Coakley loses, everyone else wins

I will resist gloating or making too much of the results of tonight’s election in Massachusetts – I have been on the losing side of an election to many times to do that. Suffice it to say, that whatever ‘realignment’ the Democrats imagined last fall, it seems to be over. And whatever policies the electorate wants, what it certainly doesn’t want is a one party solutions jammed down their throats.

If the Democrats have gained any wisdom from this, they will understand this message, and embrace opportunities to work together with the Republicans for pragmatic, centrist solutions to the very significant difficulties our country faces. If they fail to grasp this obvious truth, there are other Scott Brown’s waiting in the wings. We will know in the next few days whether they will choose political suicide or survival.


8 Responses to Coakley loses, everyone else wins

  1. Bettawrekonize says:

    I’m not happy with the republicans but I’m also not happy with the democrats. I think republicans, at least George Bush and most of the ones in office, engage in class warfare and are liars whenever they claim to be free market capitalists. They are only free market capitalists to the extent that it benefits them, otherwise they want governmental laws that unfairly benefits them. At least the democrats admit to wanting more government regulation, the republicans lie every time they claim to be free market capitalists.

    Having said that, I’m also very disappointed with the democrats (ie: Obama and his secretive ACTA meetings and also the vice president and his secretive meetings with industry reps while leaving the general public out). While I didn’t vote for Obama I honestly expected better, I didn’t expect him to only pay attention to the wealthiest and ignore the masses the way he did. It almost seemed to be a victory for the masses when Obama got elected only to have him go back to business as usual. He talks about what’s wrong with the system but he does absolutely nothing to fix it, he just talks and talks, and then when he got elected it’s back to business as usual (ie: he breaks his promises (which I knew he was going to do, but I at least expected him to TRY to serve the masses)). Both parties make me very upset, vote libertarian and pirate partisan!!!!

  2. bZirk says:

    I’m also not happy with the Republicans and certainly not happy with the Democrats. But I’m not disappointed with the Democrats because I didn’t expect much out of them. They talk and talk like everyone else because there is no accountability. Truth be told I’m sick of both parties and everything in between. Our system is sick and allows the things we’re seeing.

    The people I’m disappointed in are average working Joes in America. What are they thinking to wait until things get this bad to oust part of the Democratic regime in Massachusetts? They should be ashamed of having let that go on that long. I guess people don’t get that the Preamble says by and of before it says for. I could wax on about all the reasons I think the electorate responds the way they do, but I won’t bore you with it this morning.

    Net: We need a constitutional amendment for term limits for all elected offices in DC. No, I’m not holding my breath on that one, but I do believe it would help. Not completely fix things — hey, they’re people involved — but to help.

    In the meantime, I’m not above gloating 😀 that something has thwarted (for now) this insanity. YES!

  3. Bettawrekonize says:

    “We need a constitutional amendment for term limits for all elected offices in DC”

    Two things. I think that eight year term limits (ie: for president) are two short. If a president does a good job the people should be allowed to re – elect him/her indefinitely.

    However, I also think that 4 year re – election limits are too long. A president should be subject to re election more frequently, perhaps every two years. The government should be more responsive to the will of the masses in a more timely manner.

    However, having said that, I do think we should adopt an end to end user verified voting system. They provide both the cryptographic assurance that your vote counted along with the privacy of ensuring that no one else can know who you voted for. Sure beats our current system, where I have no idea where my vote went or if it counted and there really is no way for me to tell. For all I know the entire election could be a fraud.

    Another VERY important thing is that EVERYONE running for election should be on the ballot or else I should have the opportunity to write in a name. None of this nonsense where certain presidential candidates don’t show up on the ballot (ie: in some states. Ron Paul did not show up on the ballot and there was no place for me to write him in. What a scam) and I can’t write them in. and if I do write in a candidate my vote must count and there should be a way for me to VERIFY that my vote counted via an end to end user verifiable voting system.

    Finally, every candidate should have the opportunity to publicly speak freely to the masses. The Internet has made such a scenario more plausible, but our mainstream media is very corrupt (and that includes fox).

  4. Bettawrekonize says:

    sp/two short/too short
    sp/who you voted for/whom you voted for

  5. bZirk says:

    LOL!!! I have to laugh at myself. God is so faithful to bring humility. Here I was chewing on the electorate, and I meant to say Lincoln’s words but put Preamble. What was I thinking? Oh, yeah, I wasn’t really thinking. I was so busy being cocky about how stupid the electorate is at times, that I put down what I thought someone else would write. I’d love to say it was lack of caffeine, but really it was arrogance that brought on that stupidity. Maybe the Lord wants me to relate to Martha?

    Having said that, I do think it’s sad that pain rather than thought brings change. “Uh, that hand in my back pocket doesn’t feel so good.”

    Oh, and I agree about letting more people who are running speak to the public, and you may be right about the dynamics of term limits. Not sure of the fine points of limits. I just know we need a limitation.

  6. jackhudson says:

    I tend to blame voters who aren’t familiar with how our current system works more than I do how the system itself currently works, perhaps a bit more than others might.

    The fact is, as this election shows a single election can shake things up, and there are plenty of opportunities to re-direct Washington when it gets off track – at least the legislative branch. And while I might welcome a few more parties, I tend to be skeptical of giving ‘every’ candidate a free megaphone. I think there is value in some aspects of meritocracy – and I think that that is part of how our government was originally designed.

    That being said, this particular election goes far to invigorate the notion of an active, aware electorate that is actually paying attention to who they are voting for.

  7. Bettawrekonize says:

    “I tend to be skeptical of giving ‘every’ candidate a free megaphone.”

    It’s not that the government or that the media is giving anyone a free megaphone, it’s that the system, outside of the Internet, is intentionally structured to deny certain people the ability to effectively communicate their message.

    Back in the days the public airwaves were much like the Internet is now, a tool used for communication. but when the FCC came along they slowly started taking away the public airwaves and handing it over to corporations until we eventually wound up with the nonsense we have now. However, it happened slowly. When the FCC first took control of public airwaves they couldn’t simply hand it over to corporations all at once because, as a communication tool it provided so much public utility that handing it over to huge corporations all at once would have created a huge backlash. So they instead started regulating it in a way that appeared to be best for the public, by ensuring that there was a certain amount of competition so that it could still act like a communication tool to a reasonable extent. Eventually they started regulating it in a way that reduced the amount of competition on public airwaves until we eventually wound up with what we have now. The truth is that we would be better off without the FCC but it’s the plutocratic corporations that want the FCC to continue.

    also, another thing to note is that cell phone parameters are divided into cells and cell phones are able to service many many people despite the fact that they only make up a small faction of the spectrum. If we allocated more spectrum to the cells used by cell phone companies (ie: to smaller areas at a time) instead of just one giant broadcasting venue that takes up an entire state or whatever, we can allow more people to communicate, especially in the digital age where two way communication takes up as much bandwidth as one way communication (another reason why the broadcasting model is inefficient, with two way communication if your signal conflicts with mine since I know the signal I sent I can deduce your signal) and where compression can be also applied to also provide more bandwidth (which has been done to video, hence the digital converter boxes, but not to audio radio statons).

    and you should also note that cableco companies often have a government granted monopoly in the areas they reside (both on the existing infrastructure and on who can build new infrastructure) which allows them to control the stations that you receive and they can restrict stations that deliver news in contradiction to their agenda. In a free market where the government does not grant monopolies on infrastructure and on who can build new infrastructure it would be much more difficult for evil special interest groups to control the news that I get and the candidates that I see against my will since I can easily switch to a competitor if you censor news you don’t like. But our plutocracy, outside the Internet, is intentionally designed to censor anything that rich people don’t want us to see (and they are working hard to do the same thing within the Internet just as well). and there is plenty of important information that gets censored from the mainstream media, mostly because it’s information that the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know (not for any legitimate reason). But how are people supposed to make an informed decision if so much information is censored and when the information that is presented is one entirely sided?

    also note, polls have consistently and substantially shown that most people want third party candidates to participate in (presidential and other) debates and despite this the mainstream media has long censored such candidates (though in the last presidential debate I am glad to see that third party candidates were much more able to participate, probably thanks to increased public pressure).

  8. Bettawrekonize says:

    More reason why I’m very disappointed with Obama and the democrats.

    “Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It’s Legal For The FBI To Break The Law On Accessing Phone Records”

    I honestly expected better than this, Obama partly got elected under the pretext that he would do better than the republicans in terms of transparency, openness, and not unnecessarily invading our privacy. But he’s not all that much better than Bush in many of these regards.

    Oh, and this doesn’t mean I’m promoting the republicans either, not by a long shot. Both parties need to go, IMO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: