Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Reasons to keep faith that we will weather this national storm of crazy

Posted by Charles II on November 7, 2012

1. Mitt Romney did not heed Donald Trump’s call for revolution (though not everyone has heeded Romney’s call to stand down.)

2. new: Elizabeth Warren! In the Senate!

3. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are no longer in the Senate.

4. Alan Grayson is back in Congress to keep them honest. He doesn’t get paid enough.

5. Allen West might be out of Congress (down 380 votes with 99% counted and The Hill has called it for Murphy). Regrettably, Michele Bachmann will probably remain in Congress (50.41-49.31) but , if so, only because the Twelve Apostles personally went and voted for her. Yes, it’s that tight.

6. Obama will probably surpass 50%, meaning the Republicans can’t whine that wasn’t really elected.

7. Women proved that Si Se Puede.

8. Maryland told the Catholic Church that same sex marriage is actually OK.

9. It is now legal to toke in Colorado (should do wonders for tourism).


You know, America has long been a conservative nation at heart, all I made it/you’re lazy if you haven’t. But it might be starting to grow up, starting to set aside discrimination of many kinds, starting to reject mindless militarism.

This time we can’t march off figuring we’ve done our duty. We have to keep leaning on Democrats to keep them from caving, and start preparing early for 2014. We voted for hope and change. Now we want the fundamental change we were promised four years ago.

17 Responses to “Reasons to keep faith that we will weather this national storm of crazy”

  1. Dickeylee said

    The battle now turns to medicare/social security. Obama needs to heed Warren and Sanders on this. Hope the lurch to Romney by wall st tempers his enthusiasim for “reform”.

  2. MEC said

    Obama will probably surpass 50%, meaning the Republicans can’t whine that wasn’t really elected.

    Oh, they’ll whine anyway. They’ll fabricate reasons to claim that there was Massive Voter Fraud and that’s the only reason he got so many votes. But he did get a majority, not just a plurality, so that’s good.

    Another reason to keep faith that we’ll survive The Crazy Years: Senator Elizabeth Warren. I have a feeling she’ll hit the ground running.

  3. Phoenix Woman said

    The thing about Bachmann was that she wasn’t supposed to have any trouble keeping this seat. With Stillwater taken from her and placed into Betty McCollum’s CD, Bachmann’s district got a lot more conservative. Plus, her beyond-Palinesque skill at separating teabaggers from their money, a skill she honed in her presidential feint wherein she cynically used a no-hoper presidential primary bid to stuff her coffers for her congressional re-election campaign, guaranteed that she would have an order of magnitude more money than even most Republicans have on tap.

    And she came within a thousand votes of an automatic recount that would probably have stripped her of her seat.

    I expect she’s going to be a bit more tractable in the next two years.

  4. Stormcrow said

    Here’s something I ran across that should lighten the mood just a bit: Priceless

    960×682 image behind the link.

  5. Anamerican said

    You realize neither side is fundamentally correct? Right?

    • Charles II said

      Anamerican, I realize that one side is deeply flawed but sane, and that the other side is corrupt and insane.

      But I do not think that is what you mean to suggest.

      • Anamerican said

        They are both suffering corruption. You have two sides trying to squable over government allocations.

      • Anamerican said

        The sadest moment of the presidential race was in the first debate. Neither candidate was able to put together any coherent meaning of our founding documents. I had to reprint the text, just to verify that their answers were actually that feeble. Sad when either winner needs to take an oath of office swearing to uphold these fundamentals of the country.

      • Charles II said

        Anamerican, it’s a very old saying that “politics is about who gets.” It has always been true. Simply allocating money to something is not evidence of corruption. It’s only corruption when a politician gets something in return.

        You can bet that anyone who votes for things that help the poor is not corrupt, because the poor do not give money. You can almost bet that anyone who votes for things that help the rich is corrupt, because the rich give lots and lots of money.

        I think it’s very instructive to look at who the top ten donors to the presidential campaigns were. Among Barack Obama’s top donors were employees of universities, government employees, technology companies, and so on. These are mostly middle-class donors, and indeed, many more of his donations are toward the lower end vs. Romney.

        Among Mitt Romney’s donors? Investment banks— the ones who caused the crash of 2008. And this is just the money whose donors we know about. Eighty one percent of the dark money was Republican. Dark money tends to be corrupt, since it’s impossible to prove a quid pro quo.

        So, while there might be corruption in both parties, it’s not equally distributed. Where Dems are corrupt, they tend to be petty grifters, like William Jefferson. When GOPers are corrupt, the costs to the nation are in the billions, as with Tom DeLay. Anyone who wants to dismiss the major parties as not having a dime’s worth of difference between them, as George Wallace did, has simply not been paying attention.

        As for the founding documents, I hear a lot of noise on the right about what they mean. But as someone who has spent a great deal of time studying the history of that period, I know that most of what gets said is complete BS. For example, I tore apart a claim by Charles Murray about whether a federal role to education is fundamental or not. So, please don’t talk to me about the founding documents unless you have something specific and are prepared to discuss the history and the evidence that they say what you think they say. If you do have something specific and are prepared to seriously debate it, great.

  6. Anamerican said

    Since your highly Dem biased Charles. Who is the big Arkansas money who likes to have political influence in the White House?

    • Charles II said

      I’m highly fact biased, Anamerican.

      I suggest you read our posting policy. This is not a place for the usual left-right name calling, for ADHD-style “debate,” or the usual games. I’ve provided you with facts demonstrating that government Romney’s top donors were big investment banks, while Obama’s top donors are educators.

      If you will check who the top donors from Arkansas are, you will find that the big money from Arkansas is largely Republican, and largely coming from Stephens investment and Jackson Stephens. Sam Walton gave $300K to Obama’s Superpac vs. ca. $4M in Superpac money to Romney.

      Below those donations of $50,000 – $1,000,000, almost all of the big donations are to Republicans.

      Now, please put up or shut up. I do not take kindly to people who don’t know the least thing about me screaming “bias” just because I tell them things they don’t want to hear.

      • Anamerican said

        I love to hear it! I also understand that you fit neatly into a personality bucket. Thank you for your answers.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: