House of Eratosthenes

This needs more attention. Just for starters, if the Republican party is really afraid of a splintering effect in American politics and a re-triangulation like what happened in the 1850’s that will bury it forever…and that’s a real possibility…it makes sense for the bosses to start talking about what they bring to the table as an organized party.

It’s also just plain interesting. The Senate is designed, through the writing in the Constitution itself, to be “won” through increments. That probably made more sense before the senators were popularly elected, and before partisan politics took hold. But it still makes sense: Lower chamber can go any which way every two years, the upper chamber has more inertia to it.

Just imagine the message delivered if the GOP overcomes that? Forty-one seats to fifty-one, in a single election? I still see it as comically improbable. But winning the Senate is a numbers game…and when one studies the numbers, one sees the possibility does exist.

The money I’ve already placed on it, is on the lower chamber. And I’m ready to spend it right now. San Fran Nan has exhausted her opportunity. She’s as popular as Gonorrhea.

If Barry and Co. decide to ram HCR using budget reconciliation, they might doom their party’s prospects for a decade or more. And I still think that they might do it anyway.

My question still remains: has the GOP learned its lesson, or will it, upon re-assuming power, promptly become Democrat-lite again? Because if so, they’ll be out on their collective asses in 2012 and Obama will get reelected in a landslide.Unlikely? Sure, but not impossible. To paraphrase a smart man, no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the national GOP.
- Physics Geek | 02/03/2010 @ 09:02
Morg, I’m in SoCal, and I believe you are pretty close to the bay area. Can you expound on Pelosi’s radioactivity? I was under the impression that the drones in her district would vote for her if she was skinning pets alive on the steps of the capitol biulding.
- HoundOfDoom | 02/03/2010 @ 11:51
I’d like to see it go back to the original method — senators were chosen by their state legislators. The House is supposed to be like the House of Commons — the voice of the little guy. The Senate is supposed to mimic the House of Lords — royalty, or the representative of established commercial and state interest. These people should in general … well remember that recent post where you talked about things that you don’t really understand until maybe age 50? This should be the chamber that understands those things.

It is still a dampening force on the immediate passions of the people, but in used to be more so before the Progressives slipped in the “Democracy” rule, eroding original intent back in 1913.

We gotta get back to original intent.

Constitution for Dummies
– by me

The Constitution is not outdated. It was designed to guard against the worst in human nature. The president acts like a temporary King and Commander-In-Cheif, Congress tells him what laws he must execute, The Senate represents the “royal” ruling class guarding against fickle whims of the people, and the House provides the most direct input from the people. The Supreme Court is there to, and is ONLY there to — make sure everybody plays by the rules — which is The Constitution.

Which is why Supreme Court Justices must love and respect The Constitution. That must be the primary qualification for the job.

The Senate needs the approval of the House and the House needs the approval of the Senate to pass laws. The laws must pass the tests of Constitutionality and the Supreme Court gets to decide that. The president gets to nominate candidates for the Supreme Court, and the Senate must approve. Checks. Balances. Limits to authority to guard against the corrupting influence of power and against mob rule (which is just another form of power in a pure Democracy. Which we are not supposed to be. We use Democracy as a tool within the confines of The Constitution. Democracy itself is not the law of the land. The Constitution is. This is why Presidents, Congressmen, Justices, and even the military swear to protect and uphold The Constitution — not the President or any other power.

The corrupting influence of power will never go away, even, and especially with, Progressives in charge. The Constitution will never be outdated.

That all being said, a 41-51 swing would send a good message. But we must watch them all, as Progressivism is a disease. Some people have it worse than others, and one party has it much worse than the other right now. Neither is immune to it.
- philmon | 02/03/2010 @ 12:58
Hound of Doom, I live in the same metropolitan area that Morgan does, and I’ll answer in his stead since he hasn’t replied to you.

Yes, it’s true. You have to remember that San Fran Nan is called that for a reason – she is from San Francisco. Her district includes The Special City and little if anything else. It’s one of the most left-wing areas in the entire United States, and that’s saying something. The city’s leaders run the place like their own personal fiefdom, running afoul of state and federal laws on a variety of topics, and no one caring.

The kind of demagoguery that makes you and I throw up…makes her supporters back home throw their arms in the air and cheer. You know, like when President Bush flew out of Washington on Obonga’s inauguration day? San Fran Nan said, “I feel like a 50 pound weight has been lifted off my shoulders” or some wording to that effect.

This is a city that’s been in the forefront of the gay marriage movement for some time, which in turn is likely the most unpopular “reform” to come along in generations. (Thirty one states have voted it down, some more than once.) Its voters then tried to ban handgun possession by residents, only to have California’s Supreme Court step in and say “You can’t do that.” Next, it tried to legalize prostitution, an initiative which barely failed at the city’s ballot boxes.

Now, would you care to ask that question again about San Fran Nan?
- cylarz | 02/03/2010 @ 23:45
Thanks for fielding that one, Cy. I/we are in fact some 80 to 90 miles away from Fog City, and personally I try to avoid the place. I find their antipathy toward the gas-powered four-wheeled vehicle to be inconvenient in the extreme, and mildly offensive.

So no, I was not referring to Pelosi’s popularity within her district. It would have been outside of my knowledge base, or for that matter my concern, to take that on. No, House Speakers need to worry about two constituencies and I was referring to the other one, the national one.

Yes, there are some folks out there willing to sign on to the statement “Oh I’m so glad she and hers are in charge of Oz now.” (She & her flying monkeys will get you and your little dog too.) But at this point it’s damn few.
- mkfreeberg | 02/04/2010 @ 04:15

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Ten Best Opportunities for the GOP in the SenateWednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Ten Best Opportunities for the GOP in the Senate
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010