Status quo: A divided House of Representatives, Senate, and White House

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 6:59 p.m.

    re:Y Ask Y


  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:30 a.m.


    It is not that you agree but the enthusiasm of your agreement that spurred my question.

    I hardly think that disagreement with SEY is evidence of right thinking. I do not always agree but I would not engage him/her so often if I thought him/her to be an idiot.

    It was specifically because I do respect SEY that I was so shocked at his/her lack of voting. It seemed (to me) out of character with his/her otherwise engaged persona.

  • CLM Draper, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    Twin Lights: A clever conclusion to some tricky detective work! I'm humored by your focus. Had I regularly disagreed with SEY as you do, you'd simply chalk it up to right thinking. Yet you seem to find enthusiastic agreement with SEY so inconceivable that doing so would make me a relative or even SEY himself/herself. This conclusion speaks volumes. Sorry to disprove your theory, but as far as I know, I am neither related to SEY nor am I his/her alter ego.

    SG in SLC: For at least the last five decades, the partisan landscape has been "Keynesian Party" vs "Keynesian Party" and therefore ultimately have little difference between them. Considering the state of the economy after such Keynesian tactics as QE "infinity", we continue to head toward collapse. The one candidate to offer a more sound approach, Dr. Ron Paul, was unfortunately not in the final race. However, I'm grateful Dr. Paul continues to bring his ideas, including Austrian School economics, to the public. He continues to have a large following who champion his policies and encourage the Austrian vs Keynesian debate.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 5:05 a.m.

    Re: "Then is NO govt. the solution?"

    No, but, as we all know, LESS government certainly is.

    No re-thinking is necessary at this point -- it has been proven over and over and over again.

    Even liberals know it, down deep. But it gets in the way of their deranged, vote-buying Santa Claus act, so they disingenuously dismiss the idea.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 7, 2012 9:28 p.m.


    Elected leaders (hence voting) is described as the ideal in the Book of Mormon unless you can ensure yourself of truly great kings. Also, if the Constitution is inspired (not perfect, but inspired) then the voting process is something we can believe in.

    I would have no problem with change coming from outside the parties – they are not part of the constitution. But what constitutional change can come from outside of the voting booth?

    If political change is not via the vote, where does it come from and what is its authority? How can political change come from any source other than voting and still be constitutional? Are you talking about folks taking matters into their own hands? If so, that is clearly not constitutional.

    Obviously encouraging personal change (teaching folks what is good) is fine but that is not direct political change.


    Government is the problem? Then is NO govt. the solution? I think you might want to rethink that concept.


    A quick search shows you seem to always agree strongly with SEY and are usually complimentary of him/her. Are you the same person or related persons?

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 7:06 p.m.

    The Senate minority leader and House majority leader anticipate a continued effort to derail any legislation the Obama administration might pursue in a second term. This is nothing new. Republicans are sore that they lost and will do what they can to show how angry they are. Cooperation has already been taken off the table. They want to show the American people that they do not respect the choice of the American people and will essentially shut the government down in protest. Nothing will come forward. Nothing will get through.

    After making their primary political objective to restrict Barack Obama to a single term, they will continue with Rush Limbaugh's edict to make him a "failed" president. It's not certain how many hundreds of millions of dollars they'll spend generating anti-Obama propaganda, but the needs of the American people are not high on the priority list.

    Hopefully, moderate voices in the Republican Party will emerge and the Tea Party extremists will be sidelined. Otherwise, Republicans will continue to do harm by doing nothing. The question always was, who do Republicans legislators serve, the Party or the American people?

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 6:54 p.m.

    I think what SEY and CLM would really like is to see the current partisan landscape devolve into an "Austrian School Party" vs "Keynesian Party" political environment.

    Honestly though, I'm surprised that SEY doesn't just vote for Libertarians (or write in Ron Paul) instead of being a passive spectator. To each their own, I guess . . .

    @one vote
    I totally agree with your post (though I think you meant McConnell instead of McDonnell). I would also spread a significant share of that blame to Grover Norquist.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 5:24 p.m.

    This is all part of Mitch McDonnell's plan. They hard balled themselves into a real tight corner. From probable majority to isolated obstructionist minority. Brillant!

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 4:28 p.m.

    @Twin Lights: I appreciate the kind words, first of all. But here's how I look at it these days: little if anything comes of voting. Like one person said, "If voting made a difference, they'd make it illegal." I believe that to make a real difference, you have to use persuasion and action. Persuasion should not come from the ballot box or from the barrel of a gun (which is what voting enables). Any real change will take place outside of political parties and outside of the voting booth. I can't help but feel that voting is something granted to us to give us the illusion that we (the people) have some control over what government does. We don't, at least not through the election process. In the big scheme of things, politicians and power elites are not afraid of what happens when we vote. They're more afraid of what happens outside of the voting process. That's where I want to be.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 4:07 p.m.

    I do not understand that logic that if you do not like something stand on the sidelines and pass judgement. A very famous civil rights leader once said "if you see a good fight get in it," what you are choosing to do is stand on the sidelines and let things you consider to be wrong to continue. If you stand on the sidelines and watch how are you any different then those doing the thing you consider so harmful? If neither of the major parties fits your sense of right or wrong look for a third party that does or start your own party, write in a candidate that fits your views but don't stand on the sidelines and watch or you are no better then those you sling the mud at.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    Re: "Let us hope that the party of "NO!" will find a way to compromise now that the writing is on the wall for the future of their ideas."

    Americans proved yesterday that's just the opposite of what we want.

    As much as liberals try to pontificate, obfuscate, and demagogue the issue, the ONE clear thing coming out of yesterday's election is, America prefers gridlock to a compromise of our principles.

    We know government is the problem, not the solution. A deadlocked government is not exactly what many of us hoped for, but it's the next best thing -- infinitely preferable to one that would steer the ship of state on a deranged, immoral, accelerating heading off the port beam.

  • CLM Draper, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 3:14 p.m.

    SEY: You've said it all and I thank you for it, as it is not rocks you are throwing but wisdom and clear-sightedness. I doubt the issues you mention will be addressed by Democrats or Republicans any time soon, if ever, as those who hold the real power in this corporatocracy depend on the status quo and devil take the hindmost. Those who dare to take on these issues, such as Ron Paul, are quickly drummed out of the running and painted as nutcases or extremists.

    So I'm with you, SEY--forget either party unless they address the real problems in this country and do more than talk about the solutions.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 7, 2012 3:07 p.m.


    Though we sometimes disagree, I have had some great conversations with you and have I appreciated your depth of thought and analysis.

    That is why I am shocked that you do not vote. I am sorry, but I find your excuse to be just that - an excuse. Some liberals make the same charges against the Democrats (that they are indistinguishable from Republicans). If find that just as problematic.

    If you cannot find anyone in the major parties to support, what about smaller parties? Could you not work to put them on the ballot?

    Also, what about folks down the ticket (the Senate and House) surely there are some there who merit your consideration.

    I subscribe to the old maxim. "You can't complain if you don't vote".

    Hope to see you around.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Nov. 7, 2012 2:42 p.m.

    States that take the most from the Federal government

    1.North Dakota
    2.West Virginia
    3 Alabama
    4 Kentucky
    5 New Mexico,
    6 Hawaii,
    7 Maryland,
    8 Virginia,
    9 Alaska
    10 Texas

    States that have the most people NOT paying federal income taxes not in order but Utah has 39% of people NOT paying federal income taxes.

    Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida

    It like a Freeloader belt right down from Idaho all the way through the Republican south.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 2:42 p.m.

    Here's a question: what would a real two-party system look like? Republicans are looking basically like Democrats-lite. Both parties are converging upon the "magic middle-ground" for votes. That's why I say the differences are almost indistinguishable.

    To me, it appears that the fatal element in the Republican party is their dependence upon the evangelical wing. What seems to be missing from the political discussion in both major parties is a non-interventionist perspective. Both parties have shown they are eager to intervene in the lives of other nations as well as into the lives of their own constituents. Let the Repubs and Demos be responsible for the despicable NDAA and its "kill orders" of even Americans without due process. I want no part of that. Let them be the ones behind the erosion of civil liberties with their health laws and obeisance to Big Pharma. Let them answer for the destruction of the dollar and the widening gap between rich and poor via their redistributive channels that enrich their cronies.

    Until these issues and others are addressed, there is little if any point to becoming involved with either major party.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    So then you choose to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at those that are trying to make a difference? good to know.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 7, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    States with the highest poverty rates

    Lots of red on this list.

    1 Mississippi
    2 New Mexico
    3 DC
    4 Alabama
    5 Kentucky
    6 Arkansas
    7 Louisiana
    8 South Carolina
    9 West Virginia
    10 Texas

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 11:24 a.m.

    Some on this forum have stated that the Republicans need to rethink their stance.

    I believe that we are simply becoming a minority. We are being out numbered.

    The Biggest US Welfare States*

    #1 - California
    #2 - Maine
    #3 - Tennessee
    #4 - Massachusetts
    #5 - Vermont
    #6 -District of Columbia
    #7 - New York
    #8 - Minnesota
    #9 - Washington
    #10 - New Mexico

    In fact the top fifteen welfare states are, with two exceptions, Democrat.

    *From CNBC Website

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    The politics may look like status quo, but looking spending cuts and expiring taxes will force them to act.

    President Obama tried to negotiate a deal with John Boehner to increase tax revenue by $800 billion. The deal was described as "a remarkably, even stupidly generous offer", but Boehner turned it down.

    In January, the expiring Bush tax cuts and automatic spending cuts mean that President Obama will have 5 TRILLION in higher revenue without doing anything. Both sides agree that amount will be bad for the economy. They'll settle on something between the deal Boehner snubbed (800 billion) and the fiscal cliff (5 trillion).

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 10:10 a.m.

    @Tolstoy: if you're talking about me (and you seem to be when you refer to becoming like Democrats), I'm not stinging at all. I'm a non-voter. I honestly can't see any significant difference between the two major parties. So I watched the election with some lack of passion because it doesn't matter who wins or loses. What matters is that the American people are the losers. And either party is dealing a losing hand these days in that aspect.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    I realize the far right posters on these threads are really stinging from last nights loss but after you lick your wounds try reading RBN's comment there is a lot of common sense there, something that has been missing from the republican platform for to long. You do not have to become democrats we have enough of those but we do need the GOP to drop the rhetoric and return to common sense governance.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    To procuradorfiscal:

    It seemed to me that you were hoping for quite a lot more when you criticized Nate Silver's predictions before the election. You said that he cherry-picked the polls, omitting or de-weighting the most accurate polls (such as Rasmussen, in your view). It seems that his more scientific approach to aggregating the polling data has been proven correct.

    If the gerrymandering that was accomplished following the Republican gains of 2010 had not occurred, the House would belong to the Democrats, too. Let us hope that the party of "NO!" will find a way to compromise now that the writing is on the wall for the future of their ideas.

  • Robert Rexburg, ID
    Nov. 7, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    More of the same political gridlock and economic malaise, here we come!

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    Simply put, Republicans need to become even more like Democrats to win. We have a two-party system in theory, but not in practice. It's getting more and more difficult to find any significant differences between them.

  • RBN Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    The Republican party, my Republican party, has no one to blame but itself. It has allowed the party extremists to move the party away from the middle, particularly on such issues as immigration (could have used that Hispanic vote), oil and gas exploration, healthcare reform, and budget/deficit reduction.

    This election shows that the American people tend to be more moderate, and the Republican party is moving in the opposite direction. I think Romney was much more moderate than he portrayed on the campaign trail, but to win the nomination he had to pander to the deeply conservative. He won the battle, but lost the war. The Republican party, if it wants success, needs to have a strategy to win the war and not just battles.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 7, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    I welcome the divided control of Congress. Historically this has been good for the US because when congress spends its time fighting and stuck in gridlock, businesses can prosper because the number of new regulations and taxes is minimized.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    Re: "Status quo: A divided House of Representatives, Senate, and White House"

    Probably the best we could have hoped for -- government should stay deadlocked for at least the next 2 years, and a government that does nothing is infinitely better than one given a free hand to "fix" America.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Nov. 7, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    I don't entirely disagree with the substance of this editorial, but I believe there is more to this election than simply a return to the status quo. No President since FDR has managed to earn re-election with so many people out of work. Even in the face of a sputtering economy and creative "redistricting," Democrats have managed to increase their majority in the Senate and even picked up a few House seats. This should give the Republican Party pause. This should have been a big night for them.

    I constantly hear that Republicans want to "retake their country." They might want to start by retaking their own Party. Much of the political activism of the last two years has been aimed at removing any sign of moderation or compromise from the Republican ranks. The adverse consequences are only beginning to appear. This proved self-defeating last night. George W. Bush got 44% of the Latino vote in 2004. Last night Romney only got 27%. Bush also got over 40% of the Organized Labor vote. Last night it was the Unions that got out the vote for Obama in Ohio and elsewhere.

    Its time to rethink the Republican brand.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 7:29 a.m.

    The only pleasure I got last night was one point in Obamas acceptance speech. He said he would reach across the aisle. Hah Hah and Hah!

  • Y Ask Y Provo, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 7:11 a.m.

    That's a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.