or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Roubini Reasoning: The Dems are toast in 2010
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Roubini Reasoning: The Dems are toast in 2010

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
NY Daily

Quote:
Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening. While the official unemployment rate is already 10.2% and another 200,000 jobs were lost in October, when you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers the figure is a whopping 17.5%.

While losing 200,000 jobs per month is better than the 700,000 jobs lost in January, current job losses still average more than the per month rate of 150,000 during the last recession.

Also, remember: The last recession ended in November 2001, but job losses continued for more than a year and half until June of 2003; ditto for the 1990-91 recession.

So we can expect that job losses will continue until the end of 2010 at the earliest. In other words, if you are unemployed and looking for work and just waiting for the economy to turn the corner, you had better hunker down. All the economic numbers suggest this will take a while. The jobs just are not coming back.

Krugman and Roubini are both Keynesians which means I do not subscribe to their solutions. It appears most politicians including Obama just can't buy the full delusions either. For those noting Bush started the bailouts and had stimulus programs as well, I would say you've now come full circle and realize why when you were declaring him the most conservative president ever, I was doing quite the opposite.

The reality, rational or not is people vote their pocket book. It isn't as if Obama has gone easy on them by adopting some sort of austerity measures for himself and his administration if for no other reason than appeals to pure populism. In otherwords not only can the discussion be that he isn't engaging in good policy, he isn't even engaging in good politics. Date nights, snappy dress ensembles, private schools and large motorcades don't go over as well when so many are suffering.

As a good advocate of the Austrian economic school, I think even the half measures are making the economy worse.

In the meantime, the reality of what the boomers have wrought is starting to come home to roost and the as Adam Smith noted, it is time to recognize the bankruptcy of our nation. There will be no choice, and already the massive inflation of our currency has been occuring. Wait until it really gets going and it might be cheaper to wallpaper your house with dollars than to try to use them to purchase real wallpaper. There is a reason we stopped publishing M3. It would be too self incriminating.

Let us hope that there are few true conservatives, Paul folks, tea party folks, whatever label we want to assign to them, but let us hope there are enough of them left out there to elect some people with integrity who might steer the country in a better direction. I personally don't see it happening because as I have noted, I don't see it within the boomers to reform themselves as they go marching off to their golden years.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

NY Daily



Krugman and Roubini are both Keynesians which means I do not subscribe to their solutions. It appears most politicians including Obama just can't buy the full delusions either. For those noting Bush started the bailouts and had stimulus programs as well, I would say you've now come full circle and realize why when you were declaring him the most conservative president ever, I was doing quite the opposite.

The reality, rational or not is people vote their pocket book. It isn't as if Obama has gone easy on them by adopting some sort of austerity measures for himself and his administration if for no other reason than appeals to pure populism. In otherwords not only can the discussion be that he isn't engaging in good policy, he isn't even engaging in good politics. Date nights, snappy dress ensembles, private schools and large motorcades don't go over as well when so many are suffering.

As a good advocate of the Austrian economic school, I think even the half measures are making the economy worse.

In the meantime, the reality of what the boomers have wrought is starting to come home to roost and the as Adam Smith noted, it is time to recognize the bankruptcy of our nation. There will be no choice, and already the massive inflation of our currency has been occuring. Wait until it really gets going and it might be cheaper to wallpaper your house with dollars than to try to use them to purchase real wallpaper. There is a reason we stopped publishing M3. It would be too self incriminating.

Let us hope that there are few true conservatives, Paul folks, tea party folks, whatever label we want to assign to them, but let us hope there are enough of them left out there to elect some people with integrity who might steer the country in a better direction. I personally don't see it happening because as I have noted, I don't see it within the boomers to reform themselves as they go marching off to their golden years.

So what? If the Democrats are toast in 2010, then the Republicans will take a majority. Big deal. The same thing happened in 1994 with the "Gingrich revolution". The reverse happened when the Dems took over in 2006; did anyone honestly expect anything much in the way of an "improvement", or greater representation re. the way things "work" in DC, as a result? (The definition of insanity is "repeating the same actions and expecting a different result"). We've been flipping the Dem-Repub coin for a couple of centuries, we should know by now that it's mostly insignificant fluff, a distraction. Corporate lobbyists support both parties and have 98.5% of access and influence in DC, whereas civic lobbyists have about 1.5% of the access and influence. Both parties answer to the same bosses, and the only real difference between Democrats and Republicans, is that while the Repubs have confidence, the Dems seem to be unable to enter the conversation, let alone get anything done for the misguided/duped folk who voted for them.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #3 of 62
The US isn't the only country that's being "steered without integrity". Take a look at these graphs. You'll see that the rate of unemployment, though not as dire as the US, is still on an upwards trend. It's likely drops in unemployment rates will happen as part of a global recovery, in Western nations at least.
- http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemploy...es_monthly.htm
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #4 of 62
Thread Starter 
Dems alarmed as independents bolt

Quote:
A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Obama’s own popularity among independents has fallen significantly, too. A CBS News poll Tuesday showed the president’s approval rating among unaligned voters falling to 45 percent — down from 63 percent in April....

.......“I think the economy is at the base of the tension,” she said. “Quite frankly, we’ve got to do a better job of messaging. There’s a lot of work to be done to get independents more comfortable with what we’re doing.”

The second half of the article lets Dems rationalize away the loss of support. It isn't about the message. It is about the policy and it is the the type of policies that say we aren't going to help you get a job nor deregulate or detax enough to allow the creation of a job, but we are going to worry about if you should go to jail for buying the wrong health plan, or if your television uses too much power, or if you lawn is too tall, or.... you get the point.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 62
[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #6 of 62
I guess we'll have to get all the way to the election ( again ) before trumptman finds out this just isn't the way things are going to turn out.

Oh well.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #7 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I guess we'll have to get all the way to the election ( again ) before trumptman finds out this just isn't the way things are going to turn out.

Oh well.

Here we go again.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Here we go again.

Yes! And remember last time?

Get ready for another excercise in denial.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #9 of 62
e
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes! And remember last time?

Get ready for another excercise in denial.

Back to a stopped clock...hmmm, jimmac? The fact is that no one knows what will happen in 2010. There are simply too many variables. Therefore, if we're going to make predictions, we have to look at the current polling data, economic data, etc. From there we can make some reasonable predictions.

But this is not your approach. If the GOP does well in the fall, you will say they really didn't do that well. "Really, they should have done better, SDW! It just shows how unpopular the GOP really is...jeez! " If the GOP doesn't take control, you'll pronounce yourself "right all along" and unleash a flurry of "I told you so."

The problem with that approach is that any predictions you make that do come true will be based on nothing but random chance. On the contrary, various conservatives on this board use things like polling data, economic data and historical precedent to predict what's going to happen. Of course, events transpire and things..well, change. But you can't just take a shot in the dark and pronounce yourself an expert marksmen when you happen to hit the target.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 62
Thread Starter 
Here are some more interesting numbers to add to the discussion. Regardless of house effects, you can go to Real Clear Politics and see where the generic polling was at in the past.

We can argue about which pollsters are biased and to what degree or we can just look at the change in numbers from a year ago right when Obama was elected. Now Obama was considered to have won quite convincingly because he garnered a majority and also the spread was 7 points.

So we look at the pollsters on the generic ballot from a year ago.

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl\tDemocrats +12
Gallup\tDemocrats +12
Diageo/Hotline\tDemocrats +5
CBS News/NY Times\tDemocrats +12
GWU/Battleground\tDemocrats +4
Rasmussen Reports\tDemocrats +7

Those are the polls taken a week before the election.

We look at the current timeframe

CNN/Opinion Research\tDemocrats +6
Rasmussen Reports\tRepublicans +6
Gallup\tRepublicans +4

Pew Research\tDemocrats +5
Ipsos/McClatchy\tDemocrats +7

The pollsters who poll continuously, Gallup and Rasmussen, show a huge swing toward Republicans, we are talking +13 & +16 points swings on the generic. Those are HUGE. The sum of all polls though still shows a +6 point swing for Republicans.

No matter what one wants to think, things are not getting BETTER for Democrats right now. No one is saying "Yippee to 10% unemployment and lets elect more of this."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

e

Back to a stopped clock...hmmm, jimmac? The fact is that no one knows what will happen in 2010. There are simply too many variables. Therefore, if we're going to make predictions, we have to look at the current polling data, economic data, etc. From there we can make some reasonable predictions.

But this is not your approach. If the GOP does well in the fall, you will say they really didn't do that well. "Really, they should have done better, SDW! It just shows how unpopular the GOP really is...jeez! " If the GOP doesn't take control, you'll pronounce yourself "right all along" and unleash a flurry of "I told you so."

The problem with that approach is that any predictions you make that do come true will be based on nothing but random chance. On the contrary, various conservatives on this board use things like polling data, economic data and historical precedent to predict what's going to happen. Of course, events transpire and things..well, change. But you can't just take a shot in the dark and pronounce yourself an expert marksmen when you happen to hit the target.

Please!

What will happen is that the GOP may pick up a few more seats and you'll claim a landslide! Things really won't chage that much as far as liberal vs conservative but you won't see it that way until Obama wins a 2nd term ( and it's obvious ). After that I exepect we'll see a republican in the Whitehouse and this part of the cycle will be over. Unless of course the republicans make fools of themselves again. Then it could be a while longer.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #12 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Here are some more interesting numbers to add to the discussion. Regardless of house effects, you can go to Real Clear Politics and see where the generic polling was at in the past.

We can argue about which pollsters are biased and to what degree or we can just look at the change in numbers from a year ago right when Obama was elected. Now Obama was considered to have won quite convincingly because he garnered a majority and also the spread was 7 points.

So we look at the pollsters on the generic ballot from a year ago.

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl\tDemocrats +12
Gallup\tDemocrats +12
Diageo/Hotline\tDemocrats +5
CBS News/NY Times\tDemocrats +12
GWU/Battleground\tDemocrats +4
Rasmussen Reports\tDemocrats +7

Those are the polls taken a week before the election.

We look at the current timeframe

CNN/Opinion Research\tDemocrats +6
Rasmussen Reports\tRepublicans +6
Gallup\tRepublicans +4

Pew Research\tDemocrats +5
Ipsos/McClatchy\tDemocrats +7

The pollsters who poll continuously, Gallup and Rasmussen, show a huge swing toward Republicans, we are talking +13 & +16 points swings on the generic. Those are HUGE. The sum of all polls though still shows a +6 point swing for Republicans.

No matter what one wants to think, things are not getting BETTER for Democrats right now. No one is saying "Yippee to 10% unemployment and lets elect more of this."

They don't seem to be wild about the republicans as well. As a matter of fact what the polls do show is that people are kind of disenchanted with our government on a hwole right now. Not that the repuiblicans are seeing a meteoric rise.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 62
Thread Starter 
Where Has the Thrill Gone?

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On November 22, 2009 @ 9:04 pm In Uncategorized | 118 Comments

The Harder They Fall?

Who appointed over 40 ambassadors on the sole basis of campaign contributions, or has as many lobbyists in government as did any President in memory? And who releases touchy newswhether increased unemployment or trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civil courtson Friday nights, or wants his Democratically-controlled Congress to debate unpopular legislation on Saturday nights?

You see where this is going. Prophets fall harder than normal politicians. When you claim that seas recede and planets cool before your presence, and that Latin mottos, new presidential candidate seals, neo-classical victory trophies, and faux-Greek temple sets are the appropriate backdrops for Your speeches, then you raise the bar a bit high. Obama is not necessarily any more partisan than a Nixon or Reagan or Bush, only just as partisanbut when he claimed something quite different.

Add in the hope/change mantra, and a cadre of lackeys talking about tingling legs, his majesty Caesar, and apotheosis into a god, and our young Icarus was simply soaring too near the sun for his own fragile wax-feather wings. The problem is not just that Obama is proving Clinton-like in his Chicago hardball partisanship (cf. the trash-talk of Rahm Emanuel, Mao-admirer Anita Dunn, or the Truther Van Jones), but that his entire persona was fabricated on a touchy-feely there is no red state, no blue state America.

Despite Obamas vows to restore science to its rightful place in government (I think that was his dig at George Bushs opposition to human embryo, stem-cell research), we get superstition. Instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics non-partisan, depressing unemployment figures, we are instead to rely on a new unproven notion of jobs saved and created, and in nonexistent, made-up congressional districts, listed, no less, on a government recovery.gov official website. War against reason?

Remember the reset button promises abroad? Do we have a safer, saner relationship with Putin? Is Iran closer to disarmament? North Korea quieter? Did George Mitchell transform the Middle East? Is the good war still good, the bad one still bad? Do the Brits feel the special relationship is stronger? Maybe Sarkozy is more impressed now with America, or are the Poles and Czechs?

And do Chavez, Castro, Ortega, Morales, Zelaya, and others in Latin America feel more pressure to be democratic or less? Is one third of the planet in India and China more comfortable with the messiah Obama or with the hated Bush?

At Home

And the future? Will the country look eagerly forward to cap-and-trade taxes? The new income tax rates? Will small businesses like the caps off FICA taxable income, and health car surcharges? Perhaps the people can get behind impending comprehensive immigration reform (in the way we are now for comprehensive health care), which will de-emphasize enforcement and emphasize amnesty?

As Obamas popularity falls, expect his own partisanship to increase, and the Chicago brass knuckles to be more evident. Obama knows that he can hope and change only until he hits 35-40% approval ratings, and is rendered shouting to half-empty audience halls and a triangulating congress.

Full Steam Ahead

A final prognosisor why Obama is in deep, deep trouble, since he wont quit in his dream to transmogrify American into something like Belgium at best and Brazil at worse.

Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the worst (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obamas youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obamas centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.

Its taken almost 11 months, but voters now know that propositions 1-5 are now refuted or irrelevant:

1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bushs sins that bothered voters too much big government and big deficitswere simply trumped by Obamas gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. Bush did it doesnt work any more. Obama did it even more is the new worry.

2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(ks) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isnt working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depressionor at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, Bushs did it will transmogrify into Obamas recession. Obama cant run against the economy, but must fix itor take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans dont run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3) Obamas smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) some say/do, but I say/do The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed I and me ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of usmitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into Im copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, rightly or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obamas election. Now? A lot of independents, however, wont seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obamas supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.

5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

All sorts of things can happen. Printing and borrowing can give us a brief, though unsustainable recovery around 2010. A war could break out. We could get hit big-time again as in 9/11.

That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of lifeis swelling up in the electorate. I havent seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fantastic piece by my favorite columnist, Victor Davis Hanson. Point number one rings the most true to me of all of them. A thorough search of posts here will show that many conservatives were not thrilled with how Bush was growing spending, they stated quite plainly that things would explode much worse under the Democrats. That has proven to be quite true. Now the real problem is finding a credible conservative who will get spending under control and seriously alter the course our nation is on right now.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Where Has the Thrill Gone?

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On November 22, 2009 @ 9:04 pm In Uncategorized | 118 Comments

The Harder They Fall?

Who appointed over 40 ambassadors on the sole basis of campaign contributions, or has as many lobbyists in government as did any President in memory? And who releases touchy newswhether increased unemployment or trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civil courtson Friday nights, or wants his Democratically-controlled Congress to debate unpopular legislation on Saturday nights?

You see where this is going. Prophets fall harder than normal politicians. When you claim that seas recede and planets cool before your presence, and that Latin mottos, new presidential candidate seals, neo-classical victory trophies, and faux-Greek temple sets are the appropriate backdrops for Your speeches, then you raise the bar a bit high. Obama is not necessarily any more partisan than a Nixon or Reagan or Bush, only just as partisanbut when he claimed something quite different.

Add in the hope/change mantra, and a cadre of lackeys talking about tingling legs, his majesty Caesar, and apotheosis into a god, and our young Icarus was simply soaring too near the sun for his own fragile wax-feather wings. The problem is not just that Obama is proving Clinton-like in his Chicago hardball partisanship (cf. the trash-talk of Rahm Emanuel, Mao-admirer Anita Dunn, or the Truther Van Jones), but that his entire persona was fabricated on a touchy-feely there is no red state, no blue state America.

Despite Obamas vows to restore science to its rightful place in government (I think that was his dig at George Bushs opposition to human embryo, stem-cell research), we get superstition. Instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics non-partisan, depressing unemployment figures, we are instead to rely on a new unproven notion of jobs saved and created, and in nonexistent, made-up congressional districts, listed, no less, on a government recovery.gov official website. War against reason?

Remember the reset button promises abroad? Do we have a safer, saner relationship with Putin? Is Iran closer to disarmament? North Korea quieter? Did George Mitchell transform the Middle East? Is the good war still good, the bad one still bad? Do the Brits feel the special relationship is stronger? Maybe Sarkozy is more impressed now with America, or are the Poles and Czechs?

And do Chavez, Castro, Ortega, Morales, Zelaya, and others in Latin America feel more pressure to be democratic or less? Is one third of the planet in India and China more comfortable with the messiah Obama or with the hated Bush?

At Home

And the future? Will the country look eagerly forward to cap-and-trade taxes? The new income tax rates? Will small businesses like the caps off FICA taxable income, and health car surcharges? Perhaps the people can get behind impending comprehensive immigration reform (in the way we are now for comprehensive health care), which will de-emphasize enforcement and emphasize amnesty?

As Obamas popularity falls, expect his own partisanship to increase, and the Chicago brass knuckles to be more evident. Obama knows that he can hope and change only until he hits 35-40% approval ratings, and is rendered shouting to half-empty audience halls and a triangulating congress.

Full Steam Ahead

A final prognosisor why Obama is in deep, deep trouble, since he wont quit in his dream to transmogrify American into something like Belgium at best and Brazil at worse.

Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the worst (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obamas youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obamas centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.

Its taken almost 11 months, but voters now know that propositions 1-5 are now refuted or irrelevant:

1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bushs sins that bothered voters too much big government and big deficitswere simply trumped by Obamas gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. Bush did it doesnt work any more. Obama did it even more is the new worry.

2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(ks) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isnt working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depressionor at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, Bushs did it will transmogrify into Obamas recession. Obama cant run against the economy, but must fix itor take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans dont run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3) Obamas smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) some say/do, but I say/do The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed I and me ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of usmitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into Im copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, rightly or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obamas election. Now? A lot of independents, however, wont seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obamas supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.

5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

All sorts of things can happen. Printing and borrowing can give us a brief, though unsustainable recovery around 2010. A war could break out. We could get hit big-time again as in 9/11.

That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of lifeis swelling up in the electorate. I havent seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fantastic piece by my favorite columnist, Victor Davis Hanson. Point number one rings the most true to me of all of them. A thorough search of posts here will show that many conservatives were not thrilled with how Bush was growing spending, they stated quite plainly that things would explode much worse under the Democrats. That has proven to be quite true. Now the real problem is finding a credible conservative who will get spending under control and seriously alter the course our nation is on right now.


Who? From where? The New Dead Majority?

Sheesh!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #15 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

where has the thrill gone?

Posted by victor davis hanson on november 22, 2009 @ 9:04 pm in uncategorized | 118 comments


a fantastic piece by my favorite columnist, victor davis hanson. Point number one rings the most true to me of all of them. A thorough search of posts here will show that many conservatives were not thrilled with how bush was growing spending, they stated quite plainly that things would explode much worse under the democrats. That has proven to be quite true. Now the real problem is finding a credible conservative who will get spending under control and seriously alter the course our nation is on right now.


link???
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #16 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Who? From where? The New Dead Majority?

Sheesh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

link???


Sheesh, it wasn't a partial quote, it was the whole article!


No problem though because in searching for it, I found a great new piece by him for another thread.

Thanks.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

NY Daily

Krugman and Roubini are both Keynesians which means I do not subscribe to their solutions.

Nothing much wrong with Keynesian economics. European-style mixed economies.. ie a market-based system with a social safety net is arguably the most effective and civilized economic system developed to date. "To fully enjoy the fruits of capitalism and remain civilized, we have to pay a penalty of socialism". The Friedman/Chicago style is undoubtedly more effective at generating extraordinary wealth for a few at the top, but it has a long track record of creating economic misery for the masses...and the Friedman system has often relied on military coups or large scale international blackmail to get off the starting block, and the establishment of fascist (or fascist-like) dictatorial regimes for its maintainance, for example throughout Latin America in the 1970s.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please!

What will happen is that the GOP may pick up a few more seats and you'll claim a landslide! Things really won't chage that much as far as liberal vs conservative but you won't see it that way until Obama wins a 2nd term ( and it's obvious ). After that I exepect we'll see a republican in the Whitehouse and this part of the cycle will be over. Unless of course the republicans make fools of themselves again. Then it could be a while longer.

I think they'll pick up more than a few. That said, I'll only pronounce it a "landslide" if they take back the house. Otherwise, it would just be a strong showing at best.

We have no way of knowing what will happen with Obama. It depends on events closer to the election. We can say that if things stay this course, he's toast. But who knows...too much history to be written between now and then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Nothing much wrong with Keynesian economics. European-style mixed economies.. ie a market-based system with a social safety net is arguably the most effective and civilized economic system developed to date. "To fully enjoy the fruits of capitalism and remain civilized, we have to pay a penalty of socialism". The Friedman/Chicago style is undoubtedly more effective at generating extraordinary wealth for a few at the top, but it has a long track record of creating economic misery for the masses...and the Friedman system has often relied on military coups or large scale international blackmail to get off the starting block, and the establishment of fascist (or fascist-like) dictatorial regimes for its maintainance, for example throughout Latin America in the 1970s.

Friedman was perhaps the ultimate modern capitalist. Undoubtedly, his policies (if ever fully implemented), would make society as a whole more wealthy, not just the few "at the top." Keynesian economics, however, has never produced the widespread wealth it has promised. Europe's socialized economies with their more Keynesian approach have not been able to match the power of the US's economy, which relies on private development instead of "shovel ready" infrastructure projects funded by taxpayer dollars.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think they'll pick up more than a few. That said, I'll only pronounce it a "landslide" if they take back the house. Otherwise, it would just be a strong showing at best.

We have no way of knowing what will happen with Obama. It depends on events closer to the election. We can say that if things stay this course, he's toast. But who knows...too much history to be written between now and then.



Friedman was perhaps the ultimate modern capitalist. Undoubtedly, his policies (if ever fully implemented), would make society as a whole more wealthy, not just the few "at the top." Keynesian economics, however, has never produced the widespread wealth it has promised. Europe's socialized economies with their more Keynesian approach have not been able to match the power of the US's economy, which relies on private development instead of "shovel ready" infrastructure projects funded by taxpayer dollars.

Quote:
I think they'll pick up more than a few.

May I quote you?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #20 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Sheesh, it wasn't a partial quote, it was the whole article!


No problem though because in searching for it, I found a great new piece by him for another thread.

Thanks.

I especially like this link from the website : http://patriotwebstores.com/shop?c=52798

Hardly unbiased that site is dripping with conservative rhetoric!

" Yeah we're going to do well because it wouldn't make sense on this kind of a website to say anything else! "
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 62
Thread Starter 
Generic Ballot

Quote:
Advertisement
Quantcast

Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans Post Seven-Point Lead on Generic Ballot
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement

Republican candidates have extended their lead over Democrats to seven points, their biggest lead since early September, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Support for the Republican party held steady from last week, while support for Democrats dropped slightly. Republicans have held the lead for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 44% to 20%.

More bad news for the Dems. We can tell by the strident rhetoric in here that things must be getting very bad out there. The demissals, denials and delusions are becoming SOP for the liberal posters. I can't blame them. Their messiah promised them utopia just over a year ago and the rising sea of debt and broken promises is crashing down so hard anyone with half sense is fleeing the Democrats and the party itself is tossing people out of the tent and bickering among themselves. When anyone who disagrees is automatically an enemy, then soon you end up shooting your own face off.

I wonder how many of those people who were taunted as racist tea baggers will be back to vote for Democrats when claims for example about a census worker being murdered as part of a right wing rising tide of violence end up, instead being about a guy trying to get insurance money. The Democrats aren't just disagreeing, they are burning bridges behind them and not just in the country, but on the world stage as well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 62
Thread Starter 
New dangers for Dems in 2010

Quote:
When voters were asked if they will definitely vote or not in next years congressional elections, the latest weekly tracking poll commissioned by the decidedly liberal Daily Kos shows a growing enthusiasm gap in favor of Republicans.
It breaks down like this. The first number is certain or likely to vote; the second is unlikely or certain not to vote.


Republican Voters: 81 / 14
Independent Voters: 65 / 23
Democratic Voters: 56 / 40

I'm not usuall inclined to post comments from links but the first comment related to the Page's Page was such a nice change of pace compared to most of the liberal musings posted here that I've decided to note it.

Quote:
It's absolutely true that those who worked so hard to get President Obama elected are totally disillusioned and burned out. In part, it's because of the crisis-focused, tit-for-tat, ain't-I-funny media. In larger part, it's because for many of us, we've realized (some of us, for the first time) that the greatest obstacle to true change is the elitist lifers in the Senate and, to a large extent, even the supposedly more "representative" House.

Rahm Emmanuel insists on taking the credit for the Dem majority, so let him live with the fact that his Republicans-in-Drag Blue Dogs have become the main factor in his boss losing the battle for change on his highest-priority domestic agenda item, health care. Let him also take credit for pushing out Howard Dean and leaving the incapable Tim Kaine - who couldn't even defend Virginia with a strong gubernatorial Dem candidate - in charge of the DNC. When I imagine how Dean would've mobilized OFA under the DNC for health reform, I weep, literally.

And Obama can take full credit for his decision to send tens of thousands more of our over-extended, most under-30-years-old troops, into Afghanistan to defend a corrupt heroin-dealing government that "won" a fixed election. All the while, still not ending DADT.

And our POTUS can take the credit for allowing the first Latin American coup to stand in Honduras, so they can hold a corrupt election and legitimize that coup.

And for Independents especially, the decision to bail out too-big-to-fail crooks without reforming their lending and salary/bonus practices, and not passing a fair bill to end loanshark-level-interest-rates in credit cards immediately, are issues he won't easily make them forget in 2010 or 2012.

The Dems are losing it and it isn't because of Republicans. It is because they are being revealed for what they happen to be, self-serving politicians exploiting minorities and the poor to enrich themselves and the true interests they represent. Charles Rangel with his rent-subsidzed apartment and half a million in "forgotten assets couldn't be a more appropriate example of what is wrong with the party. Barney Frank who continues to not know what is going on in his living room keeps claiming to know what is best for everyone else. The government can't even keep our president safe with regard to security measures and yet tells us it can conduct "better" wars while drawing up more troops, ignoring the dozen nuclear facilities Iran wants to build, and now wants to take over yet another industry.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #23 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

May I quote you?

Wow. After all the recent discussion on supporting one's predictions/statements, you're still playing the same game. It doesn't matter to you what someone's statement is based upon. If it turns out to be wrong, you'll pounce.

And you ignored the rest of the post.

I wrote:

Quote:
We have no way of knowing what will happen with Obama. It depends on events closer to the election. We can say that if things stay this course, he's toast. But who knows...too much history to be written between now and then.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 62
Thread Starter 
Dick Morris: Left turns off Obama, Right is taking both houses in 2010.

Quote:
While the smoke rises from the Capitol building where the health care debate proceeds, Obama is losing his political base on the left.

His decision to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, an odd move for a peace candidate, his failure to close Guantanamo, our continued military presence in Iraq, and his failure to act on liberal priorities like gays in the military and immigration reform are all sapping his support from those who voted for him.

And, even in the health care debate, the under-30 voters are learning that they are targeted -- just like the elderly -- for special punishment in Obama's health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5 percent of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8 percent of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12 percent if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic.

This notes the types of issues that are helping to surpress Democratic enthusiam in 2010. You add to it an economy that is not fixed and is not even being focused on by the administration and the discontent just goes even higher.

Quote:
This erosion of support makes the elections of 2010 look more and more like a rerun of 1994. It is now reasonable to predict -- and I do -- that the GOP will take both houses of Congress.

Dick Morris was Karl Rove and David Axelrod before those folks even made their name at playing the political game. The polls are results are looking very positive for Republicans.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 62
So, Obama, the candidate of peace, decides to adopt Bush's plan regarding Afghanistan with one "minor" change - we're telling our enemies when we're going to leave. Only we're not really going to leave then, because we're still not doing what it takes to "finish the job". 80,000 additional troops were requested by the military leaders on the ground. Obama (after 5 months of floundering) is sending in 30,000. When his deadline of July 2011 rolls around, Obama will no doubt "evaluate the situation on the ground" and determine it's not time to withdraw troops.

So, Obama is sending more troops in harm's way with no clear goal. It certainly isn't victory. Victory has yet to be defined.

This is the Democrats' war strategy: Vietnam all over again.

This is the Change™ we can believe in? This is Hope™?

2010 can't come soon enough. At this rate, the Dems are toast, indeed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #26 of 62
Thread Starter 
Amazingly enough there isn't any skepticism about the troops getting pulled right before reelection.

A slightly different take on the same poll I posted from above. This one calls it "brutal."

Markos Moulitsas is the head of the organization that sponsored the poll. He is the Kos in DailyKos. I'm not in agreement about his conclusions related to fixing those bad numbers. However if someone wants to deny those bad numbers for the Democrats then it means they are more partisan and blind than even the highly partisan Kos. He's not so blind he can't see the party going off a cliff. He's just so partisan he can't stop recommending they keep hitting the accelerator to fix the problem.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Only we're not really going to leave then, because we're still not doing what it takes to "finish the job".

That's a win-win though.

For folks that abhor war, it's a mechanism to allow them to maintain their loyalty to the POTUS. For the conservatives, it's a mechanism to allow them to believe change can really happen... and we won't throw Afghanistans under the bus again on our way out of their country.

I'm actually in favor of the decision. Seriously. Troops will be deployed, rhetoric will be minimized. We'll cross the "finish the job" bridge when we come to it.
post #28 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

That's a win-win though.

For folks that abhor war, it's a mechanism to allow them to maintain their loyalty to the POTUS. For the conservatives, it's a mechanism to allow them to believe change can really happen... and we won't throw Afghanistans under the bus again on our way out of their country.

I'm actually in favor of the decision. Seriously. Troops will be deployed, rhetoric will be minimized. We'll cross the "finish the job" bridge when we come to it.

I can certainly see it from that perspective. Where it becomes difficult for me is that some of the 30,000 that are sent over there, along with those already there, won't be coming home alive, or will be coming home with severe injuries and deformities. I understand that possibility comes with the job and that our men and women in the military are well aware of it.

What I'd like is a clearly defined objective for victory. You know, where we win and they lose. At least then I'd feel like we were working towards something.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #29 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What I'd like is a clearly defined objective for victory.

I think Obama qualified that, it's when the Afghans can secure their contry themselves.

My son will be there. He's a MP. I'd rather he be there with 100,000 others at his back than 70,000.
post #30 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I think Obama qualified that, it's when the Afghans can secure their contry themselves.

My son will be there. He's a MP. I'd rather he be there with 100,000 others at his back than 70,000.

I just don't think that's a clear enough objective. It leaves things open-ended and doesn't really convey a sense of victory - to our allies and to our enemies - if and when accomplished.

Several relatives and close friends of mine are in the military (1 in the Navy Reserves, the rest in the Army). I'd feel much better with the 150,000 troops the leaders on the ground requested (they requested 80,000, Obama granted 30,000) and a clearly defined goal for victory - such as annihlate our enemies and destroy their resolve to continue the fight in a comprehensive systematic plan of attack - rather than a non-commital "when the Afghans can secure themselves" thing.

But for all I know, they really could be sending in 80,000 with a clearly defined objective and this is all a farce to throw our enemies off and appeal to as many Americans as possible to continue support for the war, so in that case my point would be moot.

Just my 2 cents.

.05 cents after taxes.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #31 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

That's a win-win though.

For folks that abhor war, it's a mechanism to allow them to maintain their loyalty to the POTUS. For the conservatives, it's a mechanism to allow them to believe change can really happen... and we won't throw Afghanistans under the bus again on our way out of their country.

I'm actually in favor of the decision. Seriously. Troops will be deployed, rhetoric will be minimized. We'll cross the "finish the job" bridge when we come to it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we just stopped making it our job?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I think Obama qualified that, it's when the Afghans can secure their contry themselves.

My son will be there. He's a MP. I'd rather he be there with 100,000 others at his back than 70,000.

Well you show my exact reasoning with the Iraq War which is, if we are going to do the job, you better damn well do it right because there are lives on the line and people being harmed for this goal.

I just really think we need a different goal than world cop.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I just really think we need a different goal than world cop.

I think Iraq and Afghanistan are more about protecting US interests. Iraq was one of the worlds main exporters and supporters of terrorists prior to the war there, and Afghanistan had a national goal of shielding those that attacked the US. There were additional but less compelling reasons that, when added to those more pressing reasons, contributed to my opinion that US interests were being threatened.
post #33 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Wouldn't it be nice if we just stopped making it our job?



Well you show my exact reasoning with the Iraq War which is, if we are going to do the job, you better damn well do it right because there are lives on the line and people being harmed for this goal.

I just really think we need a different goal than world cop.


Quote:
I just really think we need a different goal than world cop

Funny thing that. I tried saying this a few times during the Iraq war and conservatives on this board didn't seem to like it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 62
Rasmussen Reports: Number of Democrats Falls to Four-Year Low

Still more people who identify themselves as Dems than Republicans, but the gap is shrinking.

Likely will continue to do so, as Obama is pretty set in his ways.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #35 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Funny thing that. I tried saying this a few times during the Iraq war and conservatives on this board didn't seem to like it.

Funny thing that, I would never let the actions of others from half a dozen years ago turn my posts and thinking into mush whereby I don't link, don't quote and just dismiss so I can repeat old thinking like dogma.

Wouldn't it be nice to respond to the present instead of the past?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 62
Thread Starter 
Obama the mortal

An attempt to spin the problems of Obama by moving the goal posts. The once in a generation change agent becomes an instrumentalist.

Quote:
"[Y]ou will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike."

All politicians don't have to be alike, but they are all bound by reality. Obama speeches don't achieve peace nor lower the oceans levels. Like all things, there are trade offs and costs and now that the debt is piling up and the bill is coming due for utopia, the dissatisfaction level is rising quickly. The fact that instead of utopia we also have 10% unemployment is just the condiment on the poop sandwich that Obama has fed America.

Quote:
It was bound to happen eventually. Obama had become to his youthful supporters a vessel for all of their liberal hopes. They saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy -- and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest.

Certainly, Obama gets some blame for encouraging the messianic cult as he stumped for change and hope. "I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept," he would say as he wrapped up speeches. "Let us reach for what we know is possible: A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again."

They didn't just see that. They were promised that. America would become post-everything under Obama. Our allies watch him bow and smile at the speeches, then offer him nothing. Obama pays off his fellow Democrats with a "stimulus" and amazingly, no jobs are created. It is one thing to offer a plan, it is another to take a dream and crush it to empower yourself. That is exactly what Obama has done.

Quote:
In other cases, Obama truly has gone back on campaign vows. Even some of his advisers are disappointed that he has moved so slowly to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Civil libertarians are justifiably disappointed with his decision to continue much of the Bush administration secrecy. Clean-government types are understandably frustrated that Obama vowed that lobbyists "will not get a job in my White House" but now grants waivers so that lobbyists can work in key administration jobs.

It's almost like governing the country requires more than dogma. Sadly too many of the Democrats have given up thinking for repeating dogma to themselves and hearing it from their comedian "news anchors." The weak thinking doesn't follow logic but instead is filled with profanity laced tirades about show has slammed someone to show they are standing up for what is right. Obama is simply going to reap what he has sown. He wanted people to vote on utopian and phrases like hope and change. Now those same unthinking folks will point the finger at him and sell him down the river in order to keep their selfish, incomprehensible utopian visions for themselves.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 62
Thread Starter 
It looks like Talking Points Memo is trying to inject some lunacy into the news cycle and the blogosphere. They have two articles in as many days discussing how 2010 can't be 1994. Both suffer from some denial. It also shows that this is the sort of thinking that Democrats are talking about and the concerns have grown loud enough in their minds that the "self talk" has started so they can convince themselves that the variables can't be pointing to the pending reality.

Could it Happen Again?

Is 2010 anything like 1994?

The articles put foward two points that are both pretty much insane. One suggests that 1994 didn't really happen because.... Democrats did it to themselves through variables they were unaware of that then came crashing down on them. This is put forward by Josh Marshall.

Quote:
Between the early 1970s and the early 1990s an entire region -- the South -- moved decisively from the Democratic to the Republican column. Something similar happened in the inter-Mountain West and in border state parts of the Midwest. But the full impact of the transformation was hidden by incumbency and the stretch of Republican presidential rule from 1980 to 1992. As long Southern Democrats tended constituencies and could selectively hedge positions and pivot off Republican presidents, most could hold on. But that made this leg of the Democratic majority extremely brittle. Already, many of these districts would seldom if ever elect a Democrat in an open race. One good strike under unfavorable circumstances would bring the whole thing down.

The big game changer -- paradoxically, because he was a Southern Democrat -- was Bill Clinton. For years after 1994, Democrats blamed Bill Clinton for losing them their majority. But this was mainly BS and denial. Clinton did plenty wrong in his first two years in office. But the truth is that the pre-94 Democratic congressional majority was never going to survive another Democratic presidency. A Democrat in the White House, pursuing any substantial part of the agenda of the party who put him there, would deprive those members of Congress from the Greater South (South and overlapping border state areas) and West of that ability to balance and hedge. And so it did.

This is what 1994 was all about. And even today a lot of people for some reason resist seeing it.

So let us suppose that we take Marshall at his word. His main point appears to be that when a Democratic president is in office and a Democratic agenda is pursued, it doesn't allow Democratic Congressional members to lie about their positions and instead they are revealed for what they truly happen to be and are thus, tossed from office.

It could never be that Clinton was elected with a plurality and began instantly governing as if from a massive majority.

The point about what Marshall contends rings very true with Obama. Obama's rhetoric was very centrist. He also appeals quite a bit to the isolationism, which is polling a record highs by claiming the U.S. would stop being a cop and work with other countries to solve the world's problems. He claimed the ending of Iraq and various world policing duties would both bring a peace dividend we could spend here at home both on domestic concerns and on a tax cut.

As we all know that hasn't quite worked out the way it was presented. Instead of have a hard left agenda of government cheating bond holders with auto companies, while handing the companies themselve over to the unions. Obama was elected by Wall Street interests and has rewarded them handsomely. Iraq does not appear to be winding down and Afghanistan is of course escalating. There is no peace dividend and instead we have record budget deficits.

So Marshall could be right about what brings about 2010 in that Obama can no longer hedge himself with Bush and thus his approval and the Democratic approval as well is falling into the toilet.



The second article claims that 2010 cannot be 1994 because Democrats were simply caught off guard and will be on guard this time.

Quote:
Primed
The GOP is excited, and feel they have a movement bolstering their charge against Obama and Congressional leadership as big government big spenders.

But key Democrats believe their members will not be caught flat-footed. Everyone is worried about losing seats, so they will fight harder. Democrats who were shocked by losing power in 1994 won't make the same mistake this time around by being unprepared.

The DCCC has been preparing since January for the tough next cycle.

For that reason, Democrats believe their candidates are top-tier this time around. They also are aggressively going after GOP seats, which they didn't do in 1994, and because of gains in recent years aren't dependent on one region as they once were.

Having a bit more money won't be able to undo the enthusiam gap. You have a House and Senate Majority along with a Democratic president and they still cannot deliver on anti-war priorities. They cannot deliver on populist claims. They still are blaiming Bush and Republicans while at the same time claiming Republicans are a marginal presence and extreme element that has no power. It can't be both and the public knows that and the enthusiam gap reflects this. People know when they are being lied to about something.

Also pleading ignorance versus preparedness won't change the fact that the governing majority will be held responsible for their own actions.

The Democrats will be losing big in 2010. The only question remains, how big.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It looks like Talking Points Memo is trying to inject some lunacy into the news cycle and the blogosphere. They have two articles in as many days discussing how 2010 can't be 1994. Both suffer from some denial. It also shows that this is the sort of thinking that Democrats are talking about and the concerns have grown loud enough in their minds that the "self talk" has started so they can convince themselves that the variables can't be pointing to the pending reality......



Also pleading ignorance versus preparedness won't change the fact that the governing majority will be held responsible for their own actions.

The Democrats will be losing big in 2010. The only question remains, how big.

Agreed. They lost in 1994 because Clinton governed nothing like he promised. Remember, Clinton ran a centrist campaign as well. He wanted tax cuts for the middle class. Then, he gets into office and Hillarycare is proposed. He gets a huge tax increase in the middle class. He was feckless on foreign policy and military affairs. The public had enough. It was only coming to right on several issues that saved his Presidency, that and the fortunate timing he experienced with the economy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 62
Thread Starter 
Beau Biden decides no to run.

Quote:
Republicans pointed to Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden's decision not to seek his father's former U.S. Senate seat Monday as a "major recruiting setback" for Democrats which only adds to the mounting challenges they face in defending their Senate majority.

Beau Biden announced he would not run after Vice President Biden appeared to meddle in the race -- though the vice president's office says he wasn't trying to push his son's candidacy for his old seat but was actually pumping up current Sen. Ted Kaufman, Biden's former chief of staff.

BTW, this is the other son, not the indicted one that no one gave a darn about during the election while discussing Palin's children for hours on end.

2010 is looking rougher and rougher for Dems.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

2010 is looking rougher and rougher for Dems.

IF Obama does nothing but beat the drum for jobs, the Democrats have a chance. If unemployment is over 10%, Democrats will be on the defense from any challenger who focuses on jobs.

It's all about jobs, stupid!

Too many months have gone by where the declining jobs figures were argued away with rhetoric and every time some other topic gets priority folks feel left out.

There are over 500 people in the part of the org I'm in at work, and 30% just got their notice. I'm not among them, but that's just luck of the draw, from what I can tell.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Roubini Reasoning: The Dems are toast in 2010