Will The Democrats Get With The Program?

The November 3rd elections were relatively minor, as elections go, but the pundits have always looked at such elections to see if they can glean some insight into what Americans are thinking about on a national basis. Let's not forget, in this era of 24/7 news and punditry, "news" has to be made to sound very important, even if it really isn't. After all, the television channels need ad revenue, as do newspapers, magazines and websites. That being said, the three main races that were highlighted nationally were the races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, and the race for an open congressional seat in upstate New York. The election for New York City mayor wasn't really considered to be all that significant, but the much closer than expected outcome did perhaps give some insight into the public's mood.

In Virginia, a pretty reliable Republican state over the past forty years, a Republican trounced a pretty feeble Democratic candidate for the governor's post. Virginia has been more reliable for the Republicans on a presidential basis, as Democrats have been able to win the governorship numerous times, including just recently, as the current governor is a Democrat.

In New Jersey, a pretty reliable Democratic state, a moderately conservative Republican defeated the current Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. While New Jersey certainly tends to vote Democratic in presidential elections, and often for governor, Republicans can and do win the governorship on occasion.

In upstate New York, a Democrat won a congressional seat that had been held by Republicans for over one hundred years. Does it mean anything? Not necessarily, although the Republicans had more of a fight among themselves than with the Democrats. Much of the rightwing of the Republican Party chose not to support the Republican candidate, who incidentally, was not chosen in a primary by the Republican electorate in the district, but rather was picked by a committee of, I believe it was eleven, Republicans. The Republican rightwing chose to support a conservative; thus making this a three-way race for the seat, until, in the waning days of the campaign, the actual Republican candidate dropped out and endorsed the Democrat for election! The Democrat won with just shy of 50% of the vote.

In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg, one of the wealthiest people in the country, won a surprisingly close election against a relative unknown. According to reports, Bloomberg spent in excess of 100 million dollars to win the election. (It must be nice!) Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat until 2001 when he changed registration to Republican. Then in 2007, he became an independent.

So again, what does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, exit polls may tell more of the story than the actual balloting, at least to some extent. From what I saw of these polls, overwhelming majorities named the economy as the most important issue facing the country. Governors and mayors of both parties are on the front lines of the near depression in which the country finds itself. They are forced to make tough decisions to cut spending on programs that have popular support, thus making these budget-cutters highly unpopular. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for instance, was once very popular in California, but his numbers are now in the tank.

At times the national media over analyse elections, and I don't want to do that, but I do want to make note that Corzine in New Jersey was once the head of Goldman-Sachs, one of the top Wall Street firms, and the place he earned much of his wealth (he too is one of the richest people in the country). He lost. In New York City, Bloomberg, also a former Wall Streeter, damned near lost. I hope Americans are waking up to all of the wealthy interests who have come to dominate our lives so much, and who have given us a near depression for all of their greed. Trust me folks, they won't have to worry about paying their electric bill or buying basic foods for their families.

Now, the President and his administration seem NOT to have paid much attention to the old "Clinton dictum," that "It's the economy stupid!!!" After a meltdown on Wall Street, have Democrats done anything to rein in the greed and nuttiness? Hell no!!! The Wall Street banks are now even BIGGER than when they were called "too big to fail." Have the Wall Streeters shown any remorse for the terrible destruction they've brought to the country? Hell no!!! They're scheduled to give themselves ten of billions of dollars in bonuses again! Have the Democrats done anything to separate the casino atmosphere of Wall Street banks and get them back to two separate entities; traditional banking and investments. Hell no!!!

The President chose to push for health care reform, an admirable goal, but not what the country is looking for at this time. This has gone so far, they can't draw back either! The administration and Congress are bogged down in a seemingly endless battle over how to reform the health care system, and neither the President nor Democratic leaders in Congress can even get enough Democrats on board to pass anything. All the while, millions of Americans are out of work. The priorities have gotten misplaced. If the recent elections say anything, it is that Americans are worried for themselves and for the country, and it might not be that Americans are distressed so much by what Democrats have done, but rather more about what they HAVEN'T done! I've noted here many times that the three decade march to the tune of big business and the wealthy interests might just be what dooms the country. I hope that doesn't come true, but we're far from being out of this mess.

Word History:
Whet-This word, more commonly used in the compound "whetstone," and in the expression "whet one's appetite," goes back to the Indo European root "qwed," which had the notion of "sharpening." The Old Proto Germanic offshoot was "khwatjanan," also with the notion of "sharpening," including in the more figurative sense, "sharpen people's feelings; that is, incite or encourage." In Old English it was "hwettan," and the "h" sound eventually died out, or was transposed; after all, we do spell it "wh," although we don't really pronounce the "h" in modern English, choosing to pronounce it like "wet." Old Saxon, the Low German dialect that remained on the Continent after the departure of some Saxons to Britain, and thus was very close to Old English, had "hwat," which meant "sharp." Modern German also still has a form of the word, which is "wetzen," and it too means "to sharpen." So our expression, "to whet one's appetite," means "to sharpen or incite one's appetite."