axcess.me™
… and They’re Off!

Usually these off-year elections don’t heat-up much before six months out, but this year it seems that the race is already on. The highly contentious nature of the year-long healthcare battle, and the disgusting way in which it was waged, produced public ire against specific congressmen and senators. In politics, perception is reality, and the perception began growing that the administration just didn’t get it. The August town halls were a public relations disaster for incumbents – in spite of the media’s constantly portraying citizens as clueless idiots, Members came off as out of touch, arrogant and dismissive. That started it.

The tea party movement took off, and instead of actually committing journalism, the press continued its “clueless idiots” interpretation of the largest grass roots movement since the ‘60s. Virtually everything Washington has done increased voter frustration – bailouts and takeovers, “man-caused disasters”, an obviously political “stimulus” package, cap-and-trade, moving the KSM trials to New York, healthcare, Mirandizing the crotch-bomber after just 50 minutes of questioning, on and on.

Part of the why behind an early season this cycle is that many Democrats suddenly realized that the “clueless idiots” vote. They’re falling away like over-ripe fruit. Almost daily we’re treated to another Democrat congressman or senator who has suddenly decided to “spend more time with the family”. All other things being equal, an open seat is easier for the opposition party to capture than it is to unseat an incumbent. This, added to the dissatisfaction factor, has helped generate an early start to campaign season.

Keeping in mind that the historical norm for off-year elections is for the White House party to lose 3 Senate seats and 20 House seats, it will take a net gain of 10 seats in the Senate and 40 in the House to change political leadership in those institutions. I’ll admit to watching the Senate more closely than the House, because the 60-seat supermajority was razor-thin, requiring absolute partisan lock-step to pass or block anything controversial. The Senate became a laboratory for watching the influence (or lack of it) of public opinion on elected officials.

Of the four open Senate seats formerly held by Democrats (Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois and North Dakota), two are likely going Republican (Vice President Biden’s old Delaware seat and North Dakota’s), Chris Dodd’s Connecticut seat is leaning Democrat, and President Obama’s old Illinois seat is a statistical toss up. The five open Republican seats (Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio) are 1-0-4 as to Republican (Florida)-Democrat (none)-Toss Up (Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio). I see the open seats, as of today, yielding a net Democrat loss of two seats, with five too close to call.

Of the six closely contested Democrats up for election this year, California’s Barbara Boxer and Indiana’s Evan Bayh will probably retain their seats, while Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln and Nevada’s Harry Reid will likely lose theirs. Colorado’s Michael Bennet’s and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter’s races are still too close to call. I don’t see any Republican seats up for re-election likely to change polarity this year. Another Democrat loss of two seats with two more too close to call.

So as of now, Republicans stand to gain four Senate seats, but with seven races within the margin of error and large numbers of undecided, I can’t imagine that all of them will retain their seats – especially Arlen Specter, whose party-changing repulsed both parties in Pennsylvania. Real Clear Politics’ Generic Congressional Vote switched over to Republicans for the first time in early November[1], and holds at favoring the GOP by 3.2%.

But then, their just approaching the first pole.


[1] RCP averages the following polls for their Generic Congressional Vote: NPR/GQR, 800 likely voters; Rasmussen Reports, 3,500 likely voters; Democracy Corps, 836 likely voters; CNN/Opinion Research, 955 registered voters; and Pew Research, 1,214 registered voters.


Posted 02-02-2010 12:46 by Eagle Watch

Comments

TVNews wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-02-2010 19:39

Looking good...

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-02-2010 19:51

Did you see the hearings today, TV?  Senator Graham was questioning Mr Ostertag (OMB) about taking TARP money that has been paid back and giving it back to small banks to lend out to small business.  The only problem is that that’s against the law (which Lindsey Graham wrote), which states that monies paid back to TARP “shall be returned to the Treasury and used for retirement of the debt.”  Mr Ostertag casually said that “we’ll change the law.”  That could be interesting, since “they” [the executive] can’t change the law – the whole thing will have to go in front of Congress.  

I think this is the last thing Congress wants right now.  They will be endlessly reminded of two facts – how much debt we are piling up; and the big banks didn’t lend out their funds, why do they think the small ones will?  This will framed, again, as the administration not knowing what they are doing.  Like I say, an issue I don’t think the Democrats want right now.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-03-2010 3:47

My first comment and it is addressed to both of you:

OH BOYS, HOWDY!!! "Happy-Change" is a comin!

To comment on you post, EW:

The press might have spun the Tea Party movement as a bunch of clueless idiots, but FIX-NEWS didn't. They were smart enough to know that if they just kept on pushing it it would grow roots, sprout and become a serious challenge to the Admin. and the Dems. Which was part and parcel of their agenda all along..."Fair and Balanced" indeed!

I think you have underestimated the # of Senate seats and also House seats that will be picked up by the 'Pubs this November. There's a train wreck coming, IMHO.

I didn't see Sen. Graham's questioning of Ostertag, but I did see news clips of Judd Gregg's rant. And he [and you] are right that monies returned to TARP are supposed to be returned to the treasury to help offset the deficit. GOOD FOR HIM! He's retiring this year so he can afford to tell it like it is. I'm serious and I'm not being sarcastic. I have great admiration for both him and Sen. Graham. My favorite 'Publicans in the Senate. I think of them as two honest men within that pack of weasels...Ha ha!

And lastly, I think it's time for Arlen Specter to go. As a registered Dem., I'll be voting for Sestak in the primary this year. Arlen's too old and he sounds like he's suffering from the early stages of dementia. So many of the Senators from both sides of the aisle that are at or approaching 80 seem to be afflicted likewise. Maybe there should be an age limit? If Pa. ends up with either Specter or Sestak as their Dem. candidate, I don't think either of those guys will win. It will be Toomey all the way. And you guys can celebrate mightily. He's more conservative than even Santorum was. Or at the very least, a clone of Santorum. Congratulations in advance.

And that's my turn. It's your move.

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-03-2010 4:09

I agree that FOX was the only news outlet that took the Tea Party movement seriously, but as Democrats don’t take FOX seriously, their self-delusion remained in-tact.  And actually, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just a FOX slogan, it’s the opinion of 49% of those polled (among all consumers of news TV).  

If all 11 Senate seats that I profiled go Republican, that will return control of the Senate to Republicans, but the odds of all seven Toss Up seats going one way are slim.  I haven’t ventured any guesses on the House because, as I’ve said, I haven’t been tracking the House.  My gut feel is still that it will remain in Democrat hands.  

Yes, Senator Gregg’s questioning was also informative.  What struck me is the arrogance of administration officials – “we’ll just change the law”, as though they could without obviating Constitutional separation of powers.  

As I mentioned, Senator Specter aggravated both parties by his opportunistic switch back to the Democrats once his disastrous town hall meeting became the poster child for Senatorial out-of-touchness.  And I agree with you that his seat will probably go Republican, although the polling is still within the margin of error with a lot of undecideds.  

The size of the train wreck in November still depends on the behavior of the administration and Congress.  They could have co-opted moderate Republicans early on, effectively splitting the GOP, by immediately opting for insurance portability across state lines and initiating tort reform.  But they could never get away with it now.  If they continue to try to hide the contents of the healthcare bill and/or try to slide it through as a series of non-germane amendments to other bills, they will produce a train hitting the Hindenburg in November.    

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-04-2010 3:34

Interesting perspective. I give up on trying to convince you that FOX isn't a fair and balanced organization. I think they have an obvious right-wing bias not only in their political analysis, but also in their selection of news headlines and stories that they report on. Just as I think MSNBC has a very left-wing agenda. But enough of that.

I agree with you that the 'Pubs won't make a clean sweep of it in the Senate. But I don't think they need to in order to completely de-rail any Dem. agenda. They've already accomplished that with the election of DownTown Scotty Brown. As "Mother Jones" headlined, "The Republicans have regained control of the Senate with a solid 41-59 majority." And they are right. I'm sure the 'Pubs will continue to vote as a solid block and stifle any bills that come their way during this Administration. Nothing has changed except their chanted mantra. When it was Healthcare reform being considered they kept hammering on "Socialism! Govt. Takeover!". Now their battle cry is "Budget Deficit! Debt! Saddling the grandchildren!"...and to their credit, it's working. The country--or as they like to say "the American People"--are listening. They sure know "the American People" I'll give them that. They have a knack for finding the hot buttons and pushing them. So it's looking very good for them in November.

I think the crux to the Nov. outcome is the unemployment figures. If it goes down to 8% or less, the Dems. will not lose as many seats in either chamber. You agree? Either way, they will lose seats of course. I think the House is going to take a bigger hit than the Senate [for Dems.].

But it really doesn't matter. If the Dems. couldn't push through their agenda when they had control of both Houses they'll get even less done from here on out. Gridlock. "Yessss!" say the Pubs. Things are looking better and better for them in 2012. [sighs]. I'm about to give up! You win. Ha ha!

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-04-2010 4:31

I agree that the Republicans are better at the moment of “finding the hot button” of the people – that’s called representing your constituents.  The deficits being piled up are truly historic, and the problem is that the immediate problem faced by this administration – the capital markets meltdown – took a year’s worth of deficit spending on its own.  President Obama just couldn’t let his agenda wait, however, and the resultant mega-programs tacked onto the economic recovery have pushed the deficit into the stratosphere.  It was unnecessary, and the people know it.

You’re right that unemployment will be pivotal, and, again, the short-sightedness of the administration will probably cost them in November.  If the original “stimulus” bill concentrated on employment (instead of political payback), those numbers may well have been better today (and still improving).  The problem for Democrats is that unemployment is a lagging indicator – it takes true improvement to demonstrate itself before businesses will commit to increase payroll.  With healthcare and increased taxes hanging over their heads, businesses just won’t hire new people until they know what the future business environment is going to look like, and none of that is going to change before November – it takes longer than that.  

As I say, the White House party normally loses 3 Senate and 20 House seats during off-year elections, so yes, either way, the Democrats are probably going to lose seats, but I expect the losses to be greater this year because of the tyrannical way in which the Democrats tried to use their one-party rule last year.  

And you’re right again in that the failure of the Democrats to get anything done with legislative majorities (the votes to pass anything) in both houses of Congress speaks to their mis-use of those majorities.  And actually, I am one of those who cheer gridlock whenever it occurs.  It’s not a question of Democrat or Republican, it’s Congress that I don’t trust.  The less they do, the less we get screwed.  It’s just that simple.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-05-2010 4:05

I can't resist this comment, EW. You know how I love to tweak you! And it's really the only defense I can mount! Have you been invited to address the Tea Party Convention? If not, what a shame!  "Caribou Barbie" with her passion and charisma, and you with your eloquence in defense of the "movement's" principles would be a winning combination, for sure! (Giggles).

To get serious: In response to your last paragraph, Congressional gridlock is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, since they hold the purse strings no spending would happen. From your perspective a good thing. On the other hand, there would be no appropriated monies for DOD. From your perspective a very bad thing. So I think you would agree that Congress does play a vital part in Govt. We couldn't really get along with two branches of government--executive and judicial. Besides, that would be unconstitutional! And if there were no Congress or even congressional gridlock, who would be around to roll back all those SOCIAL programs like Medicare and S.S.? And cut the purse strings to them? So be carefull what you wish for. Only Congress can put an end to all social spending...Just sayin'

To refer back to your original posting, I've been paying more attention to the upcoming 2010s, and I would make a few predictions on that subject. I think Reid, Lincoln and Specter are definitely goners and I think the 'Pubs will pick up those Senate seats. I also think they will win in N.D. and Col. so I count that as 5 gains for them. I predict that Cal., Conn., and probably Ind. will stay under Dem. control. The two seats left-- Del. and Illinois I see splitting the difference. Del. will go to the 'Pubs and Ill. will stay in the Dem. column. Illinois could be just wishful thinking on my part though...Kirk is popular, he's mounted a great (and nasty IMO) campaign already attacking the Dem. for "ties to the mob". That should work--maybe. So I see a definite gain of 6 seats for the Pubs. at this point.

I'm with you that it's too early to start looking at House seats. There's so many up for grabs I've got to do a whole lot more studying and paying attention before I could start predicting there.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-05-2010 4:26

Actually, I think the whole idea of a Tea Party Convention is a mistake.  They can best serve their own interests by working locally to support legitimate candidates that share their worries about the direction of the country.  I’m just afraid this is going to turn into an “independent” movement, which never fair well in this country, and tend to split the party they are closest to.  

As to gridlock, only once since I can remember have they locked up over budgetary issues.  The tendency is to come to an impasse over programmatic legislation, and that’s fine with me.  Remember Senator Sam Ervin (D-SC)?  He told us that “no matter where you stand in this great country, you fall under the aegis of some two million laws – federal, state and local.  We don’t need more laws.”  His view was that every time a law was passed, two should be taken off the books.  

You’re right in the middle of my 5-7 seat margin for Republican wins in the Senate.  As to the House, with 435 seats up for grabs, I’ll wait until Real Clear Politics average polling starts to come out in each state.  I’m just not familiar enough with local issues and reputations among sitting Members, let alone challengers.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-06-2010 3:57

I agee that this "Convention" is a mistake. It's making the Tea Party movement look too disorganized and consequently minimizing their effectiveness in the "serious" political arena. It's playing into the hands of the "mainstream" media who's having a grand time characterizing them as a bunch of wing-nuts who don't agree on anything. "See? It's like herding cats! Ha ha!". And their dressing up in silly costumes, and holding up silly signs...the Media is having a field day.  Not smart, you're right. They should stick with their grass roots concept and work from the bottom up to change the political scene. I saw the head of the original Tea Party movement [he's from Texas] being interviewed on MSNBC yesterday and he agrees that this convention is a setback. And of course I also saw on MSNBC Alan Keyes' Tea Party Cruise to the Caribbean..."All us think-alikes getting together to have a great time and push our agenda" who's main issue is Obama's citizenship. Don't they realize they're being exploited?

I remember Sam Ervin of course. He was from back in the good old days when politicians were politicians and worked together...Sighs. The gridlock over budgetary issues, are you talking about '94 when the newly elected Gingrich House wouldn't give in to Clinton's budget and so the Govt. shut down for several months? That's the only one I remember.

I too will start monitoring Real Clear Politics now. Thanks for reminding me that they are there. I haven't checked them out in months. They'll help me get a better take on not only the House elections, but the Senate too. There are more than just 10 Senate seats up for elections, right? Not just the 10 that are being contested between the parties?  

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-06-2010 4:32

The Tea Partiers don’t give a rip what the mainstream media thinks or says about them – they’ve totally missed the boat on this movement.  Silly costumes and silly signs are part and parcel of all political conventions.  Always have been.  My fear is that they get too “organized” – their strength is in the decentralized, local influence.  I don’t know what Keyes is up to these days, but if he’s with the birthers (which is NOT an issue with Tea Partiers), then he’s driven off the cliff.  

Yes, the Gingrich budget impasse is the only gridlock I can remember that wasn’t about issue legislation.  That’s all I was saying.  And yes, a third of the Senate is up every two years, but not all seats are hotly contested, which is why I limited my comments to those that may change polarity in this election.  

TVNews wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-06-2010 9:17

And Libby sat down before her computer. Her fingers danced across the keyboard, efficient, fast and accurate. The following words appeared:

"I give up on trying to convince you that FOX isn't a fair and balanced organization."

It is good to hear you finally got over your chronic case of FDS. Isn't life better now that you are no longer deluding yourself about Fox News?

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-08-2010 3:05

You missed my point entirely, TV. As usual. I said I gave up on trying to convince EW that FOX isn't fair and balanced. Not that I've come to the conclusion that they are fair and balanced. Why don't you re-read what I wrote? And do it CAREFULLY this time.

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-08-2010 3:24

Unfortunately, EW, Keyes' think-alikes also showed up at the convention. I watched several hours worth of coverage on C-Span Friday afternoon. And to the embarrassment of the organizers a woman from Hawaii [big round of applause for someone who traveled so far to attend] had to stand up and make the point that her main issue was Obama's citizenship. She did it by holding up her son's birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii in the same hospital that Obama was supposedly born at. And then she held up her husband's birth certificate from Hawaii. And then she held up what has been posted online as a copy of Obama's birth certificate and intimated that it was a bunch of crap. Of course, she got a huge round of applause. So the quandary is how do the legitimate Tea Partiers separate themselves from the birthers and other wing-nuts who have jumped aboard the movement? I wonder.

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-08-2010 3:45

I think that process will take care of itself.  Every movement – to include both Parties – draw extremists.  They tend to stay in the fringes, much like the “truthers” on the left who think the Bush administration staged 9/11.  You don’t’ purge them, you just allow them to define themselves by their behavior.  If the Democrats think they can discredit the movement by “birthers’ “ presence, they do so at their own peril.  This is a legitimate political force, and if 0-for-3 hasn’t shown them that, they’re unteachable.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-09-2010 3:53

I'll grant you that the Tea Party movement is a legitimate political force that will have a very substantial effect of the Nov. 2010 elections. Whether or not it will be able to maintain itself and grow substantially--and it will need to do that in order to survive--is still in question in my opinion.

I'm betting that "the American People" will become as disenchanted with "Happy-Change" as they did with "Hopeychange" in 2009-10. And we won't know the answer to that until 2011-2012.

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-09-2010 4:02

I’m not even thinking about 2012 at this point … three years ago, nobody had heard of a Tea Party movement.  My best case scenario is that they concentrate on illuminating the out-and-out corruption of government at the highest levels, and the American people take it from there.  If average Americans don’t care, there is nothing anyone can do anyway.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-10-2010 2:20

I don't think average Americans care that much. I don't think average Americans are into or interested in politics to the degree that we are. They are interested in themselves and their lives. And their degree of interest in politics and government waxes and wanes with what direct effect that government has in relation to their personal circumstances. Unfortunate? Perhaps. But I think that is a fact.  

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-10-2010 2:37

I’m afraid you’re right, and that’s exactly how we’ve lost the Constitution as a blueprint for how government works.  So in the end, you and your think-alikes will probably win out and we will become a thoroughly Europeanized nannystate.  Maybe then we will teach American History, so at least they will know what a great experiment America was.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-13-2010 2:57

You know that think-alikes of my ilk don't find the "Europeanized nannystate" concept anathema. We tend to think of it as a survival strategy in a shrinking, interlocked globe with a burgeoning population. But that position opens up a whole other can of worms and a lengthy philosophical discussion of course...

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-13-2010 3:20

I just don’t understand how a weakening state in an increasingly contentious world is a successful “survival strategy”.  

TVNews wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-14-2010 6:35

Libby wrote, "You know that think-alikes of my ilk don't find the "Europeanized nannystate" concept anathema. We tend to think of it as a survival strategy in a shrinking, interlocked globe with a burgeoning population."

That is because your "ilk" refuse to see that Socialism failed each and every time. We can survive without handing our lives over to the world community.

What you see as survival, I see as lethal. Where you see the Constitution as a "living document," I see a threat to our freedoms, including the one to debate this matter on an open forum like this one.

What amazes me beyond words is the inability of some people to apply the lessons from even recent history to the world we live in today. And that is what will end this nation as we know it.

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-18-2010 2:43

TV, your last statement "What amazes me beyond words is the inability  of some people to apply the lessons from even recent history to the world we live in today." just astonishes me; because it so accurately describes my own opinion. I think you are reading my mind? NAH....Couldn't be...

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-18-2010 2:56

EW, regarding your last comment:

What you perceive as a "weakening" state I perceive as a strength-in-numbers concept. Think of the power of a hive of bees or an aunt colony or a termite mound. Cooperation is a very successful survival strategy in an ever-shrinking environment, IMO.

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-18-2010 3:05

If we were to join Europe as a flaccid nanny-state with a kumbaya foreign policy, the West would not be stronger – it would be easy pickings for Russia from Europe’s east and China from our west.  Free trade on the sea- and air-lanes would cease, and the world economy, without the American engine driving it, would slump.  World poverty would spike.  I know you don’t like to hear it, but America is a force for good in the world on many, many fronts.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-19-2010 4:12

You're wrong. I love to hear that America is a force for good in the world. We just disagree on the meaning of that statement.

Your meaning revolves around the word "force". Force is imperative to our survival in a nasty evil world that is bent on our destruction. I think that's the way you interpret the current state of things. I think your concept of Russia and China as evil empires is based upon what I call "20th century think". In that world of good guys and bad guys, the good guys can only win by using their superior military might to control the actions of everyone else that inhabits that world. And historically, that's correct.

I'm seeing a different world than that one. I'm seeing a shrinking world where everyone is dependent upon everyone else. What you refer to as "kumbaya" with all its derogatory connotations, I see as an inevitable progression of what is happening with a satisfactory outcome.  In short we will all learn to get along or we will end up destroying each other. Or at least the world as we know it.

That business about free trade and the world economy and America being the driving force behind it all is great example of how this inter-connectedness I speak of works. China (our old enemy from the 20th century) right now is propping up our economy because their economic survival depends upon it. If their main intent was to destroy America they could easily start the ball rolling by calling in our debt to them. But what would that gain them? And Russia (our old enemy from the 20th century) would destroy their own economy and create havoc in their country if they decided to assert their military power in and over Europe or anywhere else. I seriously don't think they are only being held in check by our threat of superior military power. I suppose that you do?

In conclusion, I've laid out you my argument for survival in the 21st century and beyond. I think it reinforces the point that global conditions and circumstances have changed in the last 60 or even 30 years. I think we must adapt and change with the times. But we've been down this road before...

I suppose that you will now classify me as unpatriotic...Oh well...

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-19-2010 4:38

Last point first, I have no illusions about your patriotism, we just disagree on worldviews.  I could get into why PRC didn’t pull the trigger on their monetary leverage, or how Russia could dominate Europe without involving their military, but that’s off-message in this context.  

I know you think that I am a war monger, but I’m not.  Peaceful coexistence is the preferred condition, but peace in a Hobbesian world can only be assured through strength, and a Kantian perpetual peace, at the present state of human evolution, is illusory (Kant himself admitted this).  This may in fact be where humanity is headed, but we’re not there yet, and no, the richest, freest nation in history should not “set the example” by lowering our guard in some Pollyanna attempt hoping that Iran, DPRK, Somalia, Sudan, and all the other bad actors will follow.  They won’t.  

Your point about the interconnectedness of the world economy is a good one, but you miss the problem inherent in us becoming a nanny-state.  Capitalism is the only economic system devised by man that has invariably left prosperity in its wake.  Socialism kills innovation, which kills growth.  No growth, no prosperity.  Our demise as a global economic engine will plunge the world into a pandemic recession that, without an American recovery on the horizon, would be long-lasting indeed.  Look at the present situation.  Our securities meltdown brought the world down with it, and we are the most advanced in the recovery process, dragging the rest of the world back up with us.  Socialism has embedded within it a rejection of personal responsibility that results in a dumbing-down of issues to the level of the least capable.  This aspect has moral consequences that, again, are outside of this context, but no less important.  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-22-2010 3:03

Most of those European "nanny-states" have managed to combine socialism with capitalism. They are neither one nor the other. And they seem to be surviving Ok, IMO. It doesn't appear to me that Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, etc. etc. are in danger of folding any time soon...Just sayin'...

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-22-2010 4:33

That would be because NATO (read: US military East) is still obviating any need for Europe to spend adequate to their own defense.  They also pay way higher income taxes than we do, and they would love to have the unemployment numbers that we currently have – ten to twelve percent unemployment is the European norm.  And Greece, by the way, is very much in danger of “folding”, thanks to their socialist ideas.  The EU (read: Deuchebank) will probably bail them out to prevent a drastic lowering of the euro, which will remove any incentive for Athens to question their policies.  Spain, Italy and Ireland are teetering on the edge precisely because their centralized economies are having real trouble recovering from the recession.  Spain, by the way, should serve as our model for “Green Jobs”, the instituted a program very much like the one being touted by the White House, and found that they lost 2.2 classical jobs for every “Green Job” they created, and that’s part of their current problem.  Just sayin’ …  

Libby wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-23-2010 3:37

All of what you have written can be summed up in a dire portent, I think:

Europe is on the virge of collapse due to their unwise decisionSleep to pursue "undemocratic" forms of government, and they would have already done so if it were not for us propping them up and guaranteeing their security with our military power. NATO being the tool with which we accomplish this.

Your first sentence sums this up nicely. It also applies to many Asian nations also. Japan and S. Korea being the main benefactors, I'd say.

So I ask, who is getting the best of this deal? They who are relying upon us to guarantee their security while they pursue their goals of making their countries economic powerhouses and social laboratories for reform and progress? Or us who are only too happy to provide stability to them through our military might in order so they can compete and possibly surpass our economic superiority? And at the risk of bankrupting our country in the process too...Hmmm...

Who's the smart one here?

Eagle Watch wrote re: … and They’re Off!
on 02-23-2010 4:07

Yes, the Pacific Rim was also brought under American protection after World War II.  They’re not so much on the verge of collapse as vulnerable to intimidation by other nations who do not enjoy the patronage of another for their security.  

Who is getting the best deal depends on how you define “best”.  If you don’t regard self-reliance and self-determination as “good” qualities, then those who defer their security to another is best off.  It works the same with individual people under socialism – the less dependent one is on one’s own resources, the less free one is.  The first thing to go is usually any work ethic … once outcome is divorced from effort, effort becomes an unnecessary attribute.  As the joke used to go in the Soviet Union, “As long as they pretend to pay me, I’ll pretend to work.”

The potential bankrupting of our country isn’t coming from defense spending (we’re spending about half as much on defense as Kennedy did), it’s coming from spending trillions on government takeovers of industries, trying to make healthcare a right, and trying to add the energy sector to the government portfolio.  It’s the Greek problem.  

The “smart one” will, as always, be determined by history.  

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?

axcess.me™ is a trademark of Axcess Internet®
The views expressed on personal blogs are the property of the owner and are subject to this disclaimer.