Looking back at the election (11-4-10)
I haven’t wrote for a few days. I was in a small state of shock over what happened across the country. But I have been paying a lot of attention to get a better understanding. Looking back, I realize a few things. Some of what you hear is a stretch, while others are flat out lies. Here is my take on it all.
First off, this was not a referendum on the past two years. This was a referendum on jobs and the economy. Had they of been in a better state, I really believe that we would not be here today. People are angry and upset. They are angry that more wasn’t done faster. They are angry that they are still losing their homes. They are angry that they are losing their jobs. But, to say that every policy of the past 2 years needs to be reversed in order to make people happy. That’s just redundant, a waste of time, and that is the one thing we don’t have much of if we want to recover.
Second, I hear a lot of spin that the Tea Party is the new force. They are the ones that dominated, and it shows that America is siding with them. Again, a lie. A boldface lie. The only victor was Rand Paul. Here is a short list of the rest:
Meg Whitman, spent $160+million of her own money in California. What happened? She lost to Democrat Jerry Brown. Meg Whitman spent six times what Jerry Brown did, roughly $50 a vote, and still couldn’t manage a win. May I add, she spent $160 million for a job that pays est. $200,000/year. Is this really somebody they wanted to manage their finances anyway? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/steve-lopez-meg-whitman-spent-50-for-each-vote-she-got-is-that-an-outrageous-extravagance.html)
Christina O’Donnell. Lost to Chris Coons in Deleware. We all know who she is. We all knew she had no chance. Any campaign that has to start their first ad with “I am not a witch,” is doomed from the beginning. It’s been fun seeing you, though, Christine, and I’m sure you’ll have your own show on Fox soon enough. But, don’t tell her she didn’t win; she doesn’t see it like that! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbi_Ahlf-HA)
Sharron Angle. It turns out the only person less popular in Nevada than Harry Reid, is Sharon Angle. Turns out, her celebration was a bit too early. What can I say? When you refuse to talk the media, and say you will discuss your platform after you are elected, again, you set your self up for failure before you even get out of the gate. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8108200/Midterms-2010-Sharron-Angles-victory-party-falls-flat.html)
And the last one I will discuss in a bit more detail…
Alaska. Ah, Alaska. Home of people such as Sarah Palin and, well, Polar Bears. The Russian flag set early for Sarah this year. Palin, the de facto head of the Tea Party, couldn’t even help get her own endorsed candidate, Joe Miller, elected.
The Republican party really screwed up on this one. First, they drop their endorsement of Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski to support Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. But, unlike in other states, Lisa refused to accept this. She decided to run a long shot write-in candidacy. Not since Strom Thurmond in 1954 had a candidate won a Senate seat as a write in. Well, in the year that anything could happen, it did.
Lisa Murkowski has officially won the Alaskan Senate seat, leaving yet another Tea Party backed candidate in the cold (so to speak).
As can be seen, this year had nothing to do with the Tea Party. In fact, their “revolution” went out without so much as a fizzle. The list continues. There were some wins, true, and they shouldn’t be ignored. But again I present, I think it was more an anti-incumbent movement, than a Tea Party movement.
I learned something else this election season. Washington is broken. Everybody grunt and moan, and get it out. I hate it as much as you do. So, allow me to rephrase. The politics of Washington is broken. The two party system simply no longer works. America has become too diverse for this black and white political atmosphere. In fact, I would argue that the party system needs to be eliminated completely.
At first, this may sound like a radical ideal. But, picture for me for a moment. No longer backing a candidate simply because he or she is a Democrat or Republican. Now, in this New World, we back candidates for where they stand on issues. Who best reflects our ideals. This would mean paying attention to what is going on. Not just cheering for whoever everybody else seems to be at that very moment. It would be radical. But it would also be revolutionary.
Our political system would never be the same after this. Perhaps many of the candidates would meet on some issues, not just what their party tells them to. And when in government, they would actually work with each other, and continually move the country forward. Always evolving. Instead of this system of: You put this in. Now I will remove it. Repeat. How effective is that? Well, if you don’t know the answer, take a look at what’s been going on the past two years, and unfortunately, forward to the next two.
The demolition of the political system is a relatively new idea. Our founding fathers believed that a two party, idealistic system, would be the demise of our country. I will admit, this isn’t my own idea. I just strongly agree with it. When I first heard it, I was taken aback. Then I started thinking about it. And the more I did, the more it made sense. Contemplate it for a while. See how the idea rests with you. I bet you start to see the light in the idea as well.