Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Monday, November 1. 2010

We want to govern ourselves

This is what it's all about, from the admirable Rasmussen in the WSJ: A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP.



Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves.



A quote from the article:



Central to the Democrats' electoral woes was the debate on health-care reform. From the moment in May 2009 when the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's plan would cost a trillion dollars, most voters opposed it. Today 53% want to repeal it. Opposition was always more intense than support, and opposition was especially high among senior citizens, who vote in high numbers in midterm elections.



Repubs need to read the message carefully. Voters are rightly on guard and suspicious these days.

Posted by The Barrister in Politics at 17:15 | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I think the Democrats have been very successful over the years at highlighting the aspects of conservatism where it can at least be argued that we wish to govern from the right, and have embedded that fear in much of the electorate. At the points where conservatism is a non-ideological position - a "leave everyone alone and let things unfold" position, the Democrats have done well at raising the spectre of other forces - evil corporations being a prime bogey - gaming the system and needing correction, which only Democrats can provide.

But the underlying unquestioned assumption is that the hands-off position is simply not possible - conservatives can't possibly mean that, it's just a cover for some deeper nefarious trick of theirs.

Liberals do not refute conservative arguments, they simply fail to understand them. There is a baseline paranoia which believes it must all be some scam.

Pure projection. Very Screwtape.
#1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2010-11-01 19:44 (Reply)
1988: "You voted for Bush?" "No, I voted against Dukakis."

1992: "You voted for Bush?" "No, I voted against Clinton."

1996: "You voted for Dole?" "No, I voted against Clinton."

2000: "You voted for Dubya?" "No, I voted against Gore."

2004: "You voted for Dubya?" "No, I voted against Kerry."

2008: "You voted for McCain?" "No, I voted against Obama."

There hasn't been anyone to vote for since Reagan.
#2 John on 2010-11-01 20:48 (Reply)
Howdy John
I voted for each of the conservatives you named. In each case, there was some Against voting, but that has been true in all the elections I've voted in. I was underwhelmed by Bush 41 and Dole, but we can sometimes use underwhelming politicians. As for John McCain -- okay, that was mostly against Obama. McCain-Feingold sticks hard in my craw.
Smokey - yes. If the feds stuck to their Constitutional responsibilities and if the states followed that model, we'd be freer and richer and our poor would be better off.
#2.1 Geoff Brown on 2010-11-02 09:32 (Reply)
I don't want to be governed; I'm an American.

I want good government. The smaller the better.
#3 Smokey (Link) on 2010-11-01 23:18 (Reply)
Given the whole thing of voter fraud (ACORN, dead people voting, motor voter, etc) or that it can take 3 recounts to settle Gregoire/Rossi, or Al Franken, I for one would not be surprised to wake Nov 3 to find that the turnover is not as large as predicted. Yes, call me pessimistic.
Until whoever does win realizes it's SEA party (Spent Enough Already) it's just going to be more of the same politics as usual.
#4 Jerry on 2010-11-02 03:59 (Reply)
Sounds remarkably like we want a return to true Federalism, with a respect for limited Constitutional powers.

While I hope the Republicans can help pry the Democratic hands off the wheel, I have my own doubts about their driving record. We've been careened from the righthandside ditch to the lefthandside ditch. The two party system seems unstable. It's going to be "wait and see".

More disconcerting has been the quasi-organized voter fraud perpetrated by the Left, of which immigration amnesty is a large future component. Citizens must not allow their vote to be disenfranchised and diluted in this way. Every means for getting legitimate voters to vote is fine; but equal effort to prevent unqualified votes from being cast is required to maintain confidence in our electoral system.

Beyond 2012, my support is for whomever gets us closest back to a smaller government footprint.
#5 ruralcounsel on 2010-11-02 10:56 (Reply)
So, small muse fer me day, Whom amongst yall consents for Benjamin Shalom Bernanke and Federal Reserve to govern?

There the criminals behind the Muhammadan mad man sailing for India to surrender more USA treasure.

After India him sails for for more surrenderin' at Jakarta's Masjid Istiqlal.

Shalom.
#6 Leag on 2010-11-04 13:35 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.