OK Peeps, this is the deal. MI was a solid, pro union, pro dem state almost forever. They would sometimes vote an R governor, but pretty much the legislature was either split or D in control. The detroit area dominated the state.

Now, after being completely, economically obliterated, beginning back in the 70′s when the Big 3 were way too slow to recognize the coming globalization of business and how their business cost model was way out of whack to be competitive, it took Michigan FOUR DECADES to hit bottom. Detroit used to have 2 million people inside the city limits. It dropped below 1 million about a decade ago. Michigan has lost an entire college educated generation to other states during the past 2 decades.

Michigan voters finally woke up and looked around and said, this isn’t working anymore. With the exception of the 2 Dem dinosaurs (dingall and conyers) in the SE portion of the state, we did well this election cycle. We have to deal with our 2 senators, but one is really old and the other will be in the fight of her life in 2012. The 2 Ds left in the House, they are really old. If they even live to see the 2012 election, this could be the one that finally sends them packing.

California has to hit bottom first. They haven’t figured it out yet. However, it won’t take them 40 years to do so. One thing they have to deal with, that Michigan didn’t have during its 40 year decline, is the absolute INVASION of illegal aliens and the drain on the state budget. With this election in CA, more of the taxpayers will leave the state, and there won’t be enough left to confiscate money from to save this state’s budget problems. They will have to spiral down and collapse before the morons who vote there fully comprehend just how badly run this state is.

Michigan is finally getting it right. There is hope. Now, I have Snyder (our new gov) on double secret probation. I hope he is not a closet arnold. We will have to see. At least he will have an R legislature to work with.

I’m happy (and maybe a little jealous) for you guys who get to relish in your newly conservative state legislatures!

EXTREMELY LARGE GOLF COURSES.

:)

Here’s a pic:

[URL=http://www.imagebam.com/image/88f269105079494][IMG]http://thumbnails32.imagebam.com/10508/88f269105079494.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Yes, that actually happened.

Can’t wait to see how much fun we’re going to have as the Democrats put up the fight of their lifetimes to keep the lines from being redrawn.

And you know they will.

ernesto on November 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Any response?

Chip on November 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

For what you say to be true, that its only a matter of time…how is it that democrats today propose lower tax rates than those 70 years ago? How is it that a republican enabled price controls, but no democrat proposes it today? If the timeline is linear, your argument is false. If the timeline isnt linear, your argument is still weak.
ernesto on November 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Hmm.. I note that you’re avoiding the comparison points that I made, is there a reason for that?

how is it that democrats today propose lower tax rates than those 70 years ago?

Are you talking about the Effective tax rates?

Price controls?

To use you terminology, that kind of sounds a bit weak, are we to believe that a Communist dictatorship like North Korea or Cuba can escape the stigma of being a failed Socialists H@ll hole just by NOT having Price controls?

What about the fact that government either owns or tightly controls several industries and making “progress” at taking over other industries?

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition has the definition of socialism as:

1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Note that It mentions it being intermediate capitalism and communism – think of it as a Fundamental change between capitalism and communism where the government owns some industries and is “progressively” taking over more – kind of like what is happening now in this country.

Or is that different somehow?

Hey, at least the ‘rats took California away from that rock-ribbed conservative Ahnold.

I’m thinking Whitman losing was a good thing, there is no way she could have manhandled the state legislature to get anything done. It’s all demorat now and Moonbeam gets to put his theories back into practice.

Bishop on November 3, 2010 at 11:09 AM

As painful as it is seeing anyone vote for Jerry Brown, you’re probably right. Arnold probably wasn’t a bad governor, until he ran headlong into the solid Democrat legislature of California and ultimately just gave up. Could Whitman really have done any better.

Sometimes the losses are actually better for you.

Chip on November 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

For what you say to be true, that its only a matter of time…how is it that democrats today propose lower tax rates than those 70 years ago? How is it that a republican enabled price controls, but no democrat proposes it today? If the timeline is linear, your argument is false. If the timeline isnt linear, your argument is still weak.

The broad change complicates matters for Barack Obama.

When Democrats are faced with these kinds of problems, don’t they begin whining that the country is “ungovernable?”

I really would like some of you Leftists to explain the difference between the ideology of the Democratic party today and the ideology of the Communist/Socialists?
How are they different?
Chip on November 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

One believes in a representative government, and the other is either anarchist or totalitarian, depending on whether they prefer Lenin or Marx. One believes in the private ownership of the means of production, the other does not.
ernesto on November 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Wouldn’t Believing in representative government mean that they would listen to the people instead of Rahming legislation down their throats?

Wouldn’t Believing in representative government mean that they would Not threaten freedom of the press or speech? (as in the administration’s attacks on Fox News, etc and threats against insurance companies if they blame Obamacare for rate increases.)

Wouldn’t Believing in private ownership mean that they wouldn’t be taking over industries like the car companies, healthcare and regulatory control of energy use?
(I know that more like Fascism, but you get the idea)

I don’t see much of a difference there – except for degree, but then again most Communist/Socialist oppressive regimes didn’t start out that way from day one. (it tales a while to get those Civilian security forces up and running).

They don’t really sound too much different except for the time line of their oppression.

Are you sure there are differences?

Enjoy the fruits of corruption, you earned it.

ernesto on November 3, 2010 at 12:01 PM

The fruits of the Dem corruption that gave us a 60+ seat pickup in the house along with a slew of Governors mansions? Oh, I’m already enjoying them. They are delicious, like your tears.

Chaz on November 3, 2010 at 12:16 PM

They have themselves an Obama problem too. He’s actually a liability in many (most?) parts of the country. Normally, you want someone in higher office who can support down ticket candidates. That’s one thing that really propelled him above Hillary in 2008. What’s he do now? In 2012, someone could very well challenge Obama if they can show more support downticket.

And we now have constitutionally guaranteed right to hunt and fish. Home sweet home. :)

Chip on November 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM

One believes in a representative government, and the other is either anarchist or totalitarian, depending on whether they prefer Lenin or Marx. One believes in the private ownership of the means of production, the other does not.

There are actually over 120 seats in the state legislature of a tiny state like New Hampshire, which only has 2 seats in the U.S. House?

Steve Z on November 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM

See my post below yours. NH’s Legislature has 424 members.

ernesto on November 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM

My apologies. I didn’t see any of your posts last night. Things were so fast, and so furious, I just couldn’t keep up, so I went to the tv, then to bed. lol

Rest assured, I plan to keep my local, and national officials feet to the fire. I don’t like gerrymandering much, but I don’t think that’s something that can be stopped? Each party will do what they need to, for survival.

But as for transparency, and policy…I think Americans are engaged, and ready. As I said, that’s what last night was about. Not just a repudiation of Dem policies, but a message to all in D.C. We’re mad as hell, and we’re not taking it anymore. They have been warned. Whether or not they heed that, is up to them. They do know now, there will be repurcussions to t heir actions, or inaction.

At the Obama ordained sanity rally last weekend, communists came out asking…what’s wrong with communism? I won’t get into that right now, but it’s an outright admission, of what the Democrat party has become. They hide behind the word “progressive” but in the end, it’s the same d@mn thing. So obviously, this is what you are, and it is not something to be embraced, but to be railed against.
I really feel for you. You may see this as the path to utopia, but it’s only a path to a reality of nightmares.
Just ask all those murdered under communisms in China, Russia, North Korea, etc…
capejasmine on November 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM

I really would like some of you Leftists to explain the difference between the ideology of the Democratic party today and the ideology of the Communist/Socialists?

How are they different?