IMO, something else states could do to get .GOV's attention would be to form coalitions centered around solving specific problems in ways that defied the president's policy preferences and crossed ideological lines.

What I have in mind is states coming up with common solutions to common problems (illegal immigration, sex slaves, environmental issues, traffic, union agreements that threaten to bankrupt state budgets, and so forth) in such a way that the current president couldn't just "punish" red states without also having to deal with blue states.

From these types of collaborative efforts, governors and state legislators with an established record for reaching across the aisle AND getting things done would emerge in both parties. Voters could then put these politicians into Congress, if not also the White House. If all goes according to plan, the game of "Gotcha!" would give way to the business of responsible governance.

Are those New England Federalists at it again?
Don't they realize that their efforts to secede and form a northern confederation in 1803 failed?

Those idiotic northerners need to just give up and realize that a nation under a powerful central govenment will be more united, not divided.
They need to quit re-fighting that would-be war and realize that Jefferson was not a tyrant.
:D

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html

WoooHooo!

Free Bird!!

I was at work, counsel. What do you do in the middle of the day? Sit on the front porch of your trailer on a discarded sofa, smoking Marlboros and sipping PBRs from a can?

My question is, if the military is mostly Southern, as are the privately owned weapons, how could you stop it this time?

The States Rights issue returns.

TR

Don't forget we also have more trucks, bird dogs, and bass boats. :eek:Damn Yankees live in those big fangled cities and can not feed them selfs without going to the grocery store...... Sorry Supper Market.....

BAAAHAAAHAAA:lifter Just look at New York City right now.:eek:

TEXAS!!
 

Check this out:

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

I am a proud American that continues to serve my nation following 24 years of military service. Secession is not the answer; our forefathers spilt too much blood and sacrificed too much for us to give up on the greatest country in the history of the world.

Empires rise and fall; when states leaving the nation becomes reality, we are truly finished. History shows that it is inevitable; good thing I'm dying soon. The Stars and Stripes will be my banner upon death.

If there were a way to bring the founding fathers, forward to today, I'm sure they would be be dumbfounded at what has happened.

In some "circles", our country is known as the "Great Experiment". Well, sometimes experiments don't work out so well. When that happens, one learns from the mistakes and attempts the experiment again, knowing NOT what to do to make that experiment fail again. But there seems to be a Status-Quo to keep this "Great Experiment" failing.

I'm sure if it were possible to travel Andy "By God" Jackson to today he'd say ...."Okay ... Everyone out of the Pool !!!!", among other things.

How so?

Either 1.21 Giga Watts or a TARDIS.
How else do you expect to travel through time ????
HellooooOOOOOooooo.

Sorry for the delay, down the road at a gunshow
 

Great question. Interesting that today the main newspaper ran a blog article asking exactly that and, taking it further, cited many of the counties that O took in 2008 were taken by Bush in 2004.

Many of the counties that can be counted on for Dems are, as usual, the most populous. (Forget the sheep & guppy analogies for the moment.) These areas are hugely populated and almost driven by their ties to the University system. A few similar less-populated counties up north are peopled by what I call "semi-green thinkers of lofty thoughts." (Yes, I am being semi-sarcastic when I say that, but it's just me.)

Over the past couple of years I've tried to understand this and I do think it's event-driven in the most recent examples. In '04 folks were more reluctant to "seemingly" vote against a POTUS at war, particularly when we had alot of our treasure getting deployed - kids we watched grow up, took to hockey practice, etc. The state-level switcheroo by '06 was conversely driven by a tantrum at Bush (by this time over OIF) and taken out on anything with (R) within 50m of its name.

Watching closely how well the hankie-wringers in Madison could screw it up it was time for a change in 2010 yielding Walker. (One of the first things he did was tell the G "please take back your boondoggle light-rail grant and don't send anymore.")

The issue with the recall was interesting because quite a few Dems I personally engaged with told me that they were sickened by the behavior of the Dem legislature who went AWOL into N. Illinois right afterward, and the recall effort taking off right after that. They saw that as too much whining too soon and cowardly. They told me that they still believed in the process and that Walker deserved a chance - they NOTICED that the little babies started the crocodile tears from minute-one. It didn't hurt that the same nincompoop he previously ran against was trotted out for the recall - but being just the Milwaukee mayor in a town headed even further south over civil rights abuses there was no good side for Barrett to play outside his own moat. Walker wins the recall.

For O it didn't hurt that his motto happens to be Wisconsin's and the traditional High Church of Academia and the unions were in play again. Obama's campaign ads hammered Romney on things that were never really refuted and, moo, the Romney campaign never hammered Obama's presidency on anything other than the debt number.

Not to quibble, but I think a major mistake by R was that his campaign had him VERY EARLY saying an actual number of jobs he would create (12 million). Anyone not in a coma knows that was a mistake. It was also a mistake in the way he put it. HE was going to create 12 million new jobs, not the conditions that will be prevalent in the country to facilitate that. I had people tell me sticking himself on a number "sounded like Obama" and they didn't take that seriously either.

BTW, Rick Santorum had been the candidate that really resonated with "the folks" up here. So those sitting on the fence viewed Romney as a consolation prize offered up by the Republicans. I don't think the WI electorate (with the above big-city exceptions) is necessarily fickle. I think they're quietly a bit smarter than most politicians give them credit for. They don't like to be patronized and if you insult their intelligence they will make you pay.

EXAMPLE: Pols can come in here all they want & talk of renewable energy - up here that means proposals for wind farms just like it means sustaining the stupid ethanol subsidies in Iowa. The fact is, most politicians don't pay attention to local stuff up here until they're walking down the ramp of the aircraft. If they did they'd know that a HUGE piece of the population want nothing to do with f'n wind farms.

My views are based on small samplings but they are real humans I've spoken with about this.*

* I think they're all ate-up and full of shit but, hey, we can have a dialogue.
:D

You made a counter factual argument that the founding fathers would be surprised with what they'd see today.

The point of my rhetorical question was to suggest the slight possibility that the turmoil of their day was actually worse, the political divisions were deeper, the challenges they faced were greater, and that they made even bigger mistakes--including a discussion of secession during the Hartford Convention--than the ones politicians are making today.

In short, strident political, social, economic, and cultural conflict have been persistent features of America's past. The interpretation that there was a halcyon period in which Americans broadly agreed on most issues is an idyllic myth.

MOO, if they were to be dumbfounded, it would be over the angst-ridden woe-is-me-the-end-is-neigh hand wringing of ideologues on the left and the right in the face of relatively straightforward issues, the impact of Jacksoniasm Democracy [Andrew, not Jessie], and Sofia Vergara's bountiful, ah, er, accent.

Ohhhhhh .... That's what you were eluding to.

Damn I wish your posts came with sub-titles or at least a "Press 3 for Comprehensive English" button.

Of course there were pitfalls that they faced when the country was first starting out and of course this country the Nirvana everyone wished it were to be. Republics usually are strife with conflict, within and with out, therein lies the "experiment". But the "dumbfoundedness" that the founding fathers would see today, career politicians (it was an HONOR to serve the people back then, NOT a career), super/special interest groups, lobbyist and major companies/corporations (the pharmaceutical companies come to mind) making policy, (although one could argue that the cotton industry dictated policy back then).

Also, the enormous size of the government today, and yes BOTH the left and the right have had a hand in that. How state representatives don't represent the people in their districts, that they're more interested in pushing through their own agenda. That old saying, "There's no Honor among thieves" comes to mind.

I might also point out that these "leaders" don't lead. I bring to example "Obamacare", which is scheduled to be enforced in 2014. If this "plan" is so wonderful for the American people, why is it that they are EXEMPT from having to follow it ???

Leadership is action, not position. Remember, a Boss says "GO"; a Leader says "Let's Go".

There really isn't a lot of "Let's Go" followed by action coming from D.C.

That, I think would be the straw that breaks the dumbfounded camels back that would knock the stockings off our Founding Fathers. For they said "Let's Go" .... and DID IT.

I'll admit it. I googled Sofia Vergara. Didn't regret it. I wouldn't mind speaking in her accent.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know if I should be using pink font. I'm speaking in jest but I'm also not kidding.

More food for thought.

- Dan P.