Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The White House Could Learn, But Will It?

Kentucky Attorney General and winner of yesterday's Democratic Senate primary Jack Conway, with daughter Eva. He'll be facing in November the black frost that is Rand Paul, who routed the state's Republican establishment yesterday.

We know the Tea Partiers will be crowing about the Kentucky results. So would we, if we had led that successful insurgency against Pooh Bah Mitch McConnell and the other sticks-in-the-mud that make up the Republican Establishment.

But the Paul victory sets up a dynamic that could end up giving the victory to Democrat Jack Conway (he of the photogenic baby) in November. The Republican Party in Kentucky is torn, and Rand Paul doesn't have the temperament for sewing it back together. He kinda likes ripping fabric.

All in all, the three key senatorial primaries in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas were bad news for party orthodoxy on both sides of the aisle, but worse news for the Republicans, since in Pennsylvania a rising Democratic star beat ole Arlen and in Arkansas, another progressive Democrat could well pick off another blue dog in the run-off.

We like the odds of having new faces for the Democrats in all three states, and actual Democrats at that, rather than warmed over former Republicans or whatever it is that Blanche Lincoln has become.

The tea party may well prove to be the death of the Republican Party, while the hyper-cautious, compromising proclivities of President Obama is doing wonders for rejuvenating some Democratic cojones everywhere but in the White House.


Mike D. said...

Once Obama has a Republican Congress to work with, I feel that he could become a truly great President. Clinton, working with a Republican Congress, seemed to work really well (except for the Republican attempt to oust him, of course).

The biggest problems seem to occur when one party owns the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. The "system of checks and balances" becomes an ideological steamroller.

When we have a Democrat President and a Republican Congress, it seems that each side focuses on what it is supposed to stand for, compassion on the Liberal side and fiscal sanity on the Conservative side. This makes for good, fair legislation which features limited government intrusion and sound fiscal policy.

I look forward to the change I can believe in.

¡Sí, se puede!

brotherdoc said...

Oh, Mikey D.,
It's interesting to see you pontificate about checks and balances here in 2010, when all the GOP bobbleheads could say between 2006 and 2008 was how they hated gridlock and despised Democratic efforts to curtail Bush's agenda. Furthermore, don't count your chickens before the votes are cast in November about a Republican Congress. There's no certainty on that count, although Big Money (Wall street, banks, oil and coal companies, the military industrial complex, etc.) will of course to do their best to bankroll the Tea Pee'ers, in the hope of keeping a lot of people crazy mad at Obama and (gasp!) Pelosi.
I heart Nancy!

Anonymous said...

When you have the support of Sara Palin and called yourself a " Conservative Republican" Shades of Barry Goldwater, than you are not a real libertarian, but simply a rehashed of Republican Arizonia politics of the 50's.........So much for billiant new ideas in the 21 st century........

Anonymous said...

Wow, Mike D. is actually right about something, or mostly right. I agree 100% with the sentiment of having two parties rule together.

But he is wrong about Repubs standing for fiscal sanity when in power (the last time they had all branches for six straight years they spent more and on incredibly stupid things than ever before in the nation's history). That is insane not sane.

BikerBard said...

So Mike, if I understand you, the Republicans have stood firm against Obama,and became the Party of NO, until they get a Republican majority, and THEN they will work cooperatively? Bullfeathers!

Mike D. said...

Under one party rule by either party, there seems to be a tendency to defer to the will of the party, to spend political capital, discarding the will of the people.

When the governance of the country is split between two parties with opposing views, particularly when the President is a Democrat and Congress is Republican, the two sides seem to court public sentiment (even if it only happens as a consequence, a byproduct of shameless self-promotion), and we the people get our way.

Anonymous, I agree with you. Left to their own, Republicans do not demonstrate the fiscal sanity they purport to stand for. But when they work with a Democrat President, they seem to fight for the helpful portions of their platform much more effectively.

Mike D. said...


You are so rapt with your jargon-laden cause that you actually called me a GOP bobblehead in response to my vocal praise of Bill Clinton. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh's show about five times, speaking of GOP bobbleheads, and each and every time, I have heard him espouse hatred for Bill Clinton's Presidency. I said I like Bill Clinton.

"Pontificate", "GOP bobbleheads", "Big Money", "the military industrial complex", "bankroll the Tea Pee'ers", "in the hope of keeping a lot of people crazy mad"... How can we have an honest discussion if you post nothing deeper than a litany of progressive soundbites? So you know the jargon... great! Now can we have a real discussion?

This is indeed sad, as you probably have a lot of valuable philosophy to offer the world. But none of it will convey if you insist on eliminating open communication. How can there be growth and learning with such deep layers of semantic defense mechanics in place?

Mike D. said...


No, it appears that you did not understand me at all.

BikerBard said...

Mike D: Oh contraire. I understood you very well.

I just think it's horse apples!

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him!" - W.S.

No Compromise said...

Dream on, JW. According to the latest poll, Rand Paul has a 25% lead over his Democrat opponent.

BikerBard said...

I'm sure that lead will dwindle after that ridiculously racist showing Rand had on MSNBC with Rachael Maddow.

No Compromise said...

Hate to tell you, BB, but the poll was taken after the interview.

BikerBard said...

dwindle: (verb)
To decrease in size, number, or intensity, and approach zero

No Compromise said...

BB, I wasn't talking about your IQ!

BikerBard said...

No Comp:
At least one must HAVE an IQ in order for it to dwindle. Work on improving upon yours. Shoot for 60- it would elevate you to the status of "limited mental ability."

We here at WW recognize that in you.

Mike D. said...

BikerBard and No Compromise,

No response to the content of my post? Content to engage in one line zingers of partisan bickering? I suppose that is the bedrock of this site, but we can change it!

Come on, be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

No Compromise said...

Mike D.
Why do we have to respond to your post? Are you so vain that you believe your post, even though it has nothing to do with the original topic, is so good that everyone has to respond to it?

Mike D. said...

No Compromise,

Perhaps my posts were not entirely on topic, but they must make for slightly better conversation than "You're stupid!"... "No, YOU'RE stupid!".

BikerBard said...

No Comp:
On this we can agree.
Mike D.:
Now YOU are being stupid!