The midterm election is almost behind us, and the spin is flowing like so many methane bubbles into our water supplies. And the apoplectic folks on the slaughtered side seem to be despondent.
Here’s the talking point that seems to have been received by damn near all of the hysterical folks leaning noticeably to the left: now that the Republicans have seized control of the House of Representatives, the onus is on them to cooperate with the Democrats.
Rather, it is now time for our my-Marxist-way-or-the-highway president to come down off of his lofty perch built of arrogance and embrace the concept of duality in government. It’s time for him to include his “enemies.”
Economically speaking, it’s time for him to deliver certainty rather than his usual contribution -- uncertainty. And it’s time that he realize that humility on his part might help to repair some of the bridges over the widened political divide that he had no qualms about torching.
Don’t hold your breath.
Once the winners of the various local, state and national races were being determined late last night, once it became obvious that things were breaking very one-sided, the mood of the folks on WILK radio began to darken.
Nancy: “Sometimes you get what you pay for.”
Corbett (on Marino): “…and now we have a flawed congressman.”
Corbett (this morning): “It’s mourning time in America.”
Good sports, heyna?
The morning show guest, David Yonki, accidentally nailed the crux of the obvious voter discontent when he said, “There are good things and bad things in the health care plan.”
Exactly, Dave. You nailed it.
So the question still begs, why would the Democrats pass a piece of sweeping legislation--an eventual government takeover of health care--a sweeping reform the opposition party was powerless to stop, with bad things included in it?
Do we mistakenly think that sort of nonsense passes the smell test out here in the real world?
Will my employer be pleased with my performance if I deliver good things as well as bad things? Will that less than satisfactory effort on my part keep me employed for very long? Remember, one ah-sh*t wipes out all accrued atta-boys. That's how it works out here in the productive sector.
No prospective politician promises bad things whilst they court our votes. So why should we be willing to accept bad things after they hoodwink us into electing them?
Face it, the health care plan is a fatally flawed plan. And when we dared to suggest as much, we were quickly shooed away and openly mocked by a political party that seriously overestimated it’s threadbare political capital.
And that’s exactly why the worst local candidate I have ever run across--Tom Marino--just knocked off a superior candidate in Chris Carney. Bad things came to the guy who did as he was told and voted for bad things.
Bad things? Nah. The way I’m remembering it, none of us voted for any of that.
Tarah Toohil’s upset of that Lex Luthor impersonator down south of here a ways was nothing less than remarkable. What a difference two years can make.
Two years ago, Kanjo fought off Barletta’s challenge by riding Obama’s coattails. This time around, could it be that Barletta’s coattails helped to propel Toohil to an upset victory?
And lastly, here comes Home Rule to Luzerne County.
The unofficial numbers have 49,000 voting for it, with 40,000 voting against it.
I know it isn’t possible, but I’d love to see a breakdown of the numbers against it. As in, who voted to save their jobs. Who voted to save a friend or a relative’s job. Who voted in the negative as a way of ensuring a future job, or some lucrative contract or what have you. I’m willing to bet that at least half of the nay votes had some sort of self-serving aspects to them.
Anyway, believe it or not, when next we vote, we’ve got to start figuring out who will serve as the 11 county council folks.
If you’re given to praying, you might want to start now.