Not to disrupt the republican gherkin jerkin orgy, but...

[manifold]

... one thing that seems readily apparent is that democrats are much more independent thinkers than republicans, both in the electorate and the elected.

Bush never enjoyed the majority Obama has yet he did pretty much whatever he wanted. Why? Is it possible that democrats are open to new ideas and didn't just shut them down because he has an R in front of his name? Is it possible that democrats are more likely to think for themselves and not simply vote in lock step with their party leadership?

And now consider yesterday's historic election. The bluest of all states elected a republican senator. At the absolute lowest point of Bush's approval ratings, what do you think the odds are that the reddest of all states (whichever one that may be), would have elected a democrat under similar circumstances? I'd say effectively zero.

I voted for Brown and I'm delighted that he won. But it doesn't change the fact that in general, republicans are less open minded and more sheeplike than democrats.

Go figure.

 

[toomuchtime_]

... one thing that seems readily apparent is that democrats are much more independent thinkers than republicans, both in the electorate and the elected.

Bush never enjoyed the majority Obama has yet he did pretty much whatever he wanted. Why? Is it possible that democrats are open to new ideas and didn't just shut them down because he has an R in front of his name? Is it possible that democrats are more likely to think for themselves and not simply vote in lock step with their party leadership?

And now consider yesterday's historic election. The bluest of all states elected a republican senator. At the absolute lowest point of Bush's approval ratings, what do you think the odds are that the reddest of all states (whichever one that may be), would have elected a democrat under similar circumstances? I'd say effectively zero.

I voted for Brown and I'm delighted that he won. But it doesn't change the fact that in general, republicans are less open minded and more sheeplike than democrats.

Go figure.

The Bush WH was often successful in passing legislation because it demonstrated competent political leadership, and the Obama WH has failed to pass major pieces of legislation, despite overwhelming Dem majorities in both Houses because it is fundamentally incompetent. The Bush WH negotiated with the Republican Congressional leadership and reached compromises on legislation and strategies for pressuring Dems to vote for it before bringing the debate to the floor, and the Dems ofter voted for it because they were afraid of being seen as weak on national security or favoring high taxes, not because they were open minded thinkers. The Bush WH was often able to do this because it was run by people, in addition to Bush, who had years of experience in running the national government and who were recognized and respected leaders in the Republican Party.

The Obama WH, on the other hand, has produced little besides gestures and rhetoric because it is run by political amateurs, including Obama, who have never been able to demonstrate competent political leadership within their own Party on any issue and who are not recognized and respected as Party leaders. The real Dem leaders are in Congress and Obama is merely their trophy President, not much respected by them and valued mostly as a cheerleaders, not a leader.

 

[Oddball]

Chimpy McShrub and the majorities in congress also governed as defacto democratics, a-la the governator.