I didn’t get much done last night, other than watch the election returns. Yesterday, before I left the office, I wrote out a worksheet of the 14 races which polls said were in dispute in the battle for control of the Senate. I tracked them, watched the numbers and finally called it a night around midnight. Here are some of my observations today.
1) It was a Red Tsunami.
For most of the night, Juan Williams tried to argue against calling this a “wave” – I don’t know why. By the end of the night, he was admitting the obvious. As best I can tell, there was only 1 of those 14 races in which the Republican candidate failed to exceed his or her polling numbers. The RCP average for McConnell was +7; he won by 14 points. Joni Ernst led the polls by about 2 points and won by 8. Roberts and the independent candidate (Orman) in Kansas were in a dead heat and last I looked, Roberts was winning by over 10 points.
Was that bad polling? I doubt it. There were hints in the last couple of days that the movement was away from Obama and the Dems and toward the Republicans. It was a high tide for the Red side.
2) The Republican leadership CAN’T blow this, but a lot of us Republicans think they’ll probably find a way.
I tweeted this morning: “GOP: don’t blow this.” A certain Dr. Barber tweeted back, “Water: don’t be wet.” There is a lot of cynicism among Republicans about the ability of our national leaders to conserve these gains and do a good job. Traditionally, we’ve done better at criticizing Democrats (well-deserved!) than at governing effectively.
3) The biggest threat against these gains is Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, John Kasich, etc.
These are among the names being bandied about as potential hindrances to the Hillary Clinton steamroller in 2016. Republicans need to pass effective laws and put them on Obama’s desk. If they are vetoed they at least provide the nation with a sense of what the GOP wants to do and where they want to lead the country.
But if the potential top-of-ticket names get in a spitting match, dragging Republicans into internecine wars instead of effective government, it will probably mean that the 2016 election night will not be nearly as fun as this one was for me!
I don’t know how gigantic egos can work together, but they need to or this will be a blip, not a trend.
4) Everyone in 49 states are glad they don’t live in Louisiana, which has been “blessed” with another month of political ads.
I’m not sure I could stand it.
I can’t believe those ads work, but they must or candidates would stop doing them. The Ernst-Braley ads here were awful. I hit the mute button every time one came on.
5) C’mon, Man! Count the votes!!
How on earth can we have computerized voting all over the place and there are still votes not counted today? I don’t get it. Seems like we ought to be able to hit a total button when the polls close and have the results within a minute or so. Of course, that won’t work in Chicag0 where they still have to count the votes the “machine” collects from cemetaries and such, but in normal parts of America, it doesn’t seem like counting the vote ought to take this long.
6) Joni Ernst will be skewered on SNL this week (with a Howard Dean impersonator, too?).
I voted for Mrs. Ernst, but her cackling laughter into the mic at her press conference was annoying. I’m sure her team will make sure she never does that again. But SNL will have a skit this week featuring Joni Ernst’s evil laugh – I think you can count on that.
7) Whatever happens from here on out, removing Harry Reid from Senate leadership is worth a rousing celebration.
I may say the same about Mitch McConnell in the future, but right now, sending Reid to the sidelines is a cause for rejoicing.
8) Win or lose at the polls, our primary job remains the same.
I am fascinated by politics, and I think it matters, but our primary task is to make Jesus known in the world, to obey the Great Commission, and to live out our heavenly citizenship. American politics has its place, but if it goes beyond that place, it can easily become an idol. The good news of Jesus is our message!
Now, back to being a pastor…
Wait… There were elections yesterday??? :O
You just got back from Mars?
Welcome home.
The most odious group of people has lost power to the second most odious group of people. Yes, the night went the way I wanted, like a person who loses only their foot instead of the whole leg gets what they wanted.
Cynic!
The Dems are only the THIRD most odious group of people in America.
1) The New England Patriots.
2) The Boston Red Sox.
As a one-footed guy, I resent being compared to a bunch of politicians…
Thrilled that two main elections in Georgia were decided last night. Alternative was a January 6 runoff (or is that ‘runnoft’?).
January 6? Why on earth would they wait that long? That’s nuts.
Of course, it is Georgia…
Nevertheless.
It’s PRESIDENT Obama.
I think everyone knows who the president is. What’s your point?
I think he deserves a modicum of respect, hence President Obama or Mr. Obama.
Speaking as someone who was a fan of Bush, I nonetheless did and do refer to him as Bush rather than President Bush or Mr. Bush. Shorthand is fine; people know what you mean.
That is patently absurd, Barrett. Using a man’s last name is not disrespectful.
Look, Miller, stop talking like that or I’ll start referring to you by your first name.
Fine, Roberts.
Dave,
Of course it’s disrespectful, and you are using it as thus. I think you should be an example to us.
Look, ____ (sorry, I don’t know your last name), it isn’t disrespectful just because you say so. Even a Heathen like me knows this kind of use is not disrespectful.
Jess, when you said this, was it disrespectful?
Was it okay to disrespect Governor Romney?
Two presidents disrespected in one comment, Jess?
A prez and a VP?
These are just a sampling. You call me disrespectful for doing something you have done REGULARLY.
there was absolutely nothing disrespectful in anything I said about Obama.
Do you feel the same way about Senators and Representatives and mayors and councilpersons?
Do you identify each of those, ALWAYS, by their title?
I would venture to say that you likely do not…and ya know what – not only does everyone know who are talking about – they also do not see it is disrespectful.
Shorthand speech is not always disrespectful.
Just use “POTUS.” It works well to identify and to pay due respect for the position without reference to the individual who is disgracing the office as is the case of the current POTUS.
I can see your point. However, there are enough people who show disrespect to him (and any number of other presidents and people) by just referring to him as “Obama”. Whereas using his last name isn’t disrespectful, there’s enough people who use only his last name as an affront and with disrespect intended that we can (and should) show him the respect that others don’t.
People earn respect……high political offices carry respect ie: Office of the President currently occupied by a non-citizen by the name of 0bozo.
Jake, I’ve got to call you on this. I do not believe it is proper for Christians to engage in name-calling (at all, of course), but especially concerning the president.
I am NO fan of the current resident of the Oval Office – no surprise to anyone, I guess. And I am not going to apologize for calling him by his name – that is not disrespect.
Calling him “Obozo” is disrespectful. I’m not going to tolerate that kind of thing.
I like your colorful comments here, but I am asking you to refrain from that type of name-calling. Hope you will cooperate with me.
Dave in the “colorful” green suit 😉 :
You mistook the “0” for an “O”. After all why waste a perfectly good “O” when the fraud in chief is in reality a “0” (zero).
You may henceforth refer to me as the Right Reverend Doctor Christopher B Barber, BA, MDiv, PhD, CDL, PPL, and your humble servant.
Commercial Driver’s License?
Private Prayer Language?
For me a simple “Your Highness” would do.
Funny, Dave! CDL = Commercial Driver’s License. PPL = Private Pilot’s License.
You gave the other PPL just to try to get a new post out of me, didn’t you?
If it works….
So I guess the email I sent to Dr. Patterson before scrolling down about Dr. Barber having a private prayer language was unnecessary. Oops. 😉
Bawahahahaha!
At least for only two more years, “Thank God!”
Dave
IMO Montana sent a good man to the Senate. He is a Republican, supportive of the platform, yet he is a thinker. I think he will make a difference. I say this Re. you point of not “blowing this”. That is a concern that I share, however I am optimistic that maybe the Repubs can rise to the occasion and capitalize on the victory. Last night’s voting made a lot of statements that just might motivate the party in light of 2016 upcoming. I think the Clinton “steamroller” was slowed down and could be slow down some more. I do agree, put a lot of bills on the Pres. desk. That will communicate well and send a message of seriousness. As you point our there is gain even in veto.
If Sen. Ted Cruz orchestrates, instigates, or otherwise leads a government shutdown (again), it will go far in blowing all that the GOP gained last night. If all the Republican Congress does is to pass bills that are sure to get vetoed, it will go far to blow all they gained. If, on the other hand, they become willing to actually work with President Obama to get something done (in which case the ball will be in his court to work with them), it will augment their status as people interested in country over party and their chances in 2016.
John
Ted Cruz would have no reason to “orchestrate a government shutdown” because there will actually be a budget instead of continuing resolutions as Harry Reid and the Democrats push forward constantly and that’s what caused the government shutdowns.
The House passed budgets every year, and year after year the Senate never ever took one up to even debate and vote on it- much less go to conference to deal with it.
Two things: one, I prefaced it with “if,” and “if” nothing comes of it, fine. My point is that the American people are tired of the gridlock and dysfunction in Washington, which is why–as unpopular as President Obama is at this point–Congress’ approval rating is even lower. But two, if he has no reason now to shut the government down, why has he not stopped threatening it? His most recent, I understand, is that unless the Senate conducts no business between now and when the new Congress is sworn in, he will try it. And the problem with that is that government funding ends I believe Dec. 11. Seems to me Sen. Cruz is farther to the right than a good many of his Republican colleagues, and unless they bow to his agenda, he would have little problem in leading another shutdown.
Or the Dems could allow regular business order like debate, amendments. And votes on amendments (something Reid has not done) rendering filibusters and tge like unecessary.
I think Cruz has asked for regular order to be returned.
Just sayin’
No Tarheel, what he said was that Congress should conduct NO business until January. Since funding for the government expires in December (the 11th I think), that means either the government would automatically shut down for lack of action on the part of Congress, or he would lead a movement in Congress aiming at intentionally shutting government down. I hope that, like most politicians, he was just blowing hot air. Democrat or Republican, I think they all do that, and I trust one no farther than the other. There is some movie, I think the Sean Connery one where a Soviet sub captain is defecting, in which some “white house adviser,” says, “I’m a politician. That means when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their candy.” I am cynical enough to think that definition applies equally to all parties, including many who claim the name of Christ.
John
John–
Yep. The Hunt for Red October, last decent Alec Baldwin film. National Security Adviser van Pelt “Look, I’m a politician. That means when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their lollipops. But it also means I like to keep my options open….”
There’s something cynical and truthful in that line.
Was that line in the book, too?
“My point is that the American people are tired of the gridlock and dysfunction in Washington, which is why–as unpopular as President Obama is at this point–”
How could they be sick of gridlock since there has been none for the last 6 years because of Harry Rieds rules? Obama has pretty much gotten all he wanted and if not, he uses Exec orders to do so.
I am not buying the party line they must NOW compromise with Obama –because the same media/political folks were not screaming for compromise when Obama was not “working with the other side” and pushing through his agenda.
Why is “compromise” always screamed when Republicans get more reprentatives/senators?
This election was not about “working together” OR that the country is now more republican. This election was about one thing: Stopping Obama’s agenda from the IRS’ party politics to immigration to Obamacare and “keeping your doctor” lies. Enough is enough.
I am amazed the elections were that tight considering how quickly we are losing our middle class.
I just hope the repubs are smart about it.
Let him veto.
And I am allowed to have NO respect for any leader. We are a nation of LAWS. Not “leaders”. They are supposed to be public servants. It is time for the American people to remember that.
Lydia,
You said, “How could they be sick of gridlock since there has been none for the last 6 years. . . ?” Are you serious? BTW, I did not say that it was the fault of one side or the other. You want to say it was Reid’s fault? Fine, on one hand I don’t know, and on the other, I don’t care for Harry Reid anyway, never have, don’t think I ever will. But to say there is no gridlock in DC? Please!
John
Dave, you should have been here in North Carolina, if you wanted to see bad ads. And they spent 111 billion on them, just between Tillis and Hagan, the candidate and the incumbent for the US Senate. As to why the leadership will probably commit hari kari, it is because they have a close affinity with the folks who run the Democratic Party, in fact, I suspect with good cause based on research and knowledge for more years than you and most of your readers have been alive that the real controllers of both party are one and the same. This past week I received an email from a (I think it was) a tea party type who is saying that the US is gonna meet with the Chinese and other national reps in China shortly in order to figure how they can get control of the Internet as it is becoming too great a threat to their control of the whole world, something they have had for about 200 years, give or take fifty, if not more, so I think. Just consider the effort to make the Bay area in California, one big megalopolis under the United Nations, the US Constitution be damned!!! Don’t know how true this is, but I suspect there is something about it that deserves to be notice and examined as there are forces at work to dissolve this nation. Just sayin’ as some of your more noted commentators say on this blog.
111 billion?
Is it possible it was 111million?
$71.4 Million
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2014/11/05/hagan-tillis-us-senate-campaign-spending-nc.html
Dave,
I think this change was needed, maybe congress and the president will get something done. I think we have to remember John Boehner was as guilty as Harry Reid as far as sitting on the bills and not doing nothing.
I’m quite optimistic that there will be things passed, finally. I think there will not be anything passed that will hurt the average American, if it does I think the president will place a VETO stamp on it.
Mitch McConnell ran a great campaign. He won all 120 counties but seven. We will be looking to see if he keeps his promises to Kentucky. It’s hard to outwit an old Baptist like Mitch.
I’m hoping the right things will finally get done. I have my doubts, but I’m hoping anyway. I didn’t vote for Mitch, but I respect him and his office. He is a good man.
Jess
Much of what uypou say has merit. I too am hopeful but have some doubts. I would disagree however re. Reid and Boehner. They are as different as daylight and dark.
“I think this change was needed, maybe congress and the president will get something done. I think we have to remember John Boehner was as guilty as Harry Reid as far as sitting on the bills and not doing nothing.”
Look at the bills and budgets passed in the house versus ones held up and not voted on in the Senate.
The Senate was the stalemate for the passage of budgets and bills.
Facts are stubborn things.
Tarheel,
Look at the bills passed by the senate and held up by the house. It goes both ways.
When you say held up do you mean voted down because that’s what happened in the house.. There’s a difference in voting down something and holdong it up – the Senate would hold things up and not even vote on them – Republicans in the house would vote down recommendations from the Senate – there’s a big difference.
Don’t forget about the Governors! Obama and others were hit with a tsunami
Tuesday’s election had extraordinary outcomes for Republican Governors and candidates.
They defended in 22 states, and 19 incumbencies, including 9 states President Obama won twice.
The results are in:
Republcans increased the number of party governors from 29 to 31
There are seven new Republican governors: Charlie Baker (MA), Greg Abbott (TX), Larry Hogan (MD), Bruce Rauner (IL), Asa Hutchinson (AR), Doug Ducey (AZ), and Pete Ricketts (NE)
Won in the biggest and most competitive states: Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois.
They picked up 4 Democratic-held states: Arkansas, Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts. This includes two states that President Obama won twice (MD and MA) and one state that President Obama won three times, Illinois.
Governor Walker has won (comfortably) 3 gubernatorial elections in 4 years in the face of strong democrat opposition, bookos of DNC and government employee and teacher union money (oh, I repeat myself 😉 )
But putting things in perspective, while a win is a win, some of those wins were very narrow. Florida was quite slim. And in Florida, the US House lost a Republican when Southerland lost his seat to Graham. I voted for Graham in this one, one of my few times to vote for a Democrat but I am no fan of Tea Party Republicans and Southerland, though new, was trying to be the poster boy. But the Southerland/Graham vote was even narrower than Scott/Crist.
That to say, the election does not reflect a shift in national thinking so much as it reflects who decided to show up and vote, and even then the result was often narrow.
I’m just wondering what party Crist will join now.
That’s one reason why I voted for Scott. Crist’s politically expedient party jumping won him no favors from me.
Chris
I’m not so sure my friend. I think a message was sent from the voters. I understand the argument re. “who decided to show up and vote, however, the Dems knew they were in trouble so I would think they turned out, but still lost.
While it is true some were slim, some were not so slim. In some of the slim votes these ares traditionally were very strong Dem areas, hence a slim vote would be a message sent.
Of course I am just speculating time will tell. This narrative will be advanced greatly in 2016. That will reveal the thinking of the nation.
My own reflection from this campaign season:
There’s nothing that quite so well demonstrates that “There is none righteous, no, not one” while simultaneously showcasing the human propensity to consider himself and his group as utterly righteous as politics, particularly in campaign season.
Bill Mac: nice summation.
Don’t encourage him!!
Dave,
Gosh, you have a good memory. I wish I had a memory like that. I did say those things, but it wasn’t disrespectful coming from me. It’s only disrespectful coming from you, since you are our fearless leader.
Relax Dave,
I’m yanking your chain, you get too serious sometimes.
I don’t have a good memory at all. I’ve got a search function on my computer.
I suspected that you, like everyone else, engaged in this practice, so I searched comments made by you back around the time of teh last election.
We all do this. It’s not disrespectful – not when you do it or when I do it.
Dave,
I don’t know much about computers, much less their functions. I cannot bring anything up from the past. I do good to repeat what I have said an hour ago.
Well this was a tidal wave repudiation of Obama’s and the Dem’s agenda. Everywhere Rs won or nearly won in a few places they were given no chance, the candidates made it clear that Obama’s and the Dem’s policies were bad for the people and thus bad for the country. Absolute repudiation.
And in other less reported news (and when mentioned by liberal outlets it’s with little fanfare based on what I’ve seen), an African American was elected to the US Senate for the first time in the south since reconstruction! In South Carolina no less. Yes, that south Carolina, the first state to secede from the US. And he’s a Republican, which may be why there’s little made of it in the main stream press. One would think there’d be much celebration in the African American community.
And, and…A Haitian American named Mia Love ran and won in Utah, of all places. Another Republican and woman and not Caucasian. Good on the Rs.
A win is a win, is it really? Republicans took over. did they really?
This midterm is very interesting at the least. Did you know only 13% of Americans under 30 voted, and 62% of Americans elected not to vote.
Some say this was a white election, it may be. I do know things could turn around in a heartbeat with this many people electing not to vote.
Those of you who think you had a great victory, beware. I’m not saying this as a Republican or a Democrat. I am saying 62% of Americans elected not to vote. Why? I don’t know. Maybe being a midterm was the reason. I don’t know.
Jess, Those are two very sad statistics actually…. and stats that point us away from a republican form of governing to a mere democratic form that is highlighted by a charismatic front man. Unfortunately, when only 13% of Americans under 30 vote, that is indicative of how little is known of the republican form of government that our county is founded upon.
The current administration is keen on moving away from the republican based governing fundamentals, into simple majorities. That is a horrible sign for all Americans.
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/11/FT_2014.Midterm.Exit_.Poll_.Ages_.png
For comparisons.
Are you suggesting that if “more blacks “had voted that they would have all voted for Obama?
On what basis would you say that wouldn’t be political philosophy? Because if you take North Carolina for example – Sen. Hagan voted with Pres. Obama’s agenda almost every single time – so if political philosophy is the motivator why did they not vote for her?
Sen. Warner in Virginia barely squeaked by and is in the midst of a recount even though he voted 97% of the time with Pres. Obama – so if again, if political philosophy Is the motivation for voting then why would “the young”, “Nonwhites” have not come out and voted for him?
Welcome to reality. Elections have always been about voter turnout. The question is why they did not turn out? I work around a lot of African Americans who are die hard democrats and most did not vote. That really shocked me. They are silent but not happy.
I know quite a few folks who did not turn out to vote for Obama/Romney because they could not stomach Romney for which I had tons of sympathy. They simply voted for Obama by not showing up.
But at the very least, with Romney, chances are we would have had better fiscal responsibility, a coherent foreign policy and not a runaway collectivist train.
This is not a “republican win”. I totally agree. The old party lines are becoming a problem. For those of us who are libertarians, there is no where else to go to win on any fiscal front at all but vote republican. But even most of them are big government types.
I am amazed that more folks are not aware of how much richer the 1% are because of Obama yet we are losing our middle class. In my area, food stamp recipients have increased by 40% over the last 4 years with more than ever over 50 years old. There are over 6,000 people on a waiting list for government subsidized housing. The list goes on and on. There is a malaise out there reminiscent of Jimmy Carter but only worse because we now have too many government programs to cover up the worst of it and like the Romans, being entertained to death so we don’t have to think. School is so dumbed down now that most public school graduates are reading at 6th grade level. Expectations are lowest I have ever seen them. Most public universities are admitting these students because they get their money one way or the other even if they wash out.
Yet, I am libertarian when it comes to most social issues that are important to many here when voting. I just think the culture war approach has not worked. I would prefer our government focus on fiscal and foreign policy problems. Let us–as Christians– be the light of the world on the social problems.
Without a strong middle class we can kiss America as a land of opportunity, goodbye. And we are losing it. The winners need to be bold and start presenting bills the American people can read online and understand using Harry Rieds rules which is what caused this mess with NO debate on the floor. They can start with Obamacare, line by line.
Elections are bought and sold. It is nothing new, but it is a reality. I really hate that we have evolved to this point in our history. Money screams!!!
Troy
Did you know that Americans spent money on Halloween (7.45 billion) than all these 2014 federal midterm elections combined (4 billion)?
Here are some other things Americans spend more money on than federal elections.
• Laundry detergent ($5.9 billion)
• Cosmetic surgery ($7 billion)
• Dolls and action figures ($4.1 billion)
• Pet grooming and boarding ($4.4 billion)
• Tea ($10 billion)
• Surf- and skate- boards ($7.2 billion as of 2008)
• Pornography ($10-12 billion)
• Concerts ($4.3 billion)
yes, money does scream….but apparently federal elections do not scream the loudest.
Troy M. Long,
I believe you are right on.
For progressives like myself, it was a devastating evening. Rs ran at Obama and Ds ran from him, thus giving implicit credence to R verbal assults and little reason for Ds to vote. Ds actually had a strong hand, but they did not play it. Six years in, had to expect some level of discomfort; but I am hopeful, nonetheless, given a longer time horizon and changing demographics. For now, congrats Rs on your wins.
“Ds actually had a strong hand, but they did not play it.”
A “strong hand”? What “stong hand” when you don’t want the Presidential leader of your party to come near your campaign?
Lydia: “A “strong hand”? What “stong hand” when you don’t want the Presidential leader of your party to come near your campaign?”
Norm: Having a strong hand, realizing it, and then playing it as such are different matters. Rs had a weak hand, but played it well. Lesson for Rs to be learned: Play poker with a Democrat.
Continued competitive, zero-sum posturing will lead to continued gridlock, yet consequences for such have not followed conventional wisdom. Lesson for Ds to be learned: Obstruct Republicans.
Let’s hope, however, that different lessons will be learned, instead.
Norm, I think your analysis has merit. Something significantly different did take place–at least to some degree.
Obama has been very successful at bulldozing his programs through for the most part–to the complete frustration of Rs.
For example, ObamaCare is completely safe. I think there would be major backlash if the Rs tried to repeal it now–when they actually could do so. All the rhetoric aside, the Rs will not live up to their rhetoric in regard to ObamaCare–or much else I think.
This may be a “two-year period of unusual bi-partisan progress.”
At least we can hope.
Concerning ACA: Toward the development of it, Ds and Obama sought input and compromise from Rs and incorporated such, and still received no votes from Rs. While it did pass through back door processes, as did the Bush tax cut, bulldozing is a bit strong, especially given the unprecedented frequency of the filibuster by Rs. Public wants ACA (yeah, even Kentucky) when it is presented for what it is instead of as simply Obamacare. Dissatisfaction numbers include those that want single payer, which is more progressive than ACA. Nonetheless, for the bulldozing of Obama, we have the Hastert rule for Boehner. We are not going to agree on the level of messiness for particular hands, but we will agree that all hands are messy, and because of such, processes are in place that are making it difficult for many people to make ends meet.
McConnell knows repeal is a non-starter, but he has to bring it up to fulfill expectations, knowing it will be filibustered or vetoed.
I hope that Ds stand against Obama on fast-tracking TPP.
Norm, you and I must live on different planets. the one thing you do not want a midterm election to be about are kitchen table issues. there are many examples but a glaring one is how Obamacare turned out. setting aside all the startup problems, it actually turned out to be more expensive with higher deductibles and heaven help you if you can find a doctor who will carry it much less keep your own doctor. it’s the economy, stupid. Remember that? you know it’s bad when you’re reminiscing about Bill Clinton’s economy. if that is a strong hand and you and I are on different planets.
maybe you are in a position where these things do not affect you?
Lydia, if it helps, I am an American citizen.
Millions that were without healthcare are now with it, and healthcare care costs, while still rising, are rising at a lesser rate. I would suggest that is a pretty good start.
The economy is expanding, but not positively impacting me or most other Americans. Following Friedman on every aspect as is want of many Rs is not going to do much to change that.
Lydia, FYI, I have Obamacare. I got priced out of SBC insurance when I was in my early 50s. Then I had CareFirst from Blue Cross through my wife’s employment (she works for a doctor). It went up steadily and steeply every year, until last year I was paying a little over $850 per month, just for me, with a $2400 deductible and $30 copay. I went on Obamacare this year, with no financial assistance. I have CareFirst from Blue Cross, with a $1000 deductible and $20 copay. And guess what? My premiums are $563 per month, and I have the very same doctors I had before.
Now maybe I am an anomaly, I don’t know. But then it’s an ill wind that blows nobody no good.
John
John, I don’t think you are an anomaly, but you certainly are not the norm.
Do you think ObamaCare suddenly reduced the costs of healthcare in the nation so that you could have such a “great deal?”
Of course you don’t believe that. The costs is the same, but the savings you got has been shifted to others. If you feel that’s a “good wind” well then at least thank those of us who received increases to help pay for it.
There is also an ugly end to this story if things don’t change. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul forever. Sooner or later they are going to have to slice the pie into smaller pieces. That means there will be some form of “healthcare rationing.”
There is no doubt that Obama put some people on the healthcare rolls. But, it has not been those needed to pay the bills–the young and healthy.
From your post you seem to be of the age that you will most likely miss most of the “rationing” and other unintended consequences of a healthcare plan nobody read in advance. It will be your children and grandchildren who will pay the price for ObamaCare.
Frankly, I am not cool with putting this burden on my kids and grandkids.
Norm:
Honest question. What is it about the democratic platform that appeals to you?
The central theme of Rs against Obama is ACA. I like ACA. I prefer single payer, which will be coming in time, but ACA is a step in that direction.
I prefer more financial regulation and a more progressive tax structure. Upwardly transfers of wealth and rising inequality are having some very negative impacts on our communities. I think we are about to hear some very embarrassing news for the Administration concerning Wall Street and lack of prosecution to such even when confronted with evidence of abuse. In any event, financial regulation and a more progressive tax structure is more likely with Ds.
Norm,
Many of us do not prefer AFA. And we were promised that if we liked our plans and doctors, no problem. We’d be able to keep them. haw is that working out?
My charity was founded by an insurance agency owner. The agency insures docs for malpractice suits. I am in the office often and listen to what is happening in the medical field. A fair size number of docs are quitting. A health professional told me last night that many of the hospitals and medical offices where she consults are dropping Medicare altogether. Why? Payout cuts baked into the AFA. I could go on and on. And to head this off at the pass, there are a large number of docs who are not stinking rich. They and their offices, where they employ people, are hanging on by a thread.
Les, Obama wiped a little egg off his face for that, but it does not change the reality for nearly all people the plans that they could not keep were not as good as the plans that were to replace them.
Physician pay (and practice leading to such) has been problematic for some time now, and a good bit of financial concern is due to paying off student loans and setting up a practice, which are just a part of an interesting dynamic of changes in the insurance industry, education, the economy, and the government that have been developing over time. Such makes a good case for a single payer system and a greater use of evidence-based medicine.
well if you like the way the Veterans Hospital has handled things you will love Obamacare which is government managed healthcare
The VA and Obamacare are not the same thing, and neither are what is meant by single payer. The VA was doing well for some time, and gad, it has some splainin’ to do of late, but I am confident that it will eventually get back on track and provide (overall) quality care. Horror stories are not confined to this system, cases abound in the private sector, as well. And where there are problems, let’s correct them.
Structurally, when it comes to healthcare, I am pragmatic. I am for affordability, access to quality care, and results (which is a complex, inter-related concern). Affordability and access surely are moving (or will move) us to a system other than the one we have.
“””The VA was doing well for some time, “””
I wonder if you have ever been in a VA hospital? Not only am I a veteran, but I have visited many vets in VA hospitals over the last 40 years. Exactly what time is the “doing good for some time?”
I have not seen this in my experience.
That is not to say that VA doctors and nurses are not top quality care-givers. They are the bright spots in what is often a very dark part of American culture.
Jack, yes, like you, I have been in VA hospitals, but my experience, like yours, is an n of 1, and anecdotal experiences do not count as data, important as it is for interpreting context to some degree. VA hospitals are subject to accreditation reviews. As late as November of last year a good number of VA facilities were among the best medical facilities in the country, as determined by the Joint Commission, a medical facility accrediting agency.
Do midterm elections ever go well for the party of a sitting president halfway through his second term?
Chris, I don’t think they do. But this one is historically awful for the sitting president and his party.
No they normally do not…but….even in the midst of what is usually a beating by electorate to the president in power – there is normally some good news some place…
This time there was not any..I am not aware of, but could be wrong, of a single sitting republican who lost his seat..and no republican who was expected to make it close race lost…but many dems who were supposed to run away….did not….all the winning surprises were for the R’s. All the surprise loses were with dems.
In VA for example – Gillespie (R) was written off for dead months ago – Former Gov. and current senator Warner (D) is considered by the media to be “the most popular politician in either party thorough the VA electorate”…I am not sure a single poll had Gillespie within single digits the day before the election….yet he only loses by less than 1% out of over 2 million votes cast. This was a HUGE surprise. It was not supposed to be a race – but the (R) surprised the pundits. In order to win in VA Warner pretended to be a moderate – he is NOT anything of the sort – the voters saw his voting record of 97% with Obama, Reid and Pelosi and his stalwart support (until voting season when he tried his best to hide it) for both ObamaCare and liberal gun control initiatives…and we dang near voted him out despite the fact that *FESKNOVA* has more voters than the rest of the state. (*Federal Employees Socialist Kingdom of Northern VA*)
In Kansas – the R incumbent was supposed to lose…it was a “dead heat” according to the polls – what happened – he wins big!
Here in Florida, Rep. Steve Southerland was unseated from his US House seat by Dem. Gwen Graham, and that in a frequently Republican part of Florida. Granted that’s the house and not the senate, but there’s one example from my neck of the woods of a Republican incumbent who lost to a Democrat.
“Here in Florida, Rep. Steve Southerland…”
Yep, the exception proves the rule. Of and how about those governor races?
What about the Florida governor? The incumbent won, and that by a pretty slim majority.
You are right about that one race in FL – he was the only one though…anyplace…for seats in either body.
Yeah, the FL governor. What does that say about the electorate? Hmmm. You want to stack up governor races, senate races, state assemblies, house seats and go line by line and see how that looks?
Tarheel,
You sure about that? You didn’t know about Southerland; are there others you don’t know about? At any rate, it doesn’t matter. This midterm election was more or less in line with other midterms at the same point of a president’s term.
You liberals are just having a really hard time dealing with reality.
Les,
Feel free to do so if you think it makes some sort of point that hasn’t already been made.
Les,
This “liberal” almost always votes for Republican candidates. Gwen Graham was my first vote for a democrat in a long time.
Chris, no need to go race by race. We all know that it was a R tidal wave. Ds and some liberal Rs (like you) don’t want to admit it.
Let’s see if you are a conservative or liberal. Of course if you’ll answer.
1. Do think same sex marriage should be legal in all or for that matter in any states?
2. Do you favor allowing women the right to choose to abort their pregnancy? At any stage?
3. Do you favor a mandatory (by the Feds) increase in the minimum wage?
4. Do you favor leaving the ACA as is?
If you were a sitting senator, would you happily vote to affirm Scalia and Thomas to the supreme court?
Nuance away.
Les,
It was what all midterm elections are during a president’s second term. It does not mark some turning point in the national mindset nor a strong mandate for any particular party.
Chris, right. No big deal. Nothing to see here. Ask Michigan or Mass. or Maryland. But no biggie.
I’m not Chris, but since I am often accused of being a liberal on this board, I’ll answer your questions Les:
1) No
2) No, if by that you mean abortion as retroactive birth control. I think there should be exceptions, such as in cases of rape, incest, or the physical health of the mother.
3) Yes. BTW, this is not directly an issue of faith or practice, though through various passages (mostly Old Testament, but still relevant) dealing with fair dealing toward the poor, it might be.
4) Depends on what “improvements” are offered, whether they would actually improve it or gut it. See my response to Lydia.
5) Scalia: yes. Thomas: not sure; I would want more questions answered about his morals.
John
Accused of being a liberal, John. You demonstrate every time you leave a comment that you are a liberal.
Anybody who believes raising the minimum wage will help the poor very obviously can’t do simple math or they believe businesses don’t have a right to decide how much of a profit they make, a concept all thinking human beings reject.
If you have minimum skills and do minimum work, you deserve minimum wage. That is what you’re worth
John,
Thomas’ morals? Other than the political “high tech lynching” perpetrated by Democrats Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden what other questions might you have?
Joe:
If voting for Ronald Reagan, George Bush (#1), and George W. Bush (#2), each twice, makes me a liberal, so be it. If being opposed to abortion makes me a liberal, so be it. If believing that the minimum wage should have kept pace with inflation, or that it should be a uniform, national matter makes me liberal, so be it. If believing that the Senate has a duty to thoroughly investigate the background of nominees brought before it makes me a liberal, so be it. If believing that the Congress’ yes should mean yes and no mean no, rather than some politically disguised piece of legislation that does nearly the opposite of what its title says makes me a liberal, so be it. And for that matter, if believing the the Bible is the Word of God makes me a liberal, so be it.
John
Unlike the last one? Or the one before that? Or… Historically, every sitting president from the other party is always the worst president in history.
Nope. Used to be Baptist Jimmy Carter in modern times. We owe him an apology.
Throwing in an anecdote, I was in college when Bill Clinton finished his second term. I remember having serious conversations with people who were worried that he would find some way to take a third term. There were also those seriously concerned that Clinton might be the antichrist. Time has allowed people to forget all the things they didn’t like about Clinton and now he is typically spoken of in more moderate terms by people who want Obama to be named Worst President Of All Time. But make no mistake, the next Democrat to hold the presidency will wrest that title from Obama by many Republicans, just as the next Republican in office will wrest the title from Bush in the eyes of many Democrats.
We always take extreme positions and have short memories regarding current and former politicians from other parties.
Dave,
One of your points concerning Joni Ernst seemed to trivialize her accomplishments especially to those not from Iowa. As someone who has worked on a political campaign in Iowa . I miss the “Iowa Way ” and Joni Ernst was a perfect example of that style of politics.
Now lets do some castration in Washington!!!!!
Robert: “Now lets do some castration in Washington!!!!!”
Norm: An R election to a very large degree, but at any one time, there is more than one election cycle sitting in the chairs of congress, each cycle reflecting a complex viewpoint that at best is usually difficult to accurately discern. The present carries with it more than one past (with each being multidimensional and dynamic), thus realizing the multidimensional, dynamic nature of the present and its implicit complexity and ambiguity can help fashion mature, nuanced, responsible (yet uncertain to some degree), responses to societal issues. Developing responsible policy requires a level of maturity and humility that is easily pushed aside by base politics that are more given to attention grabbing rhetoric.
The Senate is historically the place where most bills go to slowly suffocate and die (or be imprisoned). Harry Reid has held the govt. hostage for the past 8 years. The problem for the Republicans is that McConnell and Boehner don’t exactly have a history of pushing forward bills that will force a President to veto or sign, they have a history of shutting down the govt. and playing for the big payoff.
As Michael Reagan noted in his commentary, “My father understood that govt. is a football game where scoring touchdowns is the goal, but you can move forward 10 yards at a time. You don’t have to throw the Hail Mary pass to get a touchdown.”
Will be interesting to see if McConnell will change his game-plan. Charles Krauthammer thinks that the Republicans should pass a bill a week and force the President to veto or pass. We’ll see.
“Will be interesting to see if McConnell will change his game-plan”
Don’t count on it. At this late date in his tenure it becomes more about their legacy WITHIN the beltway.
I would like to share a few thoughts about what Bill Mac asked Norm about what appeals to him about the Democratic party. I’m in no way answering for Norm, I’m just answering for myself.
(1) First a woman shouldn’t have to pay more for insurance because she is a woman.
(2) A woman deserves equal pay for equal work.
(3) No one should be denied health insurance, and it should be affordable.
(4) Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be cut.
(5) Ten dollars and ten cents per hour should be the minimum wage.
(6) Medicaid should be expanded to help the poor.
(7) We have to have regulations in place, particularly regulations that pertain to Wall street.
(8) Big Corporations shouldn’t have tax breaks when they ship jobs over seas.
I know you are going to ask what about abortions and gay marriage? You all can thank your Republican party for abortions and gay marriage.
Hi Jess. If I may, and of course I’m not Bill Mac. Just for myself.
(1) First a woman shouldn’t have to pay more for insurance because she is a woman.
Of course she should if she is a higher risk. I’ve spent so years in the insurance industry. If you think all people should be “insured” at the same price, you don’t understand insurance. A 30 year old man and a 30 year old woman, other risks being the same, the woman being childbearing age should pay more. The payout risk is higher for her than for him.
(2) A woman deserves equal pay for equal work. Agree.
(3) No one should be denied health insurance, and it should be affordable.
Again do you understand insurance? Or are you advocating everyone just have the govt pay for all medical procedures and visits? Private insurance companies absolutely should have the right to deny a risk they don’t think to be in their best interest.
(4) Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be cut.
Who is advocating cuts, besides the Obama administration re Medicare.
(5) Ten dollars and ten cents per hour should be the minimum wage.
This one’s silly, no offense. Why $10.10? Why not $20.10? Why not $66/hour? That’s what a union electrician employer told me last night he has to pay his electricians.
(6) Medicaid should be expanded to help the poor.
Maybe, depends on how and how to pay for it.
(7) We have to have regulations in place, particularly regulations that pertain to Wall street.
We do
(8) Big Corporations shouldn’t have tax breaks when they ship jobs over seas.
Maybe, maybe not. So reduce some of the regulatory (costs) burdens on corps and take away their incentive. Remember, corps exit to make profits for their shareholders (most of us on the forum).
Les,
I would suspect an answer like that, coming from an insurance man. The fact is a woman shouldn’t pay a higher rate for insurance because she is a woman. That’s why I’m for the Affordable Care Act.
The reason 10.10 an hour, it will not put anyone out of business. 66.1o an hour might put everyone out of business.
These are plain common sense issues that the majority of Americans want, just the majority of the republican party don’t want it.
I hate to break it to you…women do not pay higher rates simply because they are women – they pay them because there are higher costs (financial risks) associated with childbirth, etc for the insurance company…than there are for men…therefore the insurance companies charge more. It makes perfect fiscal sense.
Just like car insurance is more expensive for single men than it is for single women…as is it more expensive for young married men than it is for young married women. Why? Data demonstrates more financial risks due to higher payouts for certain groups.
Companies are in business to make money and if they provide protection against risk – it only makes sense that they charge higher premiums to those they are most likely to pay out on.
What does not make sense is that now women pay more after child bearing years because of the cost sharing plan that ObamaCare brings into play, and the “no copay” policy for abortive medications. It also does not make sense that people with grown children or no children at all must carry and pay for pediatric dental for the same cost sharing reason.
Tarheel,
My friend you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. You are just wanting to argue.
Well, please – dear, sir… explain where I am wrong.
I think you are simply full of talking points and once someone challenges those assertions – you retreat into ad hominem attacks – that tactic is common for political liberals – so I understand and do not take it personally.
🙂
Tarheel, you don’t know what your talking about. It is unfair to use evidence in a discussion. I’m disappointed. You know better.
Les,
If we have the knowledge and tools to treat, manage, and perhaps even cure life threatening conditions, and those tools are readily available at most hospitals, should an individual’s wealth be the determining factor on who lives and who dies?
“should an individual’s wealth be the determining factor on who lives and who dies?”
I can’t speak for always, but in my 57 years “an individual’s wealth” has not been a determining factor in who lives or dies. Go hang out at the ER? Scads of uninsured, poor have been getting their lives saved every day for years.
Les,
Your comment has clearly not been thought out. There is more to preventing death than just dealing with emergencies when they occur.
Clearly, huh? Well be more specific then. My answer was consistent with your broad question. I have a relative in ICU right now in another state who has neither health insurance and does not qualify for Medicaid. He’s getting the same life saving treatment you or I would get.
Les,
See my comment below.
Les, my favorite was when government got involved in health insurance and started mandating that 30 year old single man pay same as maternity coverage. How? before that it was a rider you added on.
Lydia, it is ceasing to be insurance. But that’s what some such as Norm want. Just government paying all medical costs. Yippee! Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid et al get to argue over who gets what procedures paid for, since it’s coming out of the purse which stings they hold.
Single payer. Oh goody. we can be like my friends in England on the national health to wait months and months for a colonoscopy. to start calling surgery at 8 in the morning and maybe four days later they can actually talk to someone to get an appointment. government doctors offices…just like the DMV. of course then you have to dumb down medical school to attract does she want to go to school for ever to make a little money….and so on.
Wait times are a function of many factors, which of course are aggrievated if a government does not adequately fund its system, and an especially cruel thing if funding is cut for theoretical reasons that do not enjoy empirical support.
I have an insurance plan. I waited two months for one procedure this year. Seldom do I get in to see a physician on the day I call for an appointment. Not everything requires a physician’s visit, either.
I don’t ignore your point and where it is problematic, let’s resolve the issues facilitating such. We need more physicians, more GPs, but there is little incentive for individuals to go the GP medical route. Let’s provide the incentives and the support.
No Norm, It is government mentality. And yes it has spread to conglomerates. Especially those who are beholden to government.
What would you then suggest that we do with government, Lydia?
Have less government micro managing our lives. if Obamacare is so wonderful why is Congress exempted?
Why are you so against individual choice?
Lydia: (1) Have less government micro managing our lives. (2) if Obamacare is so wonderful why is Congress exempted? (3) Why are you so against individual choice?
Norm: (1) Surely we don’t want congress involved where it makes little sense, on that we can agree, but we will disagree on some issues where it should be involved. But talk of starving government, then drowning it is, well, simplistic thinking, notwithstanding its power to influence. (2) Good question. Might have something to do with keeping one’s plan. Still, you raise a good question concerning example. (3) Single payer preserves choice, but not absolute choice. With the rise of managed care, we all have some limits placed on our choices, assuming we don’t want to fund 100% of our medical care out of our own pocket.
On healthcare, when I was a pastor, I had no health insurance. The church couldn’t afford to provide it and I wasn’t paid enough to afford it for myself. I was diagnosed with pretty severe high blood pressure and all doctor’s visits and medications had to be paid out-of-pocket. The doctors wanted me to take an additional series of tests to see if the extended period I’d had very high blood pressure had done any damage to my heart which might explain pain I’d been having. I couldn’t afford the tests any more than I could afford insurance so I had to decline. Had there been a serious problem, it could have taken me out because I couldn’t afford proper treatment. While adjusting to the medication, there were a few instances when I should have gone to the ER. I was later scolded rather seriously by the doctor for not going. Once again it worked out but easily could have gone the other way. I didn’t go because I could not afford it.
Fortunately, my current job provides good insurance which provides more options for monitoring and treating any issues.
It is a cop out to say people have options. There are many people who are in the same situation I used to be in. They cannot afford treatment that will prevent life-threatening situations and cannot afford treatment when those life-threatening situations arise. Should they die just for not having money when we do have the means to treat them?
No they should not just die. They should search until they find a doc who will treat them. They are out there in every state.
when I was a kid anybody could walk into a Baptist Hospital, Jewish Hospital or a Catholic hospital and get treatment and not pay if they could not afford it. I know how it worked because my dad was on a hospital board back then and they we’re quite serious about treating the needy.
it all became very complicated and very expensive when government got involved so heavily.
Lydia, I think you are oversimplifying the situation when you say, “it all became very complicated and very expensive when government got involved so heavily” regarding health care costs. Maybe some–I really don’t have the background to answer that. But there are other significant aspects too. Student debt is one, the astronomical debt so many doctors have when they come out of medical school. Then there is the cost of medical equipment and tests. An MRI machine for instance costs a lot more than a simple x-ray machine. And yes part of the cost of today’s x-rays are related to government regulations, but that relates to safety standards. Back in the “good old days” there was little or no shielding on x-ray machines, because the dangers were so little understood. There is a famous fluoroscope movie of a root canal done back in the early 1900s. They had the poor guy and the poor dentist being x-rayed continuously for an hour or so–they probably both glowed in the dark after that. My wife’s step-grandfather was among the soldiers close to ground zero in the post-WWII above-ground nuclear bomb tests, and when he died, he had so many kinds of cancer they quit counting. Again: dangers were unknown, but government regulations both keep people safer and make working with nuclear materials more expensive. I am glad government regulations establish safety standards today. Or would you volunteer to be in one of those situations?
John
Chris
I understand your argument. Things are viewed more clearly when one is personally involved. What you described as an uninsured person of course is an issue, and should not happen.
However one has to look at the big picture and how it impacts society as a whole, not how it effects one single individual. In countries where government is in charge more people will die or suffer than in our country. I have had two procedures that were necessary at that very moment. If I was put on a waiting list for even a week I would have died.
Every one deserves medical care, no double about it. There are better options however than what Obama care advocates.
I had a friend who worked the ER in a major city. When a person hit the room with a gun shot, car accident, or whatever he had no knowledge of who or who did not have insurance. Everyone was given the same care.
D.L.,
A lot gets said criticizing waiting periods of other countries. I wonder how accurate those criticisms are and how many are just unsubstantiated talking points. How many people have died due to delayed care, and how does that compare to what happens here. How does the speed of care here compare with the number of people who die because they couldn’t afford the same care to begin with. The procedures you needed right away were no doubt found during a doctor’s visit; how many people aren’t able to have that doctor’s visit and die from issues that had been unknown.
Would the government track such things about themselves? the interesting thing about the National Health in England is that it is their normal. you have two generations that don’t know anything different. beware what you want to become your normal.
BTW, I have no problem with the government offering affordable health insurance to people who need it. That is not what Obamacare is. It has caused everyones insurance to increase.
Part of the point of my question is: are those waiting lists due in part because there are more people receiving the same care? Wouldn’t that indicate something about whether or not people in the US are receiving care that they need but can’t get?
Just look at the scale. there is a huge difference between serving 30 million people and 300 million people. even the bureaucracy to do the latter would be massive
Comparing the numbers. I apologize in advance if these numbers challenge some of the unsubstantiated claims being made about the significance of this midterm election compared to previous midterms in the midst of a sitting president’s second term.
The change in Senate is roughly the same as in 2006, but Democrat House gains were significantly stronger in 2006 than Republican gains in 2014. Governor gains were also slightly stronger for Democrats in 2006 than Republican gains in 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2014
Change in the Senate in 2006:
Republicans lost 6, Democrats gained 5, Independents (Joe Liberman) gained 1.
Change in the Senate in 2014:
Republicans gained 7, Democrats lost 7.
Changes in the House in 2006:
Republicans lost 30, Democrats gained 31.
Changes in the House in 2014:
Republicans gained 12, Democrats lost 12.
Changes in Governors in 2006:
Republicans lost 6, Democrats gained 6.
Changes in Governors in 2014:
Republicans gained 3, Democrats lost 3.
Drat, included two links in my comment and it got blocked by moderation. Trying again without links.
Comparing the numbers. I apologize in advance if these numbers challenge some of the unsubstantiated claims being made about the significance of this midterm election compared to previous midterms in the midst of a sitting president’s second term.
The change in Senate is roughly the same as in 2006, but Democrat House gains were significantly stronger in 2006 than Republican gains in 2014. Governor gains were also slightly stronger for Democrats in 2006 than Republican gains in 2014.
Look on Wikipedia for elections in 2006 and 2014. Here’s the one for 2014, you can just replace 2014 with 2006 to get it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2014
Change in the Senate in 2006:
Republicans lost 6, Democrats gained 5, Independents (Joe Liberman) gained 1.
Change in the Senate in 2014:
Republicans gained 7, Democrats lost 7.
Changes in the House in 2006:
Republicans lost 30, Democrats gained 31.
Changes in the House in 2014:
Republicans gained 12, Democrats lost 12.
Changes in Governors in 2006:
Republicans lost 6, Democrats gained 6.
Changes in Governors in 2014:
Republicans gained 3, Democrats lost 3.
Chris, I’ll take a look. But y first thought is, how did the senate even change majorities? Hmmm. There must be more info somewhere. And despite this quote below, a few Ds get that this was a tidal wave. Wonder where they even get that idea.
“Denial: It’s a river that runs through the Democratic Party.”
Les,
The numbers are what they are. I’m not commenting on whether or not this was a tidal wave, I’m commenting that this election is not unusual for midterm elections during a president’s second term – and I’ve substantiated that claim by comparing it with 2006 where there change was even more significant than 2014.
Chris, I’m running out the door (already late) for a friend’s new grandson celebration with some cigars and adult beverages. Back later…
Les
Adult beverages….is that a coke served in a glass with a picture of a naked lady with a clock where her stomach ought to be? 🙂
And this quote from the link where you got your stats,
“The elections saw sweeping gains by the Republican Party in the Senate, House, and in many gubernatorial elections, as well as state and local races. The Republicans gained control of the Senate for the first time since 2006, and increased their majority in the House.[3] The Republicans also gained several seats in governors’ races, defeating one incumbent Democrat and picking up three seats vacated by retiring Democrats.”
Hmmm.
Les,
62% of eligible voters didn’t vote in this election.
How does that line up with other elections?
Jess, and your point is?
Les,
My point is that so called victories can be short lived.
All I have to say is in what world would Jesus not want the hungry fed, the naked clothed, and the sick taken care of. The churches cannot handle a responsibility like this. It has to take the government. There is nothing wrong with big government to take care of the needs of the people.
What really disturbs me is folks being so politically minded that they cannot see anything but a political party because of being brain washed.
There is nothing wrong with being a Republican or a Democrat, but we have to hold on to certain values the bible teaches. We can have views of both parties and there is nothing wrong with that.
I hate the Republican party because they handed us abortion and gay marriage. I still like some things they stand for. I like the Democratic party because of some things they stand for.
If we can bail out Wall Street we can lower interest rates on student debt.
We still can do what Jesus wants us to do, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, take care of the sick. There is nothing wrong with that, matter of fact it’s a good thing if everyone in America had Health Insurance. Ten dollars and ten cents per hour is still not good enough for those who work, but someone has to fill those jobs. Maybe it might mean a little more in the offering plate on Sunday. You preachers ought to be for that, Amen?
Don’t be so involved in one party that you think that is all there is, for then you will be blinded and not see the truth. What would Jesus do, not what the Republican, or Democrat party would do. Was Jesus being a Socialist when he fed the hungry? I think he was.
Jess,
What kind of weed are you smoking?
“I hate the Republican party because they handed us abortion and gay marriage.” That was the “demonrats” and their liberal supreme court that gave us abortion. Gay marriage is a liberal/progressive invention irrespective of political party although the “demonrats” are certainly pushing it more than even the “log cabin Republicans”.
Only the most irrational person in the world blames Republicans for gay marriage.
Jake Barker,
Look up how many Republican appointed Supreme Justices there was in 1973, Roe VS Wade. There were 6 only 3 Democrat appointed Justices. Right now there are 5 conservative Justices and 4 liberal Justices is why we have gay marriage. In 1962 and 63 the Republican appointed Justices voted with the Democrat appointed Justices to take prayer and bible reading out of schools. Mitch McConnell’s recommended a man to George Bush and he is the very same judge that said Kentucky had to accept Gay marriages from out of state.
I ask you what kind of weed are you on.
Jess,
The SCOTUS has never ruled on gay marriage yet.
John Wylie,
You are probably right, but they refused to vote on the issue and turned it back to the states. So I cannot see much difference. The Judges could have voted on it, or maybe not, they could have not wanted to. Here is possibly another reason they didn’t, a thing called the constitution. Nevertheless they are at fault. Thank you for mentioning that. I’m not right all the time. Just when it comes to politics, I’m right about 99% of the time.
John, what I try to do when everyone if for something is to search and see what the truth may be. When I find it, I try to stick to it, regardless of the opposition.
Jess,
Since you are interested in the truth let me break it down for you, gay marriage and abortion are both Democrat issues. We all know it and you know it as well.
I’ve seen and read for many law scholars have indicated that the Supreme Court may have punted on the issue of gay marriage simply because there was not a contradiction within the federal appellate courts in the case that was brought to them. There was no conflict And therefore nothing for them to rule on. That’s actually a very conservative approach one that does not seek to legislate from the bench but one that seeks to settle legal conflict and dispute.
Anyway, that may be changing soon because now we do have an appellate court that has upheld states rights to define marriage – so now on the appellate level there is disagreement – there is conflict – therefore the Supreme Court will likely take out the case –if those little scholars who indicated that the reason was absence of conflict that they didn’t rule last time.
Maybe so.
Here’s a link to a Tennessee news story about the Federal appellate court ruling that affirms States rights to define marriage.
http://m.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/nov/07/gay-marriage-ban-upheldruling-sets-the-stage-for/
Hopefully, Obama will not try to do major immigration reform by executive order without congressional approval.
John Wylie,
Brother, I’m not laughing at you, but your comment is out of this world.
You are placing blame on Democrats for something the Republicans authored in the courts. That is typical Faux News reporting. I compare that to hanging the citizen for embracing the separation of church and state.
Those of you that think the Republicans are so righteous, I wonder what Jesus would have done if he set on the Supreme court and those cases came up before him.
Did you all know a Supreme court Justice can be impeached, but it’s something that is never done. Since the Republicans are in control of the House and Senate they have the power to impeach all the liberal members of the Supreme court. Will they do it, of course not, they would be opening Pandora’s box. This country couldn’t survive something of that nature, we would no longer be the United States of America.
The silly House has mentioned impeaching President Obama, I think that would be devastating for the Republican party. I think it would ensure a democrat president and a democrat senate and house. Look, the politicians are going to have to start working for the people and not themselves.
Now who clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about?
According to article 1 section 3 of the United States Constitution federal judges may only be impeached by the Congress for bad behavior. Presumably Akin to these statements allowing for the impeachment of the president…..bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Impeaching Justices just because you don’t like the rulings would lead to judicial and political chaos.
Also I challenge you to demonstrate where the way we identify Republicans today is appropriately analogous to Republicans of the 50s – 70’s.
… And by the way – I support separation of church and state is documented by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danberry Baptist Association – problem is most political liberals/progressives like yourself who use the phrase separation of church and state do not mean it is Thomas Jefferson did – they mean that the church and specifically Christians should stay out of government affairs – that is not what Jefferson meant, and that is not what he said.
Separation of church and state assures that the state would not interfere with the church and will not dictate what type of religion people must adhere to you – it in no way means that religion and Christianity in particular should be completely excluded from the public square particularly politics.
I don’t know anyone who thinks Christians should stay out of government affairs. Church, however, should definitely stay out of government affairs.
I do know many people who think Christians should not seek to enact legislation that favors churches or other religious groups, legislation that codifies religious behavior, or legislation based on religious ideology.
Sir, many, many, many commonly accepted laws within our nation, verified by inscriptions on governmental buildings and structures, are “based in religious ideology.”
If you do not believe me – look at the capitol rotunda, and on the wall behind the justices at the SCOTUS (two name just two) the next time you do a walking tour of DC. 😉
…and lots of our laws “codify behavior” espoused by religion.
There are laws which share principles with religious ideology – “though shalt not steal” is a fairly universal maxim – so I’m clearly talking about laws which have no foundation other than the religious. Ie, blue laws, a number of laws regarding sexual behavior (anti-sodomy laws), etc.
Chris, you speak of laws that are “pretty much universal.” You speak of laws that have a religious affinity with political laws, and some that don’t.
You make a good point for the existence of an Eternal Lawgiver. Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever for laws other than the “power of someone” to impose his or her will on someone else.
This is why the famous atheist, Nietzsche, spoke of the “ubermansk,” and the “will to power.” Any idea of civility or harmony is absurd unless there is an eternal Ground for such notions.
Therefore, it seems that “all” laws are based upon religious notions, and therefore a sense of law apart from some religious notion is absurdity.
Jack,
A nice assertion which is unfortunately short on evidence. I know I don’t want people stealing my stuff. It doesn’t take much to go from there to thinking perhaps I shouldn’t steal their stuff either or to establish laws against stealing to help ensure my stuff doesn’t get stolen. No need for an eternal ground except in the imagination of theists who evidently wouldn’t do good unless their God forced them to.
Chris, I wrote a moderate length answer to your response but erased it.
I don’t see the point in discussing matters with you. Your “evidence” is simply to state that those who disagree with you have “no evidence,” no matter how much evidence we present.
So, you believe atheists and secularists, like the ACLU for example, can group together to affect legislations, but Christians are not afforded the same right.
Of course, this double standard rules our day and government tries to intimidate Christians grouping together because the government will face the same fate as every other empire–Christianity will thrive and conquer the hearts of people.
I believe is atheists are afforded the right to join together for political action according to their faith beliefs, then churches are afforded that same Constitutional privilege.
Laws forbidding churches from participating like all other groups of Americans in the political arena are unconstitutional and should be ignored.
There is “no” provision in the Constitution forbidding the free exercise of Christianity in the public arena. It is a figment of the secularist imagination.
The fact that it is a commonly held belief does not validate it as true. It used to be a commonly held belief the earth was flat–except for those that read the Bible.
America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values. This is an unequivocal fact of history. When all vestiges of Christianity are finally erased from the marketplace of ideas in our nation, America will fade into obscurity.
Jack,
I believe any group can do what they choose as long as it’s in the boundaries of the law. This includes Christians. I don’t like folks going against God’s word, but it is their right. Jack, I wish there wasn’t any sin at all, but Adam, probably a Democrat, fixed that for us by following Eve, probably the first Republican.
“”””Just when it comes to politics, I’m right about 99% of the time.””””
I guess humility is a virtue that only applies to spiritual matters.
Jess, you are cracking me up. So you vote democrat then look to the republican appointed Supremes to stop the implementation of your party’s platform?
Lydia,
Please think about what you are saying, and compare it to what I’ve said, that there are some good in both parties.
Bible thumpers is what is wrong with this country. This is what I mean by Bible thumpers, someone who thumps someone over the head with their Bible and cannot see their own sin. Some not willing to get dirty in the mud, blood, and beer to try to reach the lost and then put people down for being sinners. A Bible thumper is someone that get up and change pews because someone sits down beside them that doesn’t look presentable. A Bible thumper will not be caught hanging around a gay person or someone of a different color.
The last that I heard, it was a right in this country to be either a saint or sinner. You cannot legislate or force someone to accept Christ, that is called Bible thumping.
The fact of the matter is we should love everyone, not only those who love us, but everyone. The problem occurs when we say we love everyone but do not back it up by actions.
I wish everyone was saved, but they are not. We must witness to those who are not and weep because they haven’t seen the light.
Lydia, I’m not calling you a Bible thumper, but sometimes there is a fine line. Regardless what some say here on Voices, there is a difference between Law and Grace. (Biblical speaking).
The Republican’s made the Laws, Democrat’s accepted the laws by Grace. Now, you Republican’s are angry at the Democrat’s because they embraced the laws that your party passed. I don’t care who you are, that right there is funny! As one of my ancestors probably once said, the white man speaks with forked tongue, he probably had some experiences with Republican’s. Yes, I have some Native American in my blood, and proud of it, so does my wife.
I really enjoy how many here on Voices not only stick your feet in your mouth, but all the way to the knee. Don’t feel bad, I’ve done it a few times myself.
Jess, I find your arrogance surprising. First of all, I don’t care who made laws that are bad, they are still bad. Hitler made his own laws and millions died.
Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of how much one loves Democrats, or Republicans.
I also find it sad that this current Administration has taken “speaking with a forked tongue” to new levels and you have no problem with it.
I will say that you are consistent: when the Democrats are in power you blame the Republicans. When the Republicans are in power you blame the Republicans. As I said, you are consistent . . . but then again, so is the Devil so I don’t think consistency is necessarily a mark of virtue.
Jack,
My friend, since I pointed out who the guilty party was, now you are defending them by saying you don’t care.
You are saying the same thing I have been saying, right is right and wrong is wrong. I don’t understand your argument, because I have already said there are some good in both parties. I just happen to agree with the Democrats more.
There is no way that I’m arrogant. I just know when I am right.
Here is how I see the political issue, the D’s and the R’s cancel one another out when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. Both parties are guilty and ungodly. I do blame the Republicans more, and rightly so. Now, what is left? Democrats are for helping the people, Republicans are for helping the rich, and maybe a little will trickle down to the poor.
Ronald Reagan was the first person to dip into Social Security. That shouldn’t have happened. I believe health care should be free for all. I believe if someone is on drugs and receives public assistance they should receive treatment or goodbye public assistance. They should receive drug tests, to make sure they remain clean.
Mega church Pastors, like Dave Miller should pay a lot more in taxes than us little preachers like Bart Barber.
Yes, a few things need to be tweaked.
Jess,
About your oft repeated “legalized elective abortion is republicans fault…”
In case you missed it – I ask again.
“I challenge you to demonstrate where the way we identify Republicans today is appropriately analogous to Republicans of the 50s – 70’s.”
I know this question requires thought and research and will force you beyond your HuffingtonPost talking points…but trust me – it’ll be good for you.
🙂
Jess actually said – “There is no way that I’m arrogant. I just know when I am right.”
Bawahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The irony – it BURNS!
Bawahahahahahhahahahhahahha
I can’t stop laughing…really…this is funny!
Jess:
What does this mean? Do you mean doctors, nurses and hospitals should not be paid for their services? Do you mean drug companies should give away their products? Should medical schools have free tuition and room and board? Should publishers print medical texts and journals for free? Should medical researchers work for free?
Nice deflection, Jess
Tarheel,
If you have read the previous comments, you would read where I said our recent supreme court decision was not to act and turned the gay marriage issue back to the states. That is not the 70’s Supreme court.
Tarheel, you have no argument whatsoever. I think you like to watch yourself type, or read your own comments. Bawahwawawawawa!
Jess,
Really? Are you serious right now?
If you had read what I said above there’s a likelihood that the court will now act because there is a conflict in the appellate jurisdiction. When the case cane to them before there was no conflict or nothing for them to rule on – while I wish that they had taken up the case because it does need to be settled – I understand why they did not because unlike liberals and conservatives do not like to legislate from the bench – so since there was no conflict on which for them to rule – they punted until another case came before them – and it looks as if one is on his way now if you look at the link that I posted above.
I think it’s patently obvious to anyone reading this thread that you were the one who is arguing for the sake of arguing and has no logical basis for your arguments except your own preconceived progressive agenda.
You’re not arguing facts, you ignore evidence presented that doesn’t fit into your motif, and you are arguing under the banner of pure emotionalism – all of which again is something I’m very used to when debating progressives so again I’m not taking it personally.
Tarheel,
My friend you have no evidence, what you said did sound pretty, but empty.
I will not comment anymore on this post. I will talk to you all Monday or Tuesday, maybe, because I’m giving my computer to my grandson. He needs it more than I do. I also need the exercise of being outside and working.
John, I am actually pleased that Obamacare has been a better deal for you. I have seen the opposite for most of the people I know who are in their fifties lost their jobs and needed health care. we hear a lot about the young not being able to find jobs but I will tell you the middle aged are really getting hammered by this economy.
the worst thing that ever became our normal is putting health insurance benefits with a job. that came about many years ago as a benefit to unions without raising wagesback when health care insurance was cheap.
the folks I am talking to who are in their fifties and above we have lost their jobs and tried to get Obamacare when they can finally get on the siteare finding not only their premiums are very high and extremely high deductibles and not being able to choose their doctor. One reason is that many doctors are not and what the site had told more money was taken out of their bank account and what the site had told them.
all of this control and cross referencing with the IRS is making me very nervous. this past year I was told I owe the government $400. they literally just took it out of my taxes. but it was not for taxes. a letter from the Treasury Department came that told me I owed $400 but would not tell me for what or why. have you ever tried to call the Treasury Department? finally after months of dealing with this I wrote my senatorwho is only able to express sympathy. why not just go along with this and not question because that’s what you many Americans are doing. finally after months of trying to get an answer I was told it was money overpaid to my dead mother in the 1970’s after my father died.
this is unacceptable by government. as I looked into this I found at hundreds of thousands of people had this done to them for things they personally did not owe.
is this really the government we want an oligarchy that can simply confiscate what they want when they want? we need to wake up we are running out of timebecause this sort of government is becoming the normal.
Lydia, you don’t have to tell me that this economy is bad for a lot of folks, including those 50 plus. I completely agree. Nor will I defend most of President Obama’s policies and decisions; in fact, you and I would probably agree on the vast majority of those. And never will I defend what the IRS says or does. Yes, personally I would love to see that agency, and all it stands for done away with. However, I do not see that happening, short of the total collapse of the United States. There was a time when the government operated on revenues raised by import and export taxes, with a few other items taxed here and there. But that was in the days when armies were equipped with rather primitive weapons, and soldiers with minimal training. For instance, my father went into the National Guard in the early 1930s, and was in an anti-tank squad. They were armed with a single-shot 37 mm gun; it might have stopped one of those little Renault tanks used in World War I, but against a Panzer? Really? They might not have even noticed that it hit them. My point is that today’s world requires more sophisticated and expensive weapons, and the tax methods of the 19th Century will not support that. Oh, I know there is a lot of waste in the government at every level, and I am all for eliminating that. And if the IRS or any other Federal agency tries to make one person responsible for someone else’s finances, that is an excess and overreach that should be stopped. I guess what I am getting at is that a lot of people get so angry at such things that they are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I really do not understand your comment that the “worst thing that ever became our normal is putting health insurance benefits with a job.” Are you defending corporate America’s burning desire to minimize wages, as the “robber barons” did in the 19th Century? Are you saying that insurance should be the absolute responsibility of an individual, paying whatever the insurance companies demand, and the alternate is simply no insurance, so that they either die or seek treatment at ER’s and free clinics? What exactly are you saying?
John
tying benefits to a job is one of the worst things we can do if we want an entrepreneurial nation. there are way too many layers on this issue to unpeel for a blog comment. but the idea of trying benefits to a job is extremely socialistic.
. my employers should not be involved at all in my health decisions or coverage. neither should the IRS but that is where it is going.
before benefits were tried to jobs what did people do? they bought catastrophic health insurance and paid for doctor visits out of their own pockets. that would be almost impossible to do today, I realize that because we are in way too deep in many areas. but it did keep doctors office visits at lower rates because competition was a factor. competition is good. It brings better services and products to consumers. and we are losing that too.
John, I foresee a day when there are twinkie police in most organizations. It is coming. and it will be our normal.
VA hospitals are a perfect example of what happens to good caregivers in a horrible system. it is the government system that is the problem. the people who work in the system either conform to the system or they leave. the older vets that I know won’t go near the place.
yes there are problems in other non government healthcare institutions if there is such a thing anymore. but they are not the depth and breadth of the problems of the VA system. in other healthcare systems people actually have recourse. they will not have that in government run healthcare institutions.something else to keep in mind as you give away your choices two big brother.