>>>>>>Voting-wise he left the party long ago. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>More likely the party left him. In this part of the country (middle Atlantic up to New England), there used to be plenty of moderate Republicans. But the right wing of the Republican party decided to attack those people, and drive them out, either out of office or out of the party. There are no longer any Republicans in the House from New England, not even in Connecticut, which, IIRC, is the wealthiest state. As of this year, two Senators, both moderates from Maine.
>>>>
>>>>The politicians have left the people. In this country (from sea to shining sea), there used to be plenty of reasonable Constitutionally grounded politicians. But the extreme wings of both parties decided to attack those people, and drive them out out of office and out of their respective parties. There is no longer any sembellence of Constitutional restraint upon State power adhered to by elected representatives on the national level and it's permeating into the state and local levels.
>>>>
>>>>>Personally, I'm happy to see the Republican party, as it now stands, continue to marginalize itself. When they start listening to thinkers again, they'll have a national role again.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that the Republican party needs this house cleaning. However, the 60 Senator barrier was the last check protecting the citizenry from the tyranny of the majority. Our government functions best when power is split. We have failed to learn this lesson from history so it's time for a refresher course.
>>>>
>>>>If party lines are not crossed to provide a check, it will take decades to undo the damage.
>>>>
>>>
>>>My guess is the Republicans did see this coming and this is why Norm Coleman still refuses to concede the election in Minnesota. It's only been six months now (eyeroll). The Democrats will be stuck on 59 until the court rules on it in a month or two, right?
>>>
>>>Both parties seem to have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot when they get too much power. They become arrogant and the next thing you know the pendulum swings back.
>>>
>>>BTW, I don't agree that everything being done will be so bad it needs to be undone.
>>
>>I didn't say everything, just a great deal.
>>
>>This seems like a good time for an update on my list of what I was looking forward to posted back in November :
>>
>>One is a complete mess.
>>5) Relaxing of censorship by the FCC
>>http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE53R41K20090428
>>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31575
>>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30580&page=1
>>Between another botched supreme court ruling and the Fairness Doctrine it appears censorship is set to increase. FAIL.
>>
>>Two are complete.
>>4) The will of the Californian people in regards to medical marijuana will be restored
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html
>>
>>3) Bargains in the stock market
>>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI
>>
>>The other two are in process.
>>2) Lifting of the embargo against Cuba and I'll be able to "legally" acquire Cuban cigars
>>http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1503195.html
>>
>>1) Overturning the UIGEA. This is the stupid law, airdropped into the port security bill, which bans banks from doing business with online gambling sites. I'm looking forward to the big boys (Harrahs, MGM) getting into the online gaming business.
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/technology/internet/27iht-gamble.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
>
>I thought the government was trying to outlaw online gambling, period. Or was that just poker? I don't remember the particulars but remember reading about it in a New Yorker profile of a big time poker player who owns an online site. I think it said he is the only one standing up to them, the rest have moved offshore.

The UIGEA put a ban on bank transactions with online gambling sites, but it did not outlaw online gambling. As the murky law currently stands, in the opinion of lawyers I respect, it is not illegal for an individual to gamble online. What is illegal is to run an online gambling site and for banks to make transactions with online gambling sites. The vagaries of the regulations caused the European based establishments to no longer accept American players and for the other offshore establishments to adopt new payment methods. There are 2 approaches to changing the current laws. 1) Officially recognize poker as a game of skill which would exempt it from the "gambling" restrictions. 2) Legalize and regulate all online gaming.

>As far as Obama, I think it's way too early to evaluate the things he has done.

History has provided enough examples to understand the path we're on.