Setting aside the fact that Mr. Obama isn't up for re-election until 2012, Democrats should have plenty of reasons to be concerned. Those reasons, however, do not include a sudden embrace of Cult ideology or an overwhelming transformation of part of the electorate. In their never ending quest to "win the argument," that is how the Tribe is painting the picture. People are now "seeing the light" and realizing the "failure" of liberal policies.
Odd, because there really haven't been any liberal policies at all. They might look that way when you shave the football field in half and call the 50 yard line liberal but the real progressives are the issue. The actual cause for concern was summed up quite nicely by Michael Moore last night on Countdown at 7:20 into this clip.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
So, it's the liberals and independents who lean liberal possibly staying home that will decide this election. The Right simply doesn't have the numbers to win regardless of how riled up they are or how energized their base is on November 2nd. Take a look at this list of polls regarding party identification. Consistently, more people identify themselves as Democrats. If there is low voter turnout, it favors the GOP. And that's why you see them going after groups like ACORN.
Thankfully, as Moore says, the hard core of the Dems will get out and vote. The alternative is a return to complete failure and a certain magnification of the problems we are trying to solve now.
11 comments:
The Cult Tribe will have people believe that they are going to "run Obama out of town."
Just curious, but is there an attribution for that quote? Or did you just put those little critters on there for shits and giggles?
Liberals are about to get the same ass-kicking that conservatives got 2 and 4 years ago. Not that I expect you to understand it any better. But oh, how I will laugh at your tears, your bitter clinging to fantasies of outdated ideas, your contempt for your fellow citizens.
Anyhoo, here is some interesting reading...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100812/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gibbs_the_left
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100810/cm_csm/318460;_ylt=Ap.h_EZxAD1z2nl5SCsjScq6e8UF;_ylu=X3oDMTJlbXVkMWgyBGFzc2V0A2NzbS8yMDEwMDgxMC8zMTg0NjAEcG9zAzExBHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2lkZW9sb2dpY2FsYg--
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boychuk-bell-reform-20100810,0,2500740.story
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/10/rich_dems_stand_by_obama_106686.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/11/we_socialists_vs_we_the_people_106699.html
Odd, because there really haven't been any liberal policies at all. They might look that way when you shave the football field in half and call the 50 yard line liberal...
Nice Rove.
Seriously, isn't that precisely what you've been doing? Haven't you decided that everyone to the right of Olympia Snow is a right wing extremist? After all, you call Pelosi "moderate" for being able to get the support of most of her own party and practically none of the opposing party, but you've spent the last few days raving about the extremism of John McCain, have you not?
McCain has a decades long history of "crossing the aisle", it's a big part of why he lost the 2008 election. Can you point me to a single time when Nancy Pelosi has voted with the Republicans and against the Democrats?
But she's the "moderate" of the two, huh?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Mark today:
"Odd, because there really haven't been any liberal policies at all."
Mark yesterday:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
"I expect a point by point analysis of how this list of 120 accomplishments is "nothing." Good luck!"
"Liberals are about to get the same ass-kicking that conservatives got 2 and 4 years ago."
A prediction this far out? Hmm...we'll see. I'm going to remember this quote. I'm still at 20 losses in the House and 5 in the Senate.
"your bitter clinging to fantasies of outdated ideas, your contempt for your fellow citizens."
What exactly is outdated?
And, juris, to say that your last link is frightening is a massive understatement. I wonder if Mr. Blankley thinks that the number "666" is written underneath the skin of Obama's left arm as I had my neighbor tell me the other day.
Yep, let's put these fuckers back in charge again. Can't wait to have Einstein's theory of relativity repealed as a liberal plot.
"Haven't you decided that everyone to the right of Olympia Snow is a right wing extremist?"
I haven't decided..they did. That's your party now, dude. I'm simply repeating what they are saying. Juris just gave a fine example of this in the above links.
"including a powerful pushback on administration regulatory efforts on climate change, illegal immigration and other left-wing agenda items."
You mean like....actually governing under the law? Sheesh...
And McCain lost the election because he moved to far to the right for independents. Nominating Sarah Palin as his running mate didn't help either.
"Can you point me to a single time when Nancy Pelosi has voted with the Republicans and against the Democrats?"
Vote 437: H R 6304: Fisa Amendments Act of 2008
Vote 1060: H R 3688: United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
Vote 539: H R 6406: To Modify Temporarily Certain Rates of Duty and Make Other Technical Amendments to the Trade Laws, to Extend Certain Trade Preference Programs, and for Other Purposes.
Vote 519: H R 5602: To Authorize the Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the Products of Vietnam
Vote 406: H RES 947: Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 5682, United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act
Should I go on?
HAHA, great post Dubya. That's the trouble with liars - they can't keep track of their own lies.
November can't come soon enough.
Hopefully we'll see a big shake up in Washington and get some of the old (both libs and reps) garbage put on the curb.
What we need are term limits and people who have had jobs other than government making decisions for our country.
What exactly is outdated?
The New Deal (and the Great Society).
And, juris, to say that your last link is frightening is a massive understatement.
Yep, the things some people believe scares me too.
As for the point about being "out of touch" - that is what I saw as quite relevant.
"Haven't you decided that everyone to the right of Olympia Snow is a right wing extremist?"
I haven't decided..they did. That's your party now, dude. I'm simply repeating what they are saying. Juris just gave a fine example of this in the above links.
They did? So what you're saying is that "moderate" and "extreme" are defined solely by how much they disagree with your position, rather than what political positions actually exist in the US. Anyone beyond a certain distance from your beliefs automatically renders themselves invalid, by that alone.
In short, you're saying "moderate", "extreme", "socialist", "fascist" "Republican", "Democrat", or any other political label has no valid definition at all outside of your own head.
How very "reality-based" of you.
Juris, I'll agree with you on the Great Society but not the New Deal. Even Manzi said that we need a New Deal for the 21st Century. That starts with streamlining regulation and breaking the connectivity of the financial services industry.
DT, the GOP has decided to embrace the extreme elements of their base and fashion it into their core message. They are doing this because they are tapping into the rage that people feel over their lot in life and their desperate need for someone to blame...in this case Obama, Pelosi et al. Ironic that the party that extols personal responsibility is always blaming others (the liberals).
As far as your label line, I have been screamed at for not knowing that "words have meanings." A word like "socialist" does have a meaning and that definition has nothing to do with President Obama or the Democrats. Again, I'm just repeating what the GOP is saying. If you don't like it, then work to moderate the party.
A word like "socialist" does have a meaning and that definition has nothing to do with President Obama or the Democrats.
Well and good, although in light of the SPA caucus list on TSM, "nothing to do with the Democrats cannot be considered anything short of a deliberate lie. However, "extreme" and "moderate" are largely subjective judgments, with no real meaning at all other than in relation the ends and center of a given spectrum of responses, and yet...
DT, the GOP has decided to embrace the extreme elements of their base and fashion it into their core message. They are doing this because they are tapping into the rage that people feel over their lot in life and their desperate need for someone to blame...in this case Obama, Pelosi et al.
...where you decide what defines "the extreme elements of their base" rather than actual demographics or where the opinions fall in the American political spectrum. For example, you define support of Arizona's immigration law as "extreme" regardless of the fact that the quite solid majority support for it around the country shows it to be mainstream. Followed by...
They are doing this because...
...where you purport to read minds, apparently. Certainly you have concluded there is no other possible motivation for their actions than whatever you choose to accuse them of.
In short, they are extreme because you say so. Pelosi is moderate because you say so.
Post a Comment