Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Some thoughts on politics (only mine and worth exactly what you paid for them):
Historically, the modern Republican party has mostly only been a minority opposition party, and not a majority governing political party. For example, the American people have only trusted the GOP with both houses of Congress and the Executive branch at the same time in the modern era (say 1937 or so until now--if you go back to the 20s the GOP had control in that decade before the Crash and Great Depression) a couple of times: Eisenhower had both houses from 53-55 and GW Bush did from 2000 - 2006. In contrast, there are long stretches where the Democratic party has controlled both houses and the Presidency (FDR, Truman, JFK/LBJ, Carter, first two years of Clinton and Obama) Similarly, for most of the past century, the Democratic party traditionally controlled most governorships and statehouses with less periods of Republican control. Typically, the GOP controls the Executive branch more frequently than it controls the House and/or Senate, and it appears that the GOP is granted control of the Executive branch, House and/or Senate as a counterbalance to existing Democratic controls of other parts of the government (legislative or executive branches).
Thus, it appears that the Democratic party is generally trusted by the American people as the governing party, while the Republican party is trusted as a vocal minority opposition party intended to balance and counter the power of the Democrats. But generally, the American people dont appear to trust the GOP with both legislative houses and the Presidency all at the same time--I can only assume because they do not want them controlling the entire government (my opinion).
The above makes sense when trying to figure out where the Tea Party fits into the political spectrum. I view the Tea Party as a pretty clever and successful rebranding effort by the GOP following some pretty disastrous Republican governance in the early mid-2000s. A large number of Tea Party candidates were elected in 2010 and all just happen to be Republicans.....hmmmmm.... Obviously, the American people were exhibiting a delayed reaction to almost a decade of pretty uncontrolled spending.
My personal belief is that US politics are always trending in a more "liberal" or "left" fashion, which makes sense for a free society (think the Athens model versus the Sparta model). Of course, there are periods where the collective thinking swings to a more "conservative" perspective. If we use the somewhat silly "left"/"right" labels, I kind of think of it as a train heading forward on a slightly inexorable leftward track with a large pendulum on one of the cars which swings always to the left and right, but always ultimately ends up slightly to the left as the train moves forward.
The current duopoly of Democrats and Republicans appears unbreakable to me absent public funding of federal elections, so I dont think any third party could possibly win the Presidency or more than a few seats in the House or Senate any time soon.
Using the above as my framework (and I admit it is pretty simplistic and I welcome criticism), I predict that the GOP keeps the House and might even take the Senate in 2012, but that Obama wins re-election much like Bush did in 2004--grudgingly.
Tell me why I am wrong, please.
Historically, the modern Republican party has mostly only been a minority opposition party, and not a majority governing political party. For example, the American people have only trusted the GOP with both houses of Congress and the Executive branch at the same time in the modern era (say 1937 or so until now--if you go back to the 20s the GOP had control in that decade before the Crash and Great Depression) a couple of times: Eisenhower had both houses from 53-55 and GW Bush did from 2000 - 2006. In contrast, there are long stretches where the Democratic party has controlled both houses and the Presidency (FDR, Truman, JFK/LBJ, Carter, first two years of Clinton and Obama) Similarly, for most of the past century, the Democratic party traditionally controlled most governorships and statehouses with less periods of Republican control. Typically, the GOP controls the Executive branch more frequently than it controls the House and/or Senate, and it appears that the GOP is granted control of the Executive branch, House and/or Senate as a counterbalance to existing Democratic controls of other parts of the government (legislative or executive branches).
Thus, it appears that the Democratic party is generally trusted by the American people as the governing party, while the Republican party is trusted as a vocal minority opposition party intended to balance and counter the power of the Democrats. But generally, the American people dont appear to trust the GOP with both legislative houses and the Presidency all at the same time--I can only assume because they do not want them controlling the entire government (my opinion).
The above makes sense when trying to figure out where the Tea Party fits into the political spectrum. I view the Tea Party as a pretty clever and successful rebranding effort by the GOP following some pretty disastrous Republican governance in the early mid-2000s. A large number of Tea Party candidates were elected in 2010 and all just happen to be Republicans.....hmmmmm.... Obviously, the American people were exhibiting a delayed reaction to almost a decade of pretty uncontrolled spending.
My personal belief is that US politics are always trending in a more "liberal" or "left" fashion, which makes sense for a free society (think the Athens model versus the Sparta model). Of course, there are periods where the collective thinking swings to a more "conservative" perspective. If we use the somewhat silly "left"/"right" labels, I kind of think of it as a train heading forward on a slightly inexorable leftward track with a large pendulum on one of the cars which swings always to the left and right, but always ultimately ends up slightly to the left as the train moves forward.
The current duopoly of Democrats and Republicans appears unbreakable to me absent public funding of federal elections, so I dont think any third party could possibly win the Presidency or more than a few seats in the House or Senate any time soon.
Using the above as my framework (and I admit it is pretty simplistic and I welcome criticism), I predict that the GOP keeps the House and might even take the Senate in 2012, but that Obama wins re-election much like Bush did in 2004--grudgingly.
Tell me why I am wrong, please.
Very true, which is exactly why I question this...
You guys are killin' me!
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
