The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder writes,
The Republican wins in New Jersey and Virginia and the close race in New York City tells us...
...self-financers, people affiliated with Big Wall Street, the Old Money Crowd, the establishment, the party leadership... are being put on notice. Not a Democratic or Republican thing...but a gun, fired by the political regulars -- not the newer Obama turnout cohort but the regular off-year cohort -- at the heart of those who protect those in power, at bailouts, at spending.
Also: very easy alternate explanation: the economy sucks. States are really hurting. Governors are very unpopular. Their support is going to crater.
Posts
15 comments:
Let's hope this is the beginning of the end for Comrade Obama.
Read the WSJ's editorial about the Health Care "Worst Bill EVER".
Obama wants nothing more than to destroy capitalism.
This, combined with the GOP victory in Virginia, is certainly inauspicious for Team Obama.
It's also worth noting that all the Corzine billboard ads around here (Bergen County) featured President Obama prominently, with Corzine partnered with him. Heck, a Corzine-Obama ad even appeared on the rotating ad spot on the homepage of Shortscreen yesterday.
bloomberg made all his $ selling computers to wall street so he's in the same bucket as the wall streeters
That's consistent with Ambinder's point, Anon.
The pendulum swings...after the Republican sweeps came the Democratic ones. Now things aren't looking so good for the Democrats, largely thanks to their lack of a backbone. I wonder how long it will take people to realize how little difference there is between the major parties and start supporting alternatives. I just hope the alternatives the arise are a variety of parties instead of a large, well-financed "third way" (fascist) movement combining elements of the right and the left.
I don't know what lack of backbone has to do with it, JK. When the economy sucks that reflects poorly on the party in power, that's probably the biggest factor (as it was last year). Another factor is that Obama's popularity has either dropped or is not transferable to boring old white guys like Jon Corzine.
To explain what I meant I'm afraid I have to dip into a bit of my non-conservative opinions (FTR I'm not necessarily knee jerk pro-Democrat either, and i'm registered as independent).
The backbone comment is because I think the Dem's healthcare bill (to name an example) has no teeth at all and concedes far too much, unnecessarily (who needs concession when you have a supermajority!?), to the right and big pharma. It is basically just a tax with low probability of any benefit to those who pony up. But I admit I am someone who wants to see a single-payer system, which I know we do not agree on.
There is also Obama continuing both Bush wars because he is too chicken to take heat from the imperialist neocon wing of the Republican party like McCain and Cheney. No backbone. He needs to shelve the Bush fantasy of happy Middle Eastern Islamic democracies (what a plethora of oxymorons in one phrase!), and if Gates disagrees with him, then he needs to shelve Gates also.
I think if the Dems pulled out of Iraquistan and pushed serious healthcare reform through without any concessions to Republicans, they would be a party still popular for taking bold action. People voted Democrat because they wanted Action, and Reid and Pelosi have responded by twiddling their thumbs and continuing the Bush admin policies. Dems have to get tough on big business, for as much as they've lambasted Republicans for being the party of fatcats in the past, these bailouts have shown that Dems are no better. How in the world there are 18 U.S. banks "too big to fail" is beyond me. My opinion is that if you are too big to fail then you are too big to exist.
-----------------
Obama's popularity has dropped in large part because he makes appearances with priviledged plutocrats like John Corzine, and concessions to his colleagues in public policy. Old white guys can be plenty popular (see Ron Paul), but when you are the ex-CEO of a company that was bailed out and profited massively from the misfortunes of others, all the Obamas in the world can not get you a 75% approval rating when the economy sucks. Obama should have saved his popularity powder for promoting fresh faces, whether they are old and white or not.
"No backbone. He needs to shelve the Bush fantasy of happy Middle Eastern Islamic democracies (what a plethora of oxymorons in one phrase!), and if Gates disagrees with him, then he needs to shelve Gates also."
You're operating from a flawed premise there, JK. Obama didn't run on a platform of pulling out of Afghanistan. And he's the one who begged Gates to stay on. I'm sure Gates would be happy to turn over the reigns to a qualified Democrat, as soon as Obama can produce one.
He was right to not have campaigned on pulling out for short term tactical reasons, but he should do it anyway after election. If Obama and the Democratic party do not differentiate themselves, and differentiate themselves boldly, from the all-encompassing failure of the Bush administration, they will suffer the same fate as the Republicans in 2010 and 2012. The Republicans had no problem passing bill after bill when they controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. Why is it so hard for the Dems to do anything?
Here is an interesting blog entry from a Democrat who voted for Christie. I probably would have done the same.
I do hope that Christie win helped lift your spirits following that embarrassing performance by the Giants against my team. ;) Manning was looking like he forgot he was ever in a Super Bowl, reliving his rookie days. Poor kid.
You had to bring that game up, huh? Yeah, the last couple of weeks Manning has been a little unsure of himself, draining the play clock with adjustments, getting faked out by defenders feigning blitzes, etc. But the Giants coaching staff screwed the pooch too. They should have gotten into a two minute offense in the third quarter. Manning plays better out of that offense anyway.
Dave! It's me- Y! I didn't know you had a blog! I found you accidentally when I came across your pseudonym on a message board and thought to follow your trail of breadcrumbs. Been meaning to write for a while, and I suppose Christie's election is as good an opportunity as any. Granted, I haven't lived there for over 5 years(!) now, but I was wondering about your thoughts. It seems that the tax structure in NJ will always be the #1 issue (as it was this year), and will remain broken (regardless of who sits in Trenton) so long as two trends persist:
1) fragmentation of government; with 8.6M people spread across 566 towns and 21 counties, the duplications of services and administrations fairly requires a high tax burden to pay for it all. Especially considering that the top 6 cities alone account for ~1M people.
2) Little return of federal tax money. NJ only gets back something like 70% of its fed tax receipts, which might not be a big deal for Kansas, but is a pretty big disparity for a populous, wealthy state like NJ. Until more of its share is wrested back, the burden will just get shifted downward.
Wondering what you think about this. Nice to find you! and Good luck with the new site launch!
-Y
Hey Y, welcome aboard. Congratulations on V-E, btw. Your brother mentioned via e-mail earlier this week that she was doing well. I trust you and her mother are doing well too.
BTW, Cheryl and I went to see The Cult a couple of months ago ("Hells Kitchen isn't a DMZ") -- we ended up standing next to a bunch of guys from your ancestral home country, which made me think of you. I recognized the accents, toasted them with a nostrovia, and a minute later were were talking about the old Blue & Gold. Good bunch of guys.
Re NJ and taxes, the state is in a bigger fiscal hole than it was when you left for the Northwest, and Christie was at least honest enough not to dogmatically continue to promise tax cuts in light of that (at least not within the last month or so).
A bigger reason for the high tax burden, IMO, than the reasons you mentioned is the school funding formula, which burns a lot of suburban money in places like Camden and Newark, with little to show for it, and the overly generous pensions and benefits for public sector workers. Not something I spend a lot of time obsessing about though.
BTW, Y, keep an eye on the comments by JK here. He reminds me a little of a younger version of you.
Post a Comment