Jump to content
  • entries
    275
  • comments
    1,248
  • views
    107,548

History Repeating Itself


NickolasJames8

608 views

In 1993, the democrats were in complete control of Washington. They had picked up huge majorities in the 1992 trouncing of George H W Bush by Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton was working hard on national healthcare. At the same time, an unpopular trade treaty called NAFTA was being forced down the throats of Americans. The democrat controlled congress and the democrat president pushed it through. While that was happening, a seemingly tone-deaf congress pushed through a vicious tax increase on the lower and middle class working Americans.

 

Then in 1994, the republican party, which had been essentially neutered only two years before rose to power, capturing the house and the senate, as well as a whole shitload of governorships across the nation.

 

Fast forward to 2009.

 

The democrats are in complete control of Washington. They made huge gains in the house and control a filibuster proof senate. President Obama practically broke John McCain's hip in the presidential election and the majority of the governorships across the nation are held by democrats. In the meanwhile, a widely unpopular national healthcare plan is sinking the approval rating of the president, and a cap and trade bill that Americans overwhelmingly oppose was passed by the house. President Obama is demanding that his democrat controlled senate do the same, regardless of what the American people are saying. On top of that, the treasury secretary, who's also a confirmed tax cheat, wants the senate to increase the debt ceiling because we're about to blow the roof off with the deficit.

 

Is history repeating itself? Will the seemingly impotent republican party rise once again to power in a sweeping coup next year? What's likely to happen this November when Virginia and New Jersey hold their gubernatorial elections? In 2005, it was the democrat victories in both states that seemed to start the momentum that carried the party to power in 2006 and 2008.

 

Who knows the answer? I don't, but it's definitely interesting to make the comparison and watch history unfold.

2 Comments


Recommended Comments

I agree on open primaries. The only reason state laws require voters to "join" a party is to give party bosses (either party) control over "their people".

 

An open primary enables representative government and gives the people a measure of control over the bosses. It makes a candidate think twice about changing from liberal or conservative to moderate as soon as the primary has been won. It forces them to show their true colors during the primaries. The presidential elections are an exception, the closed primary states outnumbering the open primary states 33 to 17, thereby diluting the effectiveness of the open primaries.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here: Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..