Different Perspective on Election

The results of the election are pretty well known. But what about the downstream results? How did the states' shake out?

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=21253

Notice the prevalence of red on the map. In the notes below (among others) it says that Alabama has republican majorities in both houses for the first time since Reconstruction. Even if Boehner fails miserably (and he will surely fail at least somewhat) this election will have legs that last for years...

Perhaps. If the GOP doesn't run on purely on an "Obama bad", straight up obstructionist line-up.

Remember, 2/3 of our federal government is still controlled by the dems. The 1/3 that the GOP does hold, they hold by a slimmer majority that the party they just replaced. Not that this translates directly to state politics, but dissatisfaction with a party sometimes knows no bounds.

It will be an interesting two years...

I do agree that the Republicans will be fools if they run, and govern, on "Obama bad." They will have to present their case to the American people and show just why it is their ideas are preferable. Calling someone names and blaming every mess on the opposition is ignorant, and, as it turns out, not even a good way to win elections.

Two thirds of our government may very well be controlled by Democrats but the party that originates spending is controlled by conservatives, who won this election not on an "Obama bad" campaign but on the stance that we cannot continue down this road of uncontrollable spending we are on.

And it's not like Republicans who won this election did not included the previous Republican Congress in with recently defeated Democratic Congress regarding spending. The majority accepted blame for their shortcomings and won not on an obstructionist agenda but on one of fiscal responsibility.

The only people I've seen who are stating otherwise are those trying to make an excuse for liberals defeat last weak and do not want to admit the truth. It’s the same tactic the left has taken regarding the tea party and racism, which I’m sure many blame for the left’s recent shellacking as well. Both claims are wrong and if Republicans will govern on a platform of fiscal responsibility and transparency, they stand to gain control of Washington for the next 50 years.

Both claims are wrong and if Republicans will govern on a platform of fiscal responsibility and transparency, they stand to gain control of Washington for the next 50 years.

So you don't expect them to hold the reins for long then... .

Time will tell. And if they don't govern on fiscal responsibility, then they deserve to lose the reigns but given recent history, they have more on their side then a Democratic House does. After all, it was Republicans who were responsible for the last bout of fiscal responsibility and had they not got rid of Newt, who know how long that responsibility would have continued.

"reigns" - a term of ruling (how many years)
"reins" - straps to control a draft or riding beast (just sayin')

Also, I can't remember the "last bout of fiscal responsibility" from either party.

ROFLMAO, is that all you have Terry, a correction on my use of reigns. Hell, anyone who has read more then 3 things I've written knows I butcher grammar worser then anyone you no. The fact that you feel compelled to point out my missuse of the english language says more about you then it does me.

And as you don't remember the "last bout of fiscal responsibility" from either party I'll take that to mean you will never again make the false claim that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget.

Thank you for your acknowledgement of what I've been saying for years.

And as you don't remember the "last bout of fiscal responsibility" from either party I'll take that to mean you will never again make the false claim that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget.

I never said he did. He cooked the books by borrowing from SS.

Never said differently.

How so? If I recall correctly-and I do-revenues outpaced public debt for four consecutive years. How is the cooking the books?

How so? If I recall correctly-and I do-revenues outpaced public debt for four consecutive years. How is the cooking the books?

So you are stepping back from your assertion that I made "the false claim that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget"?

No. Now answer my question. How did Clinton cook the books?

No. Now answer my question. How did Clinton cook the books?

Forget it. if you are allowed to lie about what I have actually said, I have no more time for you.

Of course you don't. I expect no less from you Terry. As I said earlier, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and based on your MO, once it starts getting warm, you skeedaddle.

Everytime.

Clinton counted SS surpluses against the overall budget to offset the deficit, even though those monies were already spoken for.

Also, Clinton originally opposed the GOP-engineered budget, only taking credit when it worked out.

That is why I say Clinton didn't really balance the budget.

Now will you apologize for out and out LYING about what I have said, namely this: And as you don't remember the "last bout of fiscal responsibility" from either party I'll take that to mean you will never again make the false claim that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget.

Of course you won't.

If I am mistaken in that you've never made that claim Terry then I apologize.

Now show me where I lied given that in my gut I honestly believe you've made that statement conceding that there is a small possibility I could be wrong.

If I am mistaken in that you've never made that claim Terry then I apologize. Now show me where I lied given that I belive you've made that statement.

You are right, not bothering to be sure you are correct when you put words in someone's mouth isn't lying. It is just irresponsible.

I have never been a Clinton cheerleader. You just assume I am because you paint me a "liberal".

As was proven on another thread, you are certainly no libertarian. If you wish to see a true libertarian, I suggest you go to HULU and watch John Stossel.

As for how your painted, that is based on your words. No one is putting anything in anyone's mouth.

And I'm still pretty confident that you have defended Clinton although I concede there is a small possibility I could be wrong.

It certainly wouldn't be the firt time.

As was proven on another thread, you are certainly no libertarian. And if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

Right, because you must either be a libertarian or a fascist.

That is the type of black and white thinking that has this country in such great shape!

Kudos!

You're the one who in years past claimed to be a libertarian. I'm not the only person who thinks that claim is wrong.

And you seem to have a fascination with fascism. Why is that?

I claimed to be a civil libertarian.

Not the same as a modern Ron Paul libertarian.

I am against many "socialist" programs, including social security and Obama's "everyone must buy health insurance", at least the way they are working now (the former), or the thought of the damage it will do (the latter).

I don't care for the idea of a central bank. I also don't like the idea of states minting their own currency, either.

I dunno, can't figure it all out today.

I consider myself as more of a civil libertarian than anything. There seem to be different schools of thought on that.

It seems to me that a civil libertarian would be wailing against the federal government intruding into ones private life, including who they choose to live with or rent to and what they base that on. The only people I've ever heard who champion intrusions like those you show support for on a consistent basis are liberals.

Those are the facts.

It seems to me that a civil libertarian would be wailing against the federal government intruding into ones private life, including who they choose to live with or rent to and what they base that on. The only people I've ever heard who champion intrusions like those you show support for on a consistent basis are liberals.

You would see it that way.

You put the landlord's freedom to discriminate over the rights of the possible renters, opening the door for de facto segregation. Not very freedom loving

Pro-lifers put the unborn's freedom over that of the mother. Again, not very freedom loving.

I place more value on the civil rights of individuals, not businesses or the unborn.

Those are the facts.

Call me whatever you like, if it is that important to you.

We are what we are Terry and you're free to believe in what you choose to. I'm merely pointing out that your claims are vastly different from what the majority of libertarians claim-those who place the rights of the property owners over all others and like it or not, majority rules.

We are what we are Terry and you're free to believe in what you choose to. I'm merely pointing out that your claims are vastly different from what the majority of libertarians claim and like it or not, majority rules.

When have you seen a group of libertarians agree on anything?

Whatever.