest of the whole'."

Which 3d tax are you talking about?


And with smugglers, shipowners, and merchants annoyed at Britain for their various reasons, the argument fell on willing ears.

What argument fell on willing ears?

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: EBarnacle
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 03:00 AM

The argument anent taxation of the colonials as well as the argument against taxation of imports, such as tea.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:01 AM

Warren Harding was credited with this word. Both appear in my dictionary but I just dont like the sound of normalcy.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 08:37 AM

none of your 08 Nov 09 - 10:10 PM post makes any sense at all.

That's no way to address The Simple Seaker After Truth and Fount of All Knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 09:47 AM

Heh! (snickering in my sleeve here...)

It has become pretty clear to me on reading a number of interesting books about the American Revolutionary period that the primary motivations behind launching the American Revolution were mercantile concerns. Surprise, surprise.... ;-) Yes, it was mostly about money, not "freedom". The Yankee traders in New England were very concerned about their profit line, and they dressed that concern in all sorts of fiery rhetoric about "liberty", "freedom", etc...and about half the people in the 13 colonies were moved to fight against the crown by that fiery rhetoric (and by British arrogance, no doubt) while the other half were moved to support or defend the crown. So you had a revolution which was also a civil war...and the revolutionaries eventually won it due to a number of complex factors, not least the quite vital assistance they got from France (which was also fighting the British crown at the time).

Many of the Loyalists fled to Canada at the conclusion of the war. Interestingly enough, Canada has always had just as much liberty and freedom as the USA (in my opinion)...if not moreso. There has been no notable lack of social liberty and freedom north of the American border between 1779 and the present day. So I frankly do not believe that the American Revolution was essentially about either liberty or freedom. But that's not what you want to tell your school kids, right?

Likewise, the British did not go all over the world conquering and colonizing out of a deep desire to "better the lives of savages" and "take up the White Man's Burden". HA!!! They did it for money and imperial power.

And they also told their many generations of school children that they were doing it for all kinds of wonderfully idealistic reasons that would make the world a far better place.

What a bunch of liars! ;-) Britain and America both have done what they have done in the world for exactly the same reasons: money, power, and material gain. This is in fact true of all expansionist political powers.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 11:56 AM

Libertarianism is as dumb an idea as "the markets will regulate themselves." The second idea lead to our current recession and financial mess. Examples of the true libertarianism can be seen in northern Afghanistan, Somalia, and the wilderness of Columbia and Bolivia.

Drown your government in a bathtub and warlords of one kind or another will fill the vacuum.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:52 PM

The advertising/lobbying firm of Dick Army coined the term tea baggers. Glen Beck was chosen to promote it and the 9 12 rally for 4 months. Barbara Bachman was the latest to go on FOX and plead for another tea bagger rally. When 6 Republican congress p[eople showed up they missed a vote to radicalize the Patriot Act again. As luck would have it the bill lost by 5 votes.

I guess it is not to be taken litterally.

I have yet to see people dress like Indians and dump high tariff goods into the water at any of of our container shipping ports.






btw over half of our container shipping ports are fun by United Arab Republic corporations since the big sale during the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 06:59 PM

Jack, what mostly created our present financial mess is that the major banks were allowed to create a vast bubble of "magic" money out of thin air by making a tremendous number of high risk loans (so they could collect interest and get richer). Enough of those loans eventually defaulted that the whole system began to collapse, and the government stepped in to bail out the criminals who caused that! I suggest you read this book about how banks create money out of thin air to enrich themselves: "The Creature from Jeckyl Island"

It will make quite clear why we have these "boom and bust" scenarios over and over again and why the dollar is worth less and less with every passing year.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 09 - 07:13 PM

The repeal of the Glass Steagal act was a major contributor, removing the glass wall between banking and investing. It enabled banks to make those rotten investment bundles out of their rotten mortgages instead of having to be responsible for their own lending practices.

The use of excessively liberal multipliers that banks were allowed to lend compared to the assets they actually have on hand, which is the core behind the magic creation of money in our credit system, is the other big foolishness. Both of these are invented by Hamiltonian-style Republicans in the badly mistaken belief they were being "friendly" to business, while actually building the seeds of depression into the economy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:06 PM

I remember when "normalcy" was used as a prime example of Harding's lack of education. He also used "generalcy" when referring to commanding officers in the Army.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 06:15 PM

Too bad George W. Bush wasn't around back then. They could have run as a team.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: kendall
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 08:36 AM

LH, right again. Freedom my ass! We are in Iraq to protect our oil supply. The fact that all those Muslims are standing on our oil is just too damn bad for them.

Subject: RE: BS: A Small Start But Significant, US Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 10:36 AM

That's it, Kendall.