Banner ad

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

No hope and no change

Well, this is certainly depressing. The pollsters were right and I guess Republicans have to learn that there is no silent majority out there that the polls are missing.

A citizenry that says it's tired of the status quo of gridlock and thinks the country is heading in the wrong direction just voted for more gridlock and more of the same policies that have been holding our economy back. There is no hope of any real tackling of the monumental fiscal problems facing our country.

Recriminations can wait. Romney wasn't the ideal candidate but I grew to like him more as the campaign wore on. Sadly, I don't think there was anyone else this year in the GOP nomination race who would have come close. We need a better set of candidates.

We can talk about how the media has run blocking charges for Obama since he first appeared on the scene or the effects of the hurricane or the deceptive dip below 8% in the unemployment rate, but I'm too tired to do that now.

Personally, now that the election is over, I look forward to spending less time endlessly poring over election predictions and more time watching basketball, which I haven't had time to do since the season started, and reading outside non-political materials that I've been saving up. And, while I'm not looking forward to it that much, grading papers and tests for the students who are my real job.

We got through the Clinton years and the first four years of Obama, we can get through the next four.

23 comments:

stan said...

Betsy,

My candidate for president has lost many times. I was disappointed, but I didn't see the loss as a reflection of a character flaw in the American people. Not even 2008. This is different. America chose this with eyes wide open.

My faith in America just died. This is worse than 9/11. As horrible as that was, I knew America would pull through. Not now.

It is not possible for a decent, quality person to vote for Obama. Regardless of political ideology.

Rick Caird said...

I agree with Stan. Except that I don't believe very many voters actually understood what they were voting for. Here is what I see coming out of this election:


1. The destruction of the health care system resulting in higher costs, increased waiting time, reduced access to doctors for seniors, and earlier deaths due to the concept of “pathway to death”.
2. Elimination of the goal of energy independence via the destruction of new fracking techniques
3. Increase energy costs, particularly electricity, coupled with more outages and brownouts.
4. A deep recession due to ideological beliefs in “fairness” rather than effectiveness, resulting in higher taxes with little reduced spending, and much higher national debt.
5. An acceleration of inflation that Bernanke will be unable to stop once it gets a foothold.
6. Much higher unemployment and reduction of personal earnings because of recession and costs of ObamaCare
7. A decreased level of individual liberty coupled with an increase in the power of the Federal government.
8. An extremely weak foreign policy that turns us into a “paper tiger”.
9. The destruction of Israel and the rise of Iran as a nuclear power and the most powerful state in the Middle East
10. Dodd – Frank will mark the end of the community banks and the enshrinement of the “Too Big To Fail” banks.
11. Crony Capitalism will replace capitalism, prices will increase, and service levels will decrease.

We really need to emphasize that when ObamaCare and the IPAB go into effect, the impact on seniors will be both unexpected and devastating. There will be many people saying they didn't now that was what they were voting for. They thought Obama promised them no change to Medicare.

ParadigmAnalytics said...

It's not that people voted for Obama - it's that we voted against Romney. Romney is like beige paint - it covers the walls but thats about it. If the GOP would distance themselves from the right wing whack jobs, stop trying to legislate my body and whom I love - they might actually stand a chance to return to power

dbsnyder said...

Actually Romney was an excellent candidate. He was so good a candidate they had to lie about him - over and over again. They can do that with any candidate that is put forward.

Bob said...

dbsnyder - they can do that with any candidate, as long as the 'press' is compliant and not doing its job. THAT is the big problem I see, the MSM being Dem operators with a byline and the populace falling for the con.

jpg said...

I am kicking back and leaving the work force (self-employed attorney). I think I'll enjoy what's left of the time I have before total collapse occurs. I don't need to work myself into the ground and see so little return on the effort. BTW, $6.00 gas within the next 24 months will be new normal. JPG

equitus said...

Betsy, I can't thank you enough for all your insights, links, etc. You deserve a break, and we all wish you the best.

Rick is correct. I'll add a few more ramifications.

- This recession will become the Great Depression II (just as FDR kept getting re-elected). It might take a global calamity like WWII again to snap out of it.
- A lost generation: My nieces and nephews are coming of age. Really smart kids, but they don't see any open paths to a career. Working retail and food service now and for the foreseeable future.
- A highly-politicized Dept of Justice running amok, targeting private citizens (like us!) for opposing The Agenda.
- The death and suffering of my many friends and their families in Israel.
- My years of savings and investments for retirement becoming mostly worthless, as I am forced to retire on government largess.
- Medical research, for decades one of the brightest lights of our society, getting extinguished - along with the hopes of millions who were counting on these advancements.

This new normal is going to take a long time to get used to.

equitus said...

I should also mention our nation's doctors, who will be forced by the federal government into professional situations beyond all reason. Our next generation of physicians will mostly be foreign born - good for them, but a raw deal for our own children's ambitions.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

While discussing the election this morning with two fairly intelligent and educated women, (we are all teachers) everytime I tried to bring up an issue (say Libya, the economy, no second term vision, no defending the first term etc) their response was the same..."yeah but Romney would take away our rights!".

I honestly don't know how to deal with that

mark said...

That's it! Refuse to look inward for reasons why repubs lost. Don't worry about embarrassments like Trump, Limbaugh, Bachmann, Allen West, Mourdoch, etc. etc. etc. Don't question your support for the failed W administration or the clownish Sarah Palin; continue to pretend the war in Iraq was a great idea and climate change is a hoax.
It's not your fault the repubs nominated a man repubs once called "unacceptable" (and far worse). It's not your fault idiot dems thought tax cuts for the rich, slashing programs and gutting regulations weren't the way to go. No self-reflection necessary. Never change.


Rick Caird said...

Oh, Mark. Tell me which one of Obama's great successes in the first term he ran on as an example of his prowess. Was it the stimulus? No. Was it ObamaCare? No. Was it an expanding economy? No. Was it reduced unemployment. No.

So, Mark, what did he run on? Let me help you out. He ran on scaring people about how evil Romney was, a made up issue on Republicans hating women, contraception, and lies about Medicare.

Now, Mark, tell us what Obama has said he will do in his second term. You will come up empty because you are just like Obama: a hollow man. Obama ran a hollow campaign and you offer a hollow comment.

I really await an intelligent response from you, Mark, but I will not hold my breath.

mark said...

Perfect. The guy who predicted a 100 point Romney landslide still thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. When repubs have the courage to call out the low-level thinkers such as Rick, they'll become relevant again.

Linda said...

I just read a FB post - apparently, the Ron Paul vote in the crucial states was just enough to swing things.

Just kidding - it's probably not true.

I'm not depressed. I'm even more determined to have a GOOD candidate in place by the time 4 years are up.

And, I REALLY praying for the health of the conservative judges on the court.

I'm thinking about a plan to bring in conservative teachers into the systems - both schools and ed schools.

Rick Caird said...

It is always mildly amusing when an arrogant liberal like Mark professes to offer advice that, invariably, is to be just like him. Talk about an arrogant, low level thinker. But, arrogance is endemic to liberals. Mark is the perfect example.

mark said...

Arrogance?
I think that would be the same people responsible for Bush (best known for the 9/11 tragedy, the Iraq war fiasco and the financial meltdown) writing about how dumb and uninformed the opposition is.

Rick, don't let being off by a mere 235 electoral votes impede your undeservedly high self-esteem. After all, it wasn't really your prediction. You were just regurgitating the idiocy of Dick Morris and Karl Rove.

Rick Caird said...

Mark, Let me introduce you to basic mathematics. Go over your figures and try to determine the error in your claim of " being off by a mere 235 electoral votes". That is absurd even for a very challenged liberal. Michael Barone had a better than 100 vote difference.

You are not the opposition. You are simply dumb and uninformed. To help you, here is WaPo link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/

Gahrie said...

1790 – 2001 (every president before Bush 43) 212 years 5.728 trillion in debt

2001 – 2007 (Bush 43 with a Republican Congress) 6 years 8.675 trillion in debt. (added 2.947 trillion is six years, or about 1/2 trillion a year)

2008 – 2009 (Bush 43 with a Democratic Congress) 2 years 10.627 Trillion in debt (added 1.952 trillion in 2 years, or about a trillion a year)

2010 – 2011 (President Obama and a Democratic Congress) 2 years 14.056 trillion in debt (added 3.5 trillion in 2 years or 1.75 trillion a year)

2011- today (President Obama and a divided Congress) 2 years 16.627 trillion in debt (added 2.158 trillion in less than 2 years or more than a trillion a year)

* In the last 12 years we have more than tripled our national debt

We are currently paying more than $360 Billion in interest every year on the debt, and that is with historically low interest rates. When/if interest rates return to the historical norm, this number will at least double.

Sue in Ohio said...

Betsy, I feel the same way right now - depressed and burned out. You deserve to relax and take some time for yourself!

mark said...

Rick,
Apologies. You were only off by 226 ev's, not 235. Obviously much better.

BTW: Michael Barone once compared Sarah Palin. You might take him off your extensive reading list.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/09/04/just-call-her-sarah-delano-palin

Rick Caird said...

OK, Mark.. Here is a basic arithmetic lesson. To win by 100 electoral votes, Romney would have needed about 320 electoral votes. He got 206. So, Mark, 320 - 206 = 114. That is not the 226 your "new" math comes up with.

Thanks for the pointer to the Barone column on Palin. I had forgotten she was able to improvise on the fly. That is unlike Obama who gets into trouble every time he goes off the teleprompter. He is the first candidate ever to need a teleprompter for his stump speech. Obama is neither a good speaker nor a particularly bright man.

mark said...

Rick,
That's it? A "Obama needs a teleprompter" zinger?

BTW: You claimed Romney would win by 100 ev's. He lost by 126. A swing of 226. Pretty simple.

Rick Caird said...

I know math is hard for liberals, but I will try to teach you. in events like electoral college balloting there is a finite sum. In this case the sum is( 270 *2 = 540)-1 = 539. Now, if Romney gets a vote, then that is a vote that Obama cannot get. So, for Romney to win by 100, he would need 270 + 50 = 320 while Obama would be left with 270 - 50 = 220. Voila, Romney wins by 100. Since Romney only got 206, then he was short by 114. Your error is in not understanding basic mathematics.

You brought up the teleprompter, not me. Unless, of course you did not actually read the Barone column. While that should not surprise me, it would be weak, even for you, to provide a reference you did not even read..