[stupendousman]

With the big losses tonight, I think a clear message has been sent.

No longer can the Democrats cater to special interests and a narrow political point of view. They need to bring to their party a "big tent" with a diversity of viewpoints. They need to court more moderate and independent voices who won't bend to the will of the party bosses like Pelosi and Reed, and who will help the Republicans bring about the stuff that's really important to "the people"....

...okay, I can't go on any longer. LOL

This of course was a parody of what Democrats and the media say whenever Republicans lose elections. Forget the fact that they've had more Presidents the past 40 years or so, and until 2 years ago controlled some or all of Congress for about 12 years - it's the Republicans who need advice on how to win - and the advice is almost always to be more like the Democrats even when in order to win Democrats often have to pretend to be a lot more conservative than they really are (see election 2008 for example).

Actually, I think both parties should stick to a set of core values and let the American people decide which ideas are the best. Political parties are essentially brands, and any good marketeer will tell you that you can not successfully market a brand as something that is all things to all people. PIck a stand, explain why it's important, and let the people decide. Everything else about "big tents" is pretty much meaningless in the long run. It normally will only help the people who are suggesting it for their opponents.

Carry on....

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The first paragraph of your parody should read:

No longer can the Democrats cater to special interests and a narrow political point of view. They need to bring to their party a "big tent" with a diversity of viewpoints. They need to court more moderate and independent voices who won't bend to the will of the party bosses like Moore and Stewart, and who will help the Republicans bring about the stuff that's really important to "the people"....


You forgot to demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between an elected official and a media personality.

[turtle777]

Just wait till stumblin' Mike comes and tries to brainwash us all into how this election proved that Obama is da shiznit

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Republicans just as much as Democrats sometimes make the mistake of reading every little thing that goes their way as: "Victory! Everybody loves us! It's over for the other side!"

Personally, I don't see any of this as anything to get too excited over. At best, it could be a warning to some of the blue dog Dems that they got elected not because conservative areas went liberal, but because people were just voting against the other party. So tow the lefty agenda, and you may be kicked out. That's at best.

To Obama and Democrats from Dem strongholds, I don't think this means much of anything other than if they're counting on the blue dogs to ramrod more crap legislation through, it might take a little more arm-twisting.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Just wait till stumblin' Mike comes and tries to brainwash us all into how this election proved that Obama is da shiznit

-t

We turned on MSNBC for a good laugh, and that was the case they were trying to make, more or less.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The first paragraph of your parody should read:

No longer can the Democrats cater to special interests and a narrow political point of view. They need to bring to their party a "big tent" with a diversity of viewpoints. They need to court more moderate and independent voices who won't bend to the will of the party bosses like Moore and Stewart, and who will help the Republicans bring about the stuff that's really important to "the people"....


You forgot to demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between an elected official and a media personality.

Stewart?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Stewart?

Yes, Jon Stewart, leader of the Democrat Party.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yes, Jon Stewart, leader of the Democrat Party.

How on earth does a comedian who mocks the Democrats about as much as anybody else deserve that title?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How on earth does a comedian who mocks the Democrats about as much as anybody else deserve that title?

I'm pretty sure his statement is primarily sarcastic- echos of how many call Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck the leaders of the Republican party.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Republicans just as much as Democrats sometimes make the mistake of reading every little thing that goes their way as: "Victory! Everybody loves us! It's over for the other side!"

True, but I can't remember the last time Republicans came into power and tried to ramrod things through that really only appealed to their base and was widely unpopular. Usually, you've got to wait for a few years for what they've done to be unpopular. :lol

Personally, I don't see any of this as anything to get too excited over. At best, it could be a warning to some of the blue dog Dems that they got elected not because conservative areas went liberal, but because people were just voting against the other party. So tow the lefty agenda, and you may be kicked out. That's at best.

True, but I do think that this mixed with polling which shows that people aren't happy with the current agenda is a very dangerous sign for the Democrats. I think Harry Reid has seen the signs and just last night said that the health care reform wouldn't be pushed through this year. If they plan on pushing a public option on the people in an election year - GOOD LUCK!

If Obama would actually govern the way he campaigned he would, and was the guy he pretended to be during the campaign, I don't think we'd be seeing these ominous signs and he'd have a higher approval rating than hovering around 50% or under as well. It doesn't matter to me if he's got a "big tent" or not. If he choses to cater to the extremes of his base who support unpopular ideas, he will fail.

[Dork.]

Actually, there are a lot of messages for both parties here. In Virginia, (according to Pravda) the Republican ran a campaign to appeal to moderates, while the Democrat hammered the Republican on some college paper he wrote twenty years ago about women and forgot about talking about the issues. The Republican won.

Meanwhile, in Northern New York State, the candidate the local Republican leaders picked for the special election (who knew the local issues well) was deemed "not conservative enough" by the national Conservative Media Elite, and they ran the candidate out of town. They backed someone who didn't even live in the district running on the Conservative line, Sarah Palin twittered a bit, and the Conservative candidate lost. Some areas in that district will have a Democrat representing them in Congress for the first time in over 100 years. You can't argue that the Democrat won this one because the district was full of mindless liberals, he had to appeal to moderates and Conservatives to get the votes he needed. (Although I'm sure we will have folks coming out of the woodwork here soon blaming it all on ACORN.)

The message I get out of this is that the party that can best appeal to moderates, keep its lunatic fringe out of the campaign, and stick to issues the voters care about is most likely to win. That, and everything Sarah Palin touches turns to sh!t.

[BadKosh]

The main point forgotten by the Dem's is "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!"

Our local radio guys (Fred Grandy & Andy Parks) noticed that both people who Obama stumped for both lost, while Biden stumped for the winner in NY.

[OldManMac]

It's the Democratic party.

[Atheist]

The Virginia election results mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Since the 1970's the governor has always been from the opposing party of the U.S. President.

[BadKosh]

Except the almost 20 percent is far above the margins from previous elections. Face it. People are pissed at the Tax-n-Spend-spend-spend. Will you say this next year when the Dems become a minority in Congress?

[Dork.]

The Democrats will not become a minority in Congress if the Republican Party keeps banishing all its moderates.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Actually, there are a lot of messages for both parties here. In Virginia, (according to Pravda) the Republican ran a campaign to appeal to moderates, while the Democrat hammered the Republican on some college paper he wrote twenty years ago about women and forgot about talking about the issues. The Republican won.

Meanwhile, in Northern New York State, the candidate the local Republican leaders picked for the special election (who knew the local issues well) was deemed "not conservative enough" by the national Conservative Media Elite, and they ran the candidate out of town. They backed someone who didn't even live in the district running on the Conservative line, Sarah Palin twittered a bit, and the Conservative candidate lost. Some areas in that district will have a Democrat representing them in Congress for the first time in over 100 years. You can't argue that the Democrat won this one because the district was full of mindless liberals, he had to appeal to moderates and Conservatives to get the votes he needed. (Although I'm sure we will have folks coming out of the woodwork here soon blaming it all on ACORN.)

The message I get out of this is that the party that can best appeal to moderates, keep its lunatic fringe out of the campaign, and stick to issues the voters care about is most likely to win. That, and everything Sarah Palin touches turns to sh!t.

I agree that the candidates need to stick to the issues, and offer solutions and discus them in detail, but just like the Democrats also play to their far nutcase left, so the Republicans need to also play to the far nutcase right. The "Silent Majority" (those religious right types aren't really fringe like some of the other groups, but I consider them a special interest group) also listen to conservatives, and if they aren't conservative enough, they seem to stay home on election day.

The useless Warshington Poast didn't endorse any winners did they?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Except the almost 20 percent is far above the margins from previous elections. Face it. People are pissed at the Tax-n-Spend-spend-spend. Will you say this next year when the Dems become a minority in Congress?

I don't know if you actually followed the VA campaign, but Creigh Deeds was one of the worst candidates for governor of any party in recent U.S. history and his campaign was a disaster. Most VA Dems conceded this one a long time ago. I don't think anyone was surprised by the margin. It's unfortunate that the White House decided to get Obama out there to stump for him in a futile last-minute advertising push. He should have stayed far away from both the VA and NJ races, just like George W. Bush did in 2001 (when the Dems won the governorship in both states), and there would be a lot less talk about this "referendum."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The Democrats will not become a minority in Congress if the Republican Party keeps banishing all its moderates.

Which winning moderates has it banished?

[The Final Dakar]

Man, partisanship must be at an all time high. We're down to watching off-year elections to justify ourselves.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't know if you actually followed the VA campaign, but Creigh Deeds was one of the worst candidates for governor of any party in recent U.S. history and his campaign was a disaster. Most VA Dems conceded this one a long time ago. I don't think anyone was surprised by the margin. It's unfortunate that the White House decided to get Obama out there to stump for him in a futile last-minute advertising push. He should have stayed far away from both the VA and NJ races, just like George W. Bush did in 2001 (when the Dems won the governorship in both states), and there would be a lot less talk about this "referendum."

Yes, I 'live' in Loudoun County, and watch all the political BS... It's show business for ugly people. Deeds radio ads were crap. I also thought the Post, known to be in the tank for Obama didn't help with their endorsements. Everybody they endorsed was someone I wouldn't vote for. I moved out of Fairfax County in '04 just because the county government was a bunch of "AH's. Loudoun only sucks half as much.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How on earth does a comedian who mocks the Democrats about as much as anybody else deserve that title?

Heh. I was gonna say "keep turning it over in your brain, it'll eventually dawn on you" but Paco already gave you the answer.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Meanwhile, in Northern New York State, the candidate the local Republican leaders picked for the special election (who knew the local issues well) was deemed "not conservative enough" by the national Conservative Media Elite, and they ran the candidate out of town. They backed someone who didn't even live in the district running on the Conservative line, Sarah Palin twittered a bit, and the Conservative candidate lost. Some areas in that district will have a Democrat representing them in Congress for the first time in over 100 years. You can't argue that the Democrat won this one because the district was full of mindless liberals, he had to appeal to moderates and Conservatives to get the votes he needed. (Although I'm sure we will have folks coming out of the woodwork here soon blaming it all on ACORN.)

That's one way to look at it.

That whole race seemed really screwed up to me. The "Republican" originally picked was the quintessential RINO. Why should the people there have been happy with such a pick? Yeah, she was just so great for the Republicans that the first thing she did after quitting was endorse the Democrat. Wonderful. That's the media's idea of a 'moderate' that Republicans are supposed to go along with.

Meanwhile, Hoffman didn't lose by much- polls even had him ahead for a while. That's despite every monkey wrench possible being thrown at him, including the RINO's name still being on ballots at election day. Had Republicans put the right candidate in place in the first place, it would have been an easy win. But they went with the chickenshit cry of "you have to go moderate: IE: a candidate that's left of center so much so that they'll endorse the opposition at the drop of a hat" rather than stick with core principals.

Like stupendousman said in the OP- it's funny how everyone thinks Republicans all of a sudden need all this bum advice on how to win by essentially dropping all principals and becoming Democrats (who often can't win themselves except by pretending to be more conservative.) Scozzafava in NY should now be the poster child of what that approach really accomplishes.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Except the almost 20 percent is far above the margins from previous elections. Face it. People are pissed at the Tax-n-Spend-spend-spend. Will you say this next year when the Dems become a minority in Congress?

Well... it's either Tax-n-Spend or Borrow-n-Spend. Choose your poison. And please don't presume my comments in anyway imply I am a Democrat.

With respect to the Dems becoming a minority in Congress.... yes, it's very likely... following a not uncommon pattern of opposing parties between the Executive and Legislative branches.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Heh. I was gonna say "keep turning it over in your brain, it'll eventually dawn on you" but Paco already gave you the answer.

Even with Paco's answer, I still think don't think it works — Moore was a good analogy to Limbaugh, but I don't see Jon Stewart. But whatever.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Just wait till stumblin' Mike comes and tries to brainwash us all into how this election proved that Obama is da shiznit

-t

Thanks, t. I give all my wingnut friends(?) a hearty congratulations! Well done! As a group, you were in a funk since the election. I am happy to see a little swagger back in your collective steps. However, winning elections in bible thumping (VA) and brain damaged (NJ) states is hardly a mandate. And, most importantly, the CONSERVATIVE did not win in NY state (sorry crash!) So latch on to this victory, you earned it!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

However, winning elections in bible thumping (VA) and brain damaged (NJ) states is hardly a mandate.

OMG, are you saying NJ voting Democratic for the longest time, and electing Obama in '08 had actually something to do with their state of mind ?

-t

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which winning moderates has it banished?

RINO or not, given the demographics in the district Scozzafava would probably have won with a decent margin if Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh allowed her to run. It would have been a vote in the Congress against cap-and-trade and for Bush-style tax cuts, and likely against this Health Care thingy everyone is talking about.

[hyteckit]

According to BadKosh and turtle, Republicans won NJ because of voter fraud.

As for NY District 23, Republicans lost because stupid Palin and the Republicans got involved.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

RINO or not, given the demographics in the district Scozzafava would probably have won with a decent margin if Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh allowed her to run. It would have been a vote in the Congress against cap-and-trade and for Bush-style tax cuts, and likely against this Health Care thingy everyone is talking about.

Wasn't she already down about 10 -20 points in the polls when she bailed?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

According to BadKosh and turtle, Republicans won NJ because of voter fraud.

As for NY District 23, Republicans lost because stupid Palin and the Republicans got involved.

Um..........wouldn't the reverse be true? Acorn would have stuffed the ballot box for the Dem in NJ. Folks from NJ who were interviewed this morning say the loser was a nutcase anyway.

[BadKosh]

Oh, so it must be true.......


Pelosi dismisses Dem losses in Virginia and New Jersey
November 04, 2009

Most House Democrats tried to put a good face on Tuesday's election results, saying they picked up two more votes for a sweeping health care bill that could be on the floor as early as Friday.

But it can't make it any easier for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she works to corral the last holdouts she needs to pass legislation overhauling the nation’s health care system.

Of course, the speaker, who told POLITICO recently she's "not big on showing weakness," brushed aside questions about how the Democratic gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey would impact her final tally and instead trumpeted the two special election House wins.

"From our perspective, we won last night," the California Democrat told reporters during a Wednesday photo op. "We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat. So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people."

"From our standpoint, we picked up votes last night," a cheerful Pelosi said, "one in California and one in New York."


Pelosi dismisses Dem losses in Virginia and New Jersey - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

According to BadKosh and turtle, Republicans won NJ because of voter fraud.

Huh ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Um..........wouldn't the reverse be true? Acorn would have stuffed the ballot box for the Dem in NJ. Folks from NJ who were interviewed this morning say the loser was a nutcase anyway.

I see. If a Democrat wins, it's voter fraud.

If a Republican wins, it cannot be voter fraud. Republicans don't commit fraud.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Wasn't she already down about 10 -20 points in the polls when she bailed?

Only because the Conservative candidate had taken away most of her support. The Democrat probably gained votes out of the in-fighting and squabbling, and even with those additional votes he still did not exceed 50% of the vote. Without these shenanigans the Republican candidate probably would have won by at least four or five points.

[stupendousman]

So, what winning republican moderate has been banished?

Scofzz...s.erwe wasn't really a Republican. Not if she supported all the Democrat stands and endorsed the Democrat. You can't really successfully fool people when you are that transparent. Pretending to be something just so you can get elected to a position of power never ends in a winning position. Obama is finding that out right now.

[Dork.]

She had no choice but to endorse the Democrat: her own party basically threw her under the bus. She was all set to be one of the "winning Republican moderates" you have been whining about, until her own party sabotaged it (folks without any ties to the area!). She was basically made an example of on national TV. Do you honestly think she'll want to pitch her tent with the Republicans again?

[Chuckit]

Seriously. If somebody did me like they did Scozzafava, I wouldn't want anything to do with them ever again. The leaders of the party are clearly her enemies, so why would she want to pretend it's not so?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Of course, the speaker, who told POLITICO recently she's "not big on showing weakness," brushed aside questions about how the Democratic gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey would impact her final tally and instead trumpeted the two special election House wins.

I wasn't aware that state governors have a vote in the US House of Representatives. Politico seems to think they do. Did the US Constitution change since yesterday or something?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So, what winning republican moderate has been banished?

Scofzz...s.erwe wasn't really a Republican. Not if she supported all the Democrat stands and endorsed the Democrat.

She endorsed the Democrat after she got shut out by leading Republicans. On her positions, my understanding is that she's fiscally conservative (tax cuts, against cap-and-trade, etc.), but socially liberal in a few areas (gay marriage, pro-choice). I guess in today's Republican party, differing from the religious right on a pair of issues makes you a "radical liberal" who "supported all the Democrat stands". Whatever.

You can't really successfully fool people when you are that transparent. Pretending to be something just so you can get elected to a position of power never ends in a winning position. Obama is finding that out right now.

You say this a lot, but you've never provided any proof of things Obama has "flipped" on, where he promised to be moderate or right-leaning, then moved to the left. So far, everything he's done is pretty much in line with what he promised during the campaign. If you want to keep making that assertion, you're going to have to back it up with something concrete. Just for once.

If anything, Obama has moved to the right after he became president, notably on issues like invoking state secret, declining to revise the Patriot Act, FISA, lack of movement on torture prosecutions, etc. I don't think a credible case can be made that Obama is making the left very happy by unexpectedly moving towards them.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

She had no choice but to endorse the Democrat: her own party basically threw her under the bus.

The fallacy is that she ever was really a Republican. What values or ideas that Republicans share did Scozzafava endorse? No one's saying that party members should walk in lockstep, but you really do have to support more of the stands of your party platform than you do the opposing party to even be considered a "moderate" of the party you belong to.

She was was way down in the polls, wasn't really a Republican and after just 30 days a conservative independent got more votes in the election than she was getting in polling for months. She should never been the candidate because SHE WAS NEVER GOING TO WIN.

Again, what winning moderate candidate has the Republican party banished?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I see. If a Democrat wins, it's voter fraud.

If a Republican wins, it cannot be voter fraud. Republicans don't commit fraud.

Actually, it's much simpler than that.

It's not that Republicans don't commit fraud. It's just that if a Democrat commits fraud, it's evidence of the corruption of the entire Democratic Party. If a Republican commits fraud, it's evidence that Republicans remain committed to weeding out their worst members, and proof of their fine, upstanding and incredibly moral ways. Either way, it's Good News For Conservatives™.

Tails, you lose. Heads, I win. See how this works?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

She endorsed the Democrat after she got shut out by leading Republicans.

She endorsed the Democrat because she shared more positions with him than with the guy who is really a mainstream Republican and Obama's people says that they talked her into it:
washingtonpost.com

Steeped in New York politics, he [Patrick Gaspard - White House political director] played a pivotal role in the effort over the weekend to persuade Republican State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava to endorse the Democratic candidate in the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, two senior White House officials said Sunday.

On her positions, my understanding is that she's fiscally conservative (tax cuts, against cap-and-trade, etc.),

She's liberal in most areas. Gay marriage, abortion, "card check", pro-big labor unions, supported tax increases, supports socialist health care program...etc., etc.

You say this a lot, but you've never provided any proof of things Obama has "flipped" on, where he promised to be moderate or right-leaning, then moved to the left.

His entire campaign was designed to paint him as a moderate, bi-partisan, post racial savior. He was the younger, better looking, more charismatic John McCain. It was all a sham.

The first thing he does when he gets to office is engage in highly partisan power grabs telling Republicans to just do as they are told because "he won", focuses his main agenda on a wish list of liberal Democrat priorities, forgets the fact that he went on and on about everyone getting a tax cut (instead of having to raise taxes to pay for all his high spending), plays the race card in regards to the Gates incident and pretty much does nothing for the economy other than to waste more taxpayers dollars on Democrat pork to be given away long after the economy should have been stimulated out of it's recession.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

She endorsed the Democrat because she shared more positions with him than with the guy who is really a mainstream Republican and Obama's people says that they talked her into it:
washingtonpost.com





She's liberal in most areas. Gay marriage, abortion, "card check", pro-big labor unions, supported tax increases, supports socialist health care program...etc., etc.



His entire campaign was designed to paint him as a moderate, bi-partisan, post racial savior. He was the younger, better looking, more charismatic John McCain. It was all a sham.

The first thing he does when he gets to office is engage in highly partisan power grabs telling Republicans to just do as they are told because "he won", focuses his main agenda on a wish list of liberal Democrat priorities, forgets the fact that he went on and on about everyone getting a tax cut (instead of having to raise taxes to pay for all his high spending), plays the race card in regards to the Gates incident and pretty much does nothing for the economy other than to waste more taxpayers dollars on Democrat pork to be given away long after the economy should have been stimulated out of it's recession.

So why did House Minority Leader John Boehner and Newt Gingrich supported Dede Scozzafava?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Tails, you lose. Heads, I win. See how this works?

You're so teh clevar.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So why did House Minority Leader John Boehner and Newt Gingrich supported Dede Scozzafava?

Because they thought she was the lesser of two evils and didn't want to support a third party candidate.

Psst. The "lesser" is still "evil".

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

She's liberal in most areas. Gay marriage, abortion, "card check", pro-big labor unions, supported tax increases, supports socialist health care program...etc., etc.

Card check and labor unions are one issue. She's pro-labor, which aligns with the positions of the constituents in her area of the state.

I don't know what "supported tax increases" means, you'll have to be more specific than that. Same for "socialist health care program", that's just noise.

His entire campaign was designed to paint him as a moderate, bi-partisan, post racial savior. He was the younger, better looking, more charismatic John McCain. It was all a sham.

Wrong - his campaign was focused on him being the opposite of George W. Bush. Not an alternate John McCain. The word he used over and over again was "Change" - that doesn't imply a slight move in a moderate direction from where we were.

Nevertheless, let's see what evidence you have for this opinion.

The first thing he does when he gets to office is engage in highly partisan power grabs telling Republicans to just do as they are told because "he won",

You might need a refresher course on what an "election" is. You see, it's when somebody promises to do certain things, and tells people all across the country that if you vote for him, he'll actually do those things he's promising to do. And if he wins, then he actually tries to do the things he went around telling people he was going to do.

The whole point of winning an election is a "partisan power grab". Republicans lost in 2008 - big time. What the hell? You think he was supposed to come into office and say "now I know I promised universal health care and government solutions to fix the huge economic downturn, and voters decided by picking me that this is what the majority of you want, but I don't want to offend my Republican friends, so I'm not gonna do anything I promised, and just do things the Republicans want instead." WTF?

focuses his main agenda on a wish list of liberal Democrat priorities,

All of which were promised, in writing, during his campaign. Seriously, name some "liberal" items that he explicitly campaigned against that he's done as president. I don't think you can - this is mere opinion masquerading as facts. This vision of the almost-Republican Obama never existed and was never promised except in your own head.

forgets the fact that he went on and on about everyone getting a tax cut (instead of having to raise taxes to pay for all his high spending),

Obama passed one of the largest tax cuts in history as part of the stimulus bill. That's a fact.

No middle-class taxes have been raised. Conservatives assume taxes WILL be raised, but middle-class Americans have received a tax cut. That's a fact.

Either way, none of this relates your central premise, that he's moved to the left unexpectedly. During the campaign, Obama explicitly promised more government spending on green economy, universal health care, and a host of other areas. It's sitting there in plain sight on the Obama web site. Now that he's slowly executing on all those promises, how is any of this a surprise?

plays the race card in regards to the Gates incident

Obama never once accused the officer of racism. Never. No "race card" was ever played. Period. Let's just leave it at that, I don't want that dead horse thread brought back again on your stubbornness.

This still has nothing to do with your central premise. How does this relate to him "moving to the left" in any way?

and pretty much does nothing for the economy other than to waste more taxpayers dollars on Democrat pork to be given away long after the economy should have been stimulated out of it's recession.

All irrelevant opinionated crap. Where in this part of your rant does it say that Obama is doing something vastly more liberal than what he promised during the campaign?

It's clear that you don't really have a case. You are merely reciting a litany of things you already don't like about Obama's policies, and trying to sell us a bag 'o crap that somehow what Obama represents is a big shift to the left from what he promised. I actually voted for the guy, unlike you. So I think I have a great deal more authority to judge what he promised me vs. what he is delivering on than you do.

And on that basis, I can say for a fact that Obama has either delivered exactly what he claimed to be, OR he has moved significantly to the right on some issues. I cannot think of a single issue in which Obama has surprised me or my liberal friends by moving CLOSER to our position than we expected based on his campaign promises. Not one single issue.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I wasn't aware that state governors have a vote in the US House of Representatives. Politico seems to think they do. Did the US Constitution change since yesterday or something?

I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.

"Referendum"

and

"will of the people you represent" come to mind.

[hyteckit]

So after the election yesterday

House of Representative
Republicans -1
Democrats +1

Republicans lost NY District 23, a district Republicans held for over 100 years?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.

"Referendum"

and

"will of the people you represent" come to mind.

The will of the people is represented by who gets elected to the House. Right now, the House has 258 Democrats, and 177 Republicans. The "will of the people you represent" is overwhelmingly Democratic, at the moment. The governor represents the people in state matters, not federal.

Who gets elected to 2 state governorships in an off-year election may be interesting from a political pundit standpoint, but it's laughable to suggest this is some kind of "referendum". The 2 Republicans governors being elected isn't a referendum on anything, and the loss by Republicans in NY-23 isn't a referendum either.