A thinly-veiled and loosely concerted campaign by the Democratic National Committee and the Obama Administration to turn radio host Rush Limbaugh into the Republican Party's unofficial leader seems to have worked.
In March, following Limbaugh's CPAC speech in Washington, it was hard to turn on the television without seeing top Republican leaders squirm in response to questions about Rush's influence on the party. And now comes a new Gallup poll showing that Limbaugh tops the list--not only among Democrats, but Republicans and all national adults surveyed--as the figure identified as "the main person speaking for the Republican Party today."
The share citing Limbaugh is not that high: 18 percent among Democrats, 10 percent among Republicans (tied with Newt Gingrich), and 13 percent overall. But the question was open-ended, which means respondents volunteered Limbaugh's name. Former vice president Dick Cheney and former Speaker Newt Gingrich also received a significant share of responses.
A less charitable reading of these results is that the leadership vacuum for the GOP is so profound right now that Limbaugh was going to make some minimal showing no matter what and, of course, Democrats have a self-interested reason to cite Limbaugh; a more charitable view is that at least no self-identified Republicans/Republican leaners cited George W. Bush as their party's leader, and a solid 17 percent of them responded "no one."
Discussing the results, Gallup's Frank Newport writes:Almost half of those who identify with or lean toward the GOP cannot think of a single political or other figure when asked to name the main person who speaks for their party. And none of the three individuals whom Republicans name -- Limbaugh, Cheney, and Gingrich -- would likely be characterized as new visionaries or individuals bringing a fresh or new face to the Republican political scene. None of the three hold elective office at this time, all are older white males (the youngest of the three is Limbaugh, who is 58), and only one has a realistic chance of running for the presidency in the future (Gingrich).
Perhaps most importantly, none of these is mentioned by more than 10% of Republicans, a telling indication that rank-and-file Republicans today simply have no single consensus leader around whom they can gather their forces.
After the midterm elections, when the battle for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and arguments about the future of the GOP thus get more fully underway, this will change. But for now, the DNC and Obama administration have succeeded in elevating Limbaugh's status.
6.12.2009
Leader Limbaugh: Chalk One Up to Obama, DNC
@ 12:02 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
139 comments
I don't think the GOPs position is anything surprising really. I am sure Democrats in 2000 would have struggled to come up with an authorative voice for there party. It does hint at the weakness of the congressional leadership, and of the RNC at the moment. (Which is probably again a similar situation to the Democrats in 2000.)
But what is different is that when you have people like Limbaugh and Cheney making waves and saying unpallatable, frankly sometimes stupid things, then its easy to turn those into the 'spokesmen' for there party. Of course that doesn't especially bother either Limbaugh (who makes more money IO would think when the GOP is out of power) or Cheney (who has no apparent political aspirations left).
The best part was Michael Steele at 1/2/1.
Please don't replace him, RNC.. the comedy is priceless, and obviously no one is really paying attention to him.
I have no idea if there was any polling on the subject in 2001 or 2005, but you'd have probably gotten a similar degree of fragmentation in the responses if you'd asked the same question about Democratic leadership then.
The best part was Michael Steele at 1/2/1.
Please don't replace him, RNC.. the comedy is priceless, and obviously no one is really paying attention to him.
No, the best part is Michael Steele having those numbers despite a markedly higher profile than either Terry McAuliffe or Howard Dean had as party chair.
Ugh. No it hasn't worked! It's only worked if you are narrowly looking at questions like the popularity of the Republican party or their politicians. If you care about the ability of conservatives to drive the public discourse, or to shape the public's perception of Obama or Democrats, or to find ways of reasonably compromising on important issues, then it HASN'T worked. In fact, it's accomplishing the OPPOSITE of all that.
Operation: Limbaugh is the biggest PR mistake of the Obama administration. People don't LIKE Limbaugh. They aren't supposed to like him. Limbaugh isn't running for office. What Limbaugh is good at is ripping on liberals. Just because people don't like Limbaugh - or are ashamed to admit that they like Limbaugh to a pollster - doesn't mean they aren't influenced by the things he says about Obama.
I'm just happy to see that no one on either side said that the "voice" of the Republican party was Sarah Palin...
"I have no idea if there was any polling on the subject in 2001 or 2005, but you'd have probably gotten a similar degree of fragmentation in the responses if you'd asked the same question about Democratic leadership then."
I don't know, I bet a lot of people would have named Hillary Clinton, at least by 2005. Or maybe even Bill Clinton still. He was relatively popular when he left office, unlike GWB
RUSH LIMBAUGH BEING THE VOICE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!
What is most surprising is how low the ostensible 2nd and 3rd place finishers - Romney & Huckabee - rank. Had Obama lost to McCain I think it is highly likely you would have seen Hilary Clinton as the leading 'voice' - surely she would have done better than Romney & Huckabee are
2005 may be the better parallel in terms a time when the Democratic Party was equally "leaderless."
Epic Journey recently had a nice rundown of some of the headlines from the post-2004 election aftermath.
For most people, the "true" face of the Republican Party are the wingnuts they deal with in real life. He/she is easily identified as that shrill person snarling "You're an idiot/traitor/racist/communist!" at you.
...because everyone is deeply afraid of being called a disloyal Republican, I guess.
To the average, "non-wonk" person, it matters less what some "leader" says than what the adherents of a philosophy say to them on a regular basis.
Go ahead, liberals, and keep wasting time taunting entertainment-style blowhards like Rush Limbaugh....more fiddling while Rome burns.
This administration is already a morbid failure, so your dilly-dallying around trying to make gross and misleading caricatures of every conservative with a voice to paint them as evil boogeymen will only gut this country further of its core values and lead us down a much faster path to utter destruction and third world status.
Hyperinflation and 15%+ unemployment are coming by the end of 2010. That will be peachy compared to what follows. Wait till we have anarchy and lawlessness, martial law declared, and one-third of the country on the brink of starvation. Guess Obama and Co. will still be thumping Gingrich's ears, making fun of McCain's age, and calling Palin the Caribou Barbie instead of doing a damn thing while the country descends into chaos.
I'll oblige, Mr. Dugdale. I've sparred with you before and am quite certain you are as anti-American (yes, traitor!) as anyone I've ever met.
I could just as easily have said...
For most people, the "true" face of the Democratic Party are the moonbats you deal with in real life. He/she is easily identified as that shrill person snarling "You're an idiot/warmonger/sexist/creastionist/racist/fascist!" at you.
Anybody see any difference there?
"I could just as easily have said...
For most people, the "true" face of the Democratic Party are the moonbats you deal with in real life. He/she is easily identified as that shrill person snarling "You're an idiot/warmonger/sexist/creastionist/racist/fascist!" at you."
At least that would have seemed less crazy than this;
"Hyperinflation and 15%+ unemployment are coming by the end of 2010. That will be peachy compared to what follows. Wait till we have anarchy and lawlessness, martial law declared, and one-third of the country on the brink of starvation."
CO wrote:
"I'll oblige, Mr. Dugdale. I've sparred with you before and am quite certain you are as anti-American (yes, traitor!) as anyone I've ever met."
Those are almost the exact same words you used to describe the author of a post here days ago. You must "meet" a lot of traitors, I suppose.
And your "Libs do it too!" reflex misses the point. The Republicans are the Party down to 25% and sinking, with around 30% of that diminishing number disagreeing with their party at any given moment. You don't win people over by saying "If you don't agree with my opinions, I will call you an idiot a second time!", and the Republicans really need to win people over more than the Democrats do right now.
So, "Libs do it too!" is a moot point.
Fortunately for me, I do not shape my political views based on what a surly and, most likely, severely constipated wingnut thinks of me. But thanks for your 'valued input', CO. I'm just one of the many millions who could not possibly care less what you think.
It is not surprising since the republicans have ideas nothing at all to try to sell but hate and division.
The big problem is that hate-mongerers like Limbaugh are inciting the even more extreme elements of their followers into violent action. The way it is going the extreme wing of the republican party and its proxies such as the free republic are going to be labeled as a terrorist organization.
That they still think(as Ass Rider demonstrates) that unless you agree with them 100% you are an enemy. Until they actually offer ideas instead of just saying no to whatever Obama proposes(Obama could say water is wet and these clown were argue it) and stop this "Us or them" mentality they will continue to shrink.
The situation is perfect for the rise of an intelligent and rational third party that is slightly right of center to emerge. I welcome that as long as the fundie nut bags and wing nuts are kept out.
The fact that over 50% of the people can't name who is the voice of the party is GREAT news for America!
Casual Observer said...
"...Guess Obama and Co. will still be thumping Gingrich's ears, making fun of McCain's age, and calling Palin the Caribou Barbie instead of doing a damn thing while the country descends into chaos."
June 12, 2009 1:05 PM
@Casualties Observer,
Obama is doing nothing ?
Interesting point of view,so tell me:
If You where in His shoes,what would you do to save America ?
correction:
where=were.
sorry Juris...
A minor bit of research can quickly show that this was a concerted effort launched by Begala/Carville/Emannuel when Rahm appeared on Face the Nation. Since then I have heard almost every prominent Democrat pick up and promote the Boss Limbaugh meme. It was having such rapid and widespread success that they morphed it into Operation RNC (Rush/Newt/Cheney. This polling has to be the biggest political FU since the swift boaters. Actually better, because the Democrats never believed the swiftboaters lies, but the Republican have bought the RNC meme, hook, line, and sinker.
Was this an open-ended question? Or did the poll's architect really not list Palin? It's hard to think that she's not high on the list of "other" candidates that got 14% of the total responses...
rdweber,
According to the article (3rd paragraph), the question was open-ended.
I'm sure Palin is high in the "others" that stacked up to 14%, but apparently didn't break the 1% barrier to be worth mentioning.
Just a few thoughts:
Rush Limbaugh is only 58?!?! He looks pretty wrecked for a man in his fifties.
In 2005, as a pretty involved Dem, my perception was the leader of my paty was Dean. He really did make the House/Senate takeover in 2006 possible and the consolidation of 2008 possible. Hillary Clinton was the public face of the party as the heir apparent. The Republicans have neither of these right now. The head of the RNC is a running joke (someone, somewhere refered to Steele as one of your friend's in high school uncool dad trying to be a hipster which is the truest thing I have ever heard)and there is no public face/heir apparent for the Republican party that is an elected official save Sarah Palin, who is damaged goods after the gaffes and embarassments of her veep candidacy.
I'll try not to seem glib in my response to TD but here goes:
And your "Libs do it too!" reflex misses the point.
And your perpetual chants of "Republicans/Conservatives suck!" misses the point too. Your party is the one in power, and they are the ones that have been voted on to lead this country. Reps/Cons are irrelevant, remember? That's what we're reminded of every day.
The Republicans are the Party down to 25% and sinking, with around 30% of that diminishing number disagreeing with their party at any given moment. You don't win people over by saying "If you don't agree with my opinions, I will call you an idiot a second time!", and the Republicans really need to win people over more than the Democrats do right now.
And here's an illustration of how you're missing the point. This isn't a popularity contest. Nobody's worried about a popularity contest - i.e. trying to "win people over" (your words) - we're worried about the elected party leading us to success and averting chaos. You're absoultely NOT doing it by picking scabs on the Rep party talking about 11% thinking so-and-so is the leader while 2.9% think someone else is.
I find it amazing and ironic that you - an unabashed liberal - would be so "concerned" with diminishing numbers of Reps/Cons...it seems disingenuous and a poor-ass excuse to keep analyzing and taunting - i.e. playing angry and bitter partisan politics - when you should be leading (but evidently you can't). Otherwise, I would think you'd be glad to be near a super-majority and looking for 100% control somehow. Isn't that what a sane/rational person would want who is as dyed in the wool about their political beliefs as you are?
So, "Libs do it too!" is a moot point.
Just to reiterate, since you should be leading but obviusly aren't, your repeated chants of "Republicans suck!" are moot.
The shorter version:
Since when did all you asshole liberals become so concerned with diminishing numbers of Republicans/Conservatives and who their "leader" is? Isn't the fact that they lost the WH, have only 40% of Congress (and dwindling), and have no discernable leader enough for you to be happy?
In other words, quit playing hop-scotch on the playground with the little kiddies and GO LEAD THE FUCKING COUNTRY AND KEEP US FROM FALLING OFF AN ECONOMIC CLIFF!
Here's the problem right now as I see it, trying still to prove my point, although I realize my efforts are to no avail in this echo chamber.
Right now, many conservatives like myself are trying to talk serious about such topics as:
1. massive budget deficits
2. possible hyperinflation
3. growing unemployment
However, trying to engage the liberals who are in charge, we're met with discussions about such topics as:
1. Rush Limbaugh's big mouth
2. Bristol Palin's vagina
3. Michelle Obama's beautiful and chic sleeveless look
Is there a serious liberal out there who even begins to understand what's going on?!! Oh, I get it now...now I see why there's all the foolish talk. Obama's in charge and Bush isn't so *poof* all our problems are solved. (Speaking as one) We libs don't have to worry about all that serious shit. Obama's got this. We can just mock and taunt and harass conservatives about how big a douche Rush is and how they kiss his ass and how many kids Bristol's gonna pump out in her one-bedroom igloo because we don't need to understand deficits, taxes, markets, the dollar, Iran, N. Korea, etc.
Casual Observer has to be kidding, I can't believe he's a real person. So I'll ignore his rantings.
The Epic Journey posts that Putnam posted are a good reminder that the Democratic party was in the same state 4 years ago, a year before it won back control of the congress. So gloating over the leaderlessness of the Republicans might be dangerous. I looked for a poll from 2005 asking who the leader of the Democratic party was back then and couldn't find one - I think Gallup made a new poll to see if Obama, Rahm, and Co. were successful in making Rush El Jefe. My guess in 2005 is that people who have said John Kerry, which is nothing to be overly proud about. Better than Rush, in my opinion, but I don't know if the majority of Americans would agree with that.
Nate, I'd like to see some analysis of the health care situation, that's more important than this gallup poll. I'm hoping Americans realize the need to have things like a public option, taxation of health benefits, and some kind of individual mandate to make this work. But I suspect that Americans still have their head in the sand on these things, like Californians do about the budget in general.
Of course it still matters. That's the lesson Republicans taught us in 1993, when Clinton tried to run the country and the Republicans wouldn't let him. Remember Harry and Louise? The Republicans shutting down the government? You don't think that can happen again?
Obama's got a plan for saving us all. And they've got it implemented- they've got the massive funding, banks are reporting that they're all OK now, really, they don't need the money any more. And so on and so forth.
How can you miss this? It was the headlines for months. You may not like how he's leading us, or the results, but how can you question that he's leading us? How many trillions would he have to spend before you'd say "OK, he's trying something"?
The first thing to do is come up with a plan. Second thing is to implement it. Third thing is to keep the opposition from derailing it. Keeping the Republicans associated with Rush is solidly in #3.
You may not like much of Obama's leadership, but to claim that he's not leading us is an impressive amount of willful blindness.
As far as why this site isn't dealing with whether it's working or not, that's economics, not politics. I don't know why you'd care about Nate's opinion on what the economy is doing. I sure don't. This site is all about the message.
Casual Observer has to be kidding, I can't believe he's a real person. So I'll ignore his rantings.
That's right. Just keep that head right in the sand. And for the record, you (and those like you) have to be kidding. I can't believe you're real. I sometimes think there's a computer program that spits out automated inane statements - with a liberal twist, of course - under various names on this site because there's no way this many people are that blind and stupid. If so, we really are fucked.
I call bullshit Matthew H. Nate has tried numerous times to go beyond the "message" (your words) and delved right into the actual economics of lib/con policies.
If he had never before forayed into such territory, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but since he has, your defense is weak.
The Epic Journey posts that Putnam posted are a good reminder that the Democratic party was in the same state 4 years ago, a year before it won back control of the congress.
The dems were not in this bad of shape in 2005, not even close. They had already hit bottom and were on the rise, this is one year before the electoral spanking of the Reich Wing.
The 2004 election was very close, it was apparent that by mid-2007 that whomever the GOP picked would lose big. By early 2006 the dems had connected with the left and moderates and were starting to gain center right republicans and independents. The dems didn't come close to losing as many numbers and credibility like todays GOP.
Of course, Bush's bungling of Iraq and Katrina helped greatly as did the atrocities committed by the Bushies such as torture and spying on its citizens. However, The dems had a strong leader in Dean who had a solid vision and plan. Who and what does the GOP have? Limbaugh the drug-addled clown?
As a somewhat moderate independent, I would love to see the rise of an intelligent third party, maybe two or three of them.
The republican party today haven't even come close to hitting bottom yet. That is a simultaneously pleasant and horrifying thought.
Wasn't there a report that some of the banks have started paying back the bailout money recently? A few billion dollars or so?
If that isn't a sign of progress what is?
The most truthful answer, and the one most fair minded individuals would take up if prompted, is that there is no GOP leader. What's noticeable is, as in 2000 with the Democrats, the leaders of the Republican Party are incoherent and scattered, and to a certain extent divided. There are also almost no authoritative individuals amongst them.
To demonstrate, we have;
Rush Limbaugh - journalist
Dick Cheney - retired
John McCain - senator, resting
Newt Gingrich - not currently holding any office
George W. Bush - retired, discredited
Michael Steele - head of RNC, weak
John Boehner - House Minority Leader, undistinguished
Mitt Romney - ex-governor, not currently holding any office
Sarah Palin - governor of Alaska, divides opinion, not a thinker
Bobby Jindal - governor of Louisiana, unpersuasive on national issues
Only two of these are actually in Congress, where most of the action is going on, and one of them (McCain) is currently keeping quiet. Of the rest, a surprising number are not currently holding any public office at all (Romney, Gingrich, Cheney, Bush), and Steele and Limbaugh are peripheral - one has the authority of his position, the other the popularity of the airwaves (among conservatives that is), but both lack democratic legitimacy and a real role on the national stage.
To conclude, this is a list of people who might run for president in 2012, and in so doing make themselves a 'conservative leader'. But up to that point, it's a disparate list of has-beens, might-bes (Jindal), and never-weres.
As a somewhat moderate independent,
Yeah, and I'm George Clooney.
You're a radical loon. Don't kid us or yourself.
If that isn't a sign of progress what is?
If you throw enough billions of dollars at a problem, then you'll see what looks like "progress."
It isn't until later when the irreparable damage is done by pumping all of that money into the system that you realize it wasn't progress at all.
This guy knows his shit. He nailed the housing collapse but was just a tad early. Most brilliant minds are just a little ahead of the curve. The rest of society was too stupid to realize their folly which is why it carried on well into 2007 when this guy - and people like myself - predicted disaster as soon as 2005. He's saying the next crisis is here, and it's gonna make the last 12 months look rosy.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/the-next-crisis-has-already-begun.aspx
I'm predicting it now - Obama's economic policies will be a disaster for this country and we'll have done irreparable damage by the end of his second term. More than one-third of the country will be living below the poverty line by that time. Mark my words.
Yeah, and I'm George Clooney.
You're a radical loon. Don't kid us or yourself.
To you anyone who doesn't toe the Reich Wing line perfectly is a liberal. I have opinions ranging from right wing(anti-abortion-in most cases) to left wing(anti-death penalty) and everywhere in between. I have also never been a member of a political party and never will. I consider the lack of will that the founders had to ban political parties(although they feared them almost as much as falling into a monarchy) to be their greatest blunder.
You are just an angry dumbass spouting talking points you heard from Hannity, Rush and Coulter. You are Ass Rider by any other handle you choose to use. You are like that crazy homeless guy standing on the corner shouting about the end of the world.
Thanks, Tom.
I think the GOP's "leadership image" is going to be forged around two issues in coming months.
(1) The Sotomayor hearings.
(2) The Health Care showdown.
Who steps up among the GOP Party Aktiv (sorry for the reference to commie party lingo, but it's apt in this case).
On (a) there is a possibility for someone to come forward with a reasoned, non-frantic assessment of judicial temperament, judicial record, etc, and to signal that the GOP doesn't want to permanently alienate itself from the center of the political spectrum. The relevant persons among the GOP Aktiv are likely to be Senators -- from the committee or from the leadership.
Since, however, Sotomayor is likely to "win," I suspect that the GOP in Congress is not going to be blowing too much more energy in a losing cause, and it's better for the party in the long run to come out with a few "statesmen" who take the high road (and tacitly reject the blowhard Limbaugh and Gingrich approaches to this nomination).
On (b), this is a more life-or-death issue for both parties' images, as well as for Obama.
It brings together core GOP issues related to the size of government, deficits, "socialized medicine" vs. "free market," etc. And of course it represents THE key issue in Obama's domestic program (aside from immediate issues of the economy, banking reform, etc).
While there is room for compromise, I espect the GOP to stand by principle -- and stand for NO compromise.
The risk to them is that if the "universal coverage" aspect goes down, then the GOP will reinforce its image as the "Party of No." And who will be the future leaders of the "No" party? Whoever takes a visible stand in the Congress. They might grandstand their way into GOP aktiv leadership if they do it right, but probably not into leadership of the country.
On the other side, Obama's got a whole lot at stake in getting the "universal coverage" aspect done. And if the GOP gives on this, then I think there will be a bill.
But the main dividing issue will probably be the "public option" and/or whether anything serious is really going to be done to hold down the rate of growth in medical costs. I think Obama is going to fight for this; the GOP will fight against it. But of course there are Bluedogs, and a couple of GOP moderates.
So this will be a death match. There may be room for statesmanlike compromise (e.g., adding to universal coverage the idea phasing in the public option -- though a phase-in is more a facesaving option than a realistic cost saver).
But if nobody from the GOP Congressional party (or would-be 2012 GOP presidential nominees) steps up in favor of a good working compromise, then the GOP will probably end up being the Party of No Health Care; and they will make matters worse if they filibuster endlessly on the bill.
There are, of course, many unknowns, including unknown unknowns coming from both the domestic and the international side of things.
And if health care will go down, there would be no winners. The GOP might claim it has saved the world, and gloat over defeating Obama on his most important domestic issue. But around election time, will the people endorse their "no change" position or prefer an even stronger Democratic majority so that real reform can take place?
If you throw enough billions of dollars at a problem, then you'll see what looks like "progress."
It isn't until later when the irreparable damage is done by pumping all of that money into the system that you realize it wasn't progress at all.
You truly are stupid.
Without the bailout money, many banks would be dead and thousands of investors would be homeless. The federal government had to act to reverse what unchecked greed caused or we would be in a depression worse than any other in history.
The bailouts and stimulus bills will eventually pay for themselves and more. That you don't understand the difference between investment and throwing money away is not surprising.
Obama didn't go far enough, indictments and more regulation should have followed. Businessmen are generally stupid and are of course greedy. They must be kept on a tight leash.
If the banks are in a position to start paying back the bailout money, then they are moving in the right direction.
It also means that credit is going to start opening up.
And if health care will go down, there would be no winners. The GOP might claim it has saved the world, and gloat over defeating Obama on his most important domestic issue. But around election time, will the people endorse their "no change" position or prefer an even stronger Democratic majority so that real reform can take place?
Since the majority of Americans and businesses want and need health care reform, if the Republicans throttle any improvements, they will pay dearly for it.
You are just an angry dumbass spouting talking points you heard from Hannity, Rush and Coulter. You are Ass Rider by any other handle you choose to use. You are like that crazy homeless guy standing on the corner shouting about the end of the world.
I never listen to those three blowhards and can't stomach almost anything any one of them says.
And I don't appreciate the homophobic insult. I would expect someone who likely defends homosexual rights to not make derogatory comments related to riding asses. I'm not gay, however.
And you are the stupid one if you think the measures taken to prevent the crisis we averted made us better off than the new ones that we've created.
We'll see. I'm confident this thing is about to crash down like a building made of pudding by a bunch of loony toons. I've always been right about the economy and I don't expect that to stop now.
I read this site, and don't generally post.. but "casual observer" is representative of that group of people who would rather die than question the validity of their basic political premise: "me good... you bad".. and if the data don't fit the model... scream louder. You know what would work better? RUN FOR SOMETHING.. and try and convince some people that you are correct. You know... that old freedom and democracy thing that conservatives like to yammer about ad nauseum until they loose.
CONVINCE ME, with rational argument. RATIONAL argument, backed up with numbers, facts, previous outcomes.
Otherwise, you just look like the poor kid crying in the corner because no one wants to play his game anymore.
When you are wrong, beavis, I will see to it that you are guilty of treason and will find you in contempt for wrecking this once great country of ours.
If policies you defend make this country bankrupt and send us right down the shitter, you deserve no better fate than to have your neck snapped as you drop to your death while being hung in the gallows.
jbs,
WTF are you talking about? WHere are the numbers saying anything is getting any better? This isn't about me just screaming louder. It's about you, Obama, and Co. fucking up this country. Plain and simple.
This is ridiculous and a waste of fucking time arguing with a bunch of know-nothing asshats.
I'll see what all of your smart mouths are saying here in a couple of years when we've double-dipped into another recession and it's five times more painful and ugly than the one we're currently pulling out of.
It's coming. It can't be avoided. Obama has failed and will fail. Get used to it. He's not the savior, and he's not a savior. He's a joke. And so are all of you putting your faith in him.
We're headed for destruction. That's all there is to it. Call me a raging lunatic if you want. I know the truth.
"...Call me a raging lunatic if you want. I know the truth."
OK-- You are a raging lunatic.
Do you know how many people are in asylums claiming that they :know the truth"??
Truth is, I feel sorry for you. You don't want to have a discourse. You can't accept that other people might actually be correct. All you know is that you are RIGHT, by God..
What a sad and pathetic little life it must be.
I cant WAIT for a new and responsible political group to emerge that represents conservative viewpoints, but leaves the hate and stupidity behind..
Care to make a not-so-friendly wager, beavis?
Want to put your money - or your ass, rather - where your mouth is?
I'll make some rather morbid guesses about the US economy by the end of 2012 or 2016, and if I'm right, you tell me where you live, and I get to beat you within an inch of your life. If those things don't come true, then you can come beat me within an inch of mine.
That's how confident I am that we're headed for disaster. I'll stake my own health and safety against this economy under Obama.
Fuck off, jbs. You're not interested in intelligent discourse anyway.
Casual Observer -
This is ridiculous and a waste of fucking time arguing with a bunch of know-nothing asshats.text
So why do you spend hours a day, every day, obsessively posting on this blog, then?
Call me a raging lunatic if you want.text
No comment.
@jbs,
I have been right about every economic factor over the last five years. There's no reason to think I won't be right again. Until I'm proven wrong, I'm going to keep on shouting.
Bury your head in the sand, see what I care. You just won't know who's fucking you in the ass that way. I laugh at all of you and how pathetic you are.
So why do you spend hours a day, every day, obsessively posting on this blog, then?
Hah. I won't deny I spend time on here occasionally, but not "hours a day, every day, obsessively."
You post on here far more than I do. Look back at the last week. Today's the only day I've made a lot more noise than usual. There were about half of those days I wasn't on here at all and a couple of the others I only made a two or three posts. Stop lying or at least projecting false accusations, dipshit.
@Casual Observer:
Just out of curiosity, because you seem to have a faith approaching religious zeal regarding your predictions of "33% of the country living below the poverty line by the end of 2010"...what happens if you're wrong?
That is, would you care to put your money where your mouth is. It's easy enough for everyone to bookmark this entry, and then come back around November 2010.
I got $500 ready to donate to the GOP 2012 Prez Candidate (Whomever that ends up being) if your predictions turn out to be true (assuming we all aren't living in some sort of MadMaxian wonderland by then ;-). Can you say you're willing to do the same if you end up being wrong?
If I'm wrong, I'll pay up to the GOP. Or, if you like, I'll get that $500 to you in supplies and gold specie, whatever you prefer ;-) If you're wrong, you need to admit you were wrong here on the site, and show us a copy of the check you donate to the Obama 2012 reelection campaign.
Deal?
We're pretty honored to have the perceived head of the Republican Party post here all the time, even if most of it is cut and paste blather from elsewhere.
PeteKent, of course, is Rush Slackjaw.
I'm not sure if Casual Observer is Sean Inanity or merely some other idiot who gets off coming here to "joust." Sadly, Casual (pka Mule Rider) has come unarmed to a battle of wits.
Casual Observer -
"So why do you spend hours a day, every day, obsessively posting on this blog, then?"
Hah. I won't deny I spend time on here occasionally, but not "hours a day, every day, obsessively."text
That's both false and an attempted subject change. Why do you post here frequently, if it's so useless?
You post on here far more than I do. text
Obviously irrelevant, if it were true.
Look back at the last week. Today's the only day I've made a lot more noise than usual. There were about half of those days I wasn't on here at all and a couple of the others I only made a two or three posts. Stop lying or at least projecting false accusations, dipshit.text
Funny. I see numerous angry, bitter comments from you, often dominating entire threads, all of them full of cursing and false accusations of lying.
But if anyone points out that you post a lot of angry, bitter comments, you go into denial, denying that you post a lot, denying that you are angry and bitter.
MinJoCat,
It's a deal!
I predict by the end of 2012, we'll be back into a rut of negative GDP growth, unemployment will exceed 15%, and 25% of the country will be under the poverty line. Yes, I'm coming down off of 33% as it may be too soon for that...I was using a little hyperbole anyway, so if money's on the line, I'm going to shoot for a more attainable goal. But I have no doubt 25% of the country will be living in poverty by the end of next year.
Sorry, I meant by the end of 2010.
Limbaugh scares me. He is like a Boogeyman, or Osama Bin Laden. I hope the Democrats can keep us safe from him, also right wing terrorists.
I hate to get in the way of other people's bets, but how are we defining 'in poverty' here? I mean the US government has a very different definition of poverty than say aid agencies. Poverty after all is a comparative thing.
As it is, I can't see how a 15% unemployment rate will end up with 25% of the US population living in poverty, by any definition that means much.
But the point I think that CO might have been trying to make, that the GOP will find more of a voice when it has more to oppose, is probably fair enough. I think this is where the health care debate is dangerous for the Democratic Party. The Clinton Administration tried to push to far too quickly on healthcare. BUT the Obama Administration has seemed to be very good at learning the lessons of the Clinton Administration- hence the Obama administration impaling Limbaugh early, and making him a figure of ridicule, in a way that the Clinton's couldn't do early on.
Also I think it's good Limbaugh is the "leader" of the Republican party. Whatever people think of Obama's policies, you need to think three times before you vote Republican. Because, a vote for a Republican, is a vote for Limbaugh. Either you are with Obama and the Democrats, or you are with Limbaugh and against the Democrats.
Plus, making Republicans really uncomfortable with Limbaugh makes it more likely we can pass some serious localism (contemporary fairness doctrine) laws and they might actually end up supporting them. The fewer stations Limbaugh is on, the better.
The typical response to hearing or reading facts that conflict with your opinion is to attack the author.
The loudest voice in the lynch mob is often mistaken for the leader. The problem with the GOP right now is that absent a National forum like a Presidential Primary, there will be no leader.
The Republican Senators are by nature less political and the House members are flame throwers. Palin is an opportunist and Perry a nut job. Maybe Jeb Bush may emerge but I suspect not till 2014/15.
I am more than amused by Rush, Cheney, Newt and Palin. It is just a matter of time until someone emerges. Lately it has been looking to me as if that might be Joe Scarborugh with Colin Powell.
Thank god the public is 100% aware that Republicans are literally nowhere in government at this time.
thus, the blame for all of the absurd government programs that are bankrupting this country will be placed squarely on Democrats in the 2010 elections.
The ball is in your court lefties. There is not a single Republican in the way of you, no excuses, no Bush, no more lies.
Good luck not having someone to blame.
"Since when did all you asshole liberals become so concerned with diminishing numbers of Republicans/Conservatives and who their "leader" is? Isn't the fact that they lost the WH, have only 40% of Congress (and dwindling), and have no discernable leader enough for you to be happy?
"
It's just a poll. It's just amusing that's all. Like Obama said during the campaign last year, it is possible to think about more than one thing at the same time (i.e. what a poll means and running the country).
While we're at it, how do you expect to have a reasonable discourse by starting off a comment with "asshole liberals"?
honestly guys. don't feed the trolls. Its very bad for the comments section of the site, which IMO has a pretty high potential.
Good luck not having someone to blame.
Well said, Beano. I think they might find it much harder than they realize.
You stated succinctly what I've been preaching. The Republican/Conservative train has derailed and is off the tracks. There is nothing in the way of the Liberal Express.
It's Obama's White House with 60% of Congress. If we don't return to prosperity in the next five years, they will have absolutely no one to blame. Obama will be well into his second term and Bush loooooong gone by then.
It's his to lose. And I'm doubling-down that he sends us right down the crapper.
@BeanoCook
What the heck are you talking about? Who do you think is preventing health care reform from happening? "The ball is in your court lefties". I have an idea - since your party is bereft of actually ideas beyond "no", why don't you truly place the ball in our court and give us a legitimate whack at things?
I simply don't buy into the sky-is-falling hyperinflation theory. Under normal times printing this much money would lead to that much inflation, but this time around the banks are not lending the money at the same rate they did previously. A large chunk of the printed money is sitting on bank's books rather than actually in the economy. If we assume that there will be less leverage going forward then a larger money supply equates to about the same amount of money getting passed around in the economy. It would require the banks and everybody else to act as if credit was as free as it was over the last 10 years, along with the increased money supply, to reach these doom and gloom predictions.
Considering how conservatives kept predicting the tax cuts of the last few years would lead to great economic growth - and they simply haven't - I have lost faith in Austrian/conservative economics.
And since you can't test economics, faith is all you can really have.
@Jon,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I knew somebody out there just couldn't stand it. No matter how marginalized the opposition, they've gotta blame somebody else.
What the heck are you talking about? Who do you think is preventing health care reform from happening?
Uh, nobody is preventing anything from happening. There is currently a discussion, and there are proponents of various reforms. You, from what I can tell, are on the side that controls the White House and 60% of Congress, so I don't think you have a quibble as to who is preventing what.
...why don't you truly place the ball in our court and give us a legitimate whack at things?
Are you fucking kidding with this statement? Truly place the ball in your court and give you a "legitimate whack" at things? WTF do you need? Two presidents and 90% of the House and Senate? Pray tell what it would take, in the form of a Democratic majority, for you to feel like you're getting a "legitimate whack" at things if the current supermajority isn't enough and those weasely Republicans who are in the minority and are grossly irrelevant are holding things up?
I simply don't buy into the sky-is-falling hyperinflation theory. Under normal times printing this much money would lead to that much inflation, but this time around the banks are not lending the money at the same rate they did previously.
And nobody is stopping you from living in denial either. Just like you bozos keep telling us that Obama can't fix all of Bush's mess-ups in a couple of months, hyperinflation won't rear its ugly head right off the bat either. In fact, it could be a couple of years before it gets very bad.
But, boy, when it does...hello, banana republic-style government where we're wheelbarrowing loads of cash back and forth and none of it's worth a dime.
It's coming. Don't worry, it's coming. The price of food is about to skyrocket along with oil and most other major commodities and precious metals.
@Kevin, inflation will start kicking in once spending returns to normal levels and the stimulus kicks in. It peaks in 2010. If velocity increases by then concurrently with most of the stimulus going out then we will see inflation.
Unless of course we start taxing people heavily to pay for the stimulus, but that 2% tax increase on the rich won't cover that. We're talking large tax increases on a lot more than just the rich.
On the other hand, Obama already has instituted some regressive taxes (tobacco). We're about to get some more extremely regressive taxation (energy) so things might not be so bad. It's annoying that democrats end up having a more regressive tax policy than the Republicans, albeit in an underhanded way through consumption and "sin" taxes. But it's good they're willing to tax.
Why oh why oh why are we so shamelessly feeding the troll?
It looks like the people of Iran have democratically elected that nutball Ahmadinejad once again. They obviously stand hand in hand with someone who wants nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the downfall of the United States.
I say we bomb them back to the Stone Ages before they get out of hand - like North Korea - and do something rash that kills 10-15 million people.
@Jon Eric,
If you're referring to me, I could say just as easily that the assholes on here who post basically what I do - just from a left-leaning perspective - are every bit as much a troll as I am.
Nutjub Casual Observer (Sean Hannity/Mule Rider in disguise) has made the following statement, and probably will never see the irony in it:
I say we bomb them back to the Stone Ages before they get out of hand - like North Korea - and do something rash that kills 10-15 million people.
Nutjob - you want us to do something rash that precipitate a regional or maybe world war so that somebody else won't do something rash?
Good thing you're on Mummy and Daddy's basement playing on their Mac while they are working, rather than in a position of any responsibility anywhere in the real world. You can go crawl back under your rock now.
On thew whole DNFTT bit, can't we all just talk about politics and issues without throwing insults around. Any 'trolls' that are around will either be made to llok stupid or go away.
talking of which
CO said
'I say we bomb them back to the Stone Ages before they get out of hand - like North Korea - and do something rash that kills 10-15 million people.'
-----------------------
Ok say CO is suggesting doing something that will kill 10-15 million people in order to stop them potentially possibly, though with no great evidence that they actually want to, doing something that will kill 10-15 million people. Thats precisely the kind of pseudo imperial arrogance that has long angered people in the Middle East. (Oh and incidentally isn't North Korea pretty much in the Stone Ages now?? Hard to bomb someone back to pretty much where they are. Oh and pretty dumb to start bombing China's neighbour so relentlessly.)
I think thats one thing that people outside of America get frustrated with the States over. The US spends an awful lot of time talking about 'self determination' and 'freedom' and all that, and then acting in almost precsely the opposite way.
@STepper
I'm pretty sure Casual Observer is playing the stupid conservative, for our amusement (in which case he's doing a good job). Either that or trolling for kicks making statements even he knows to be inflamatory and silly.
@markymark
Please stop feeding the trolls. You're arguing with a caricture of conservatives. It's someone bombing cons just to make them look stupid and provide amusement, or it's a con knowingly posting inane crap because he knows it pisses people off. Either way, a waste of time.
bruce,
With respect, what CO gets off on is the reaction- the whole being called a troll or generally treated with no respect. If we actually engage these people in debate, they either lose interest or look silly. I say treat EVERYONE who posts on 538 with respect. I actually think the worst thing you can do is to ignore political thought that is inflammatory, but the second worst thing is to treat it with disrespect. Thats how people get to a point where they kill people who carry out legal medical procedures or shoot up in a museum. Respectful, thoughtful, determind opposition to these kinds of people is the way to go. If you ignore them they just get more and more inflammatory.
I think markymark is the only sane and rational liberal on here whose comments are delightful and I admire.
@bruce,
Yeah, I'm more of the latter. I'm definitely a conservative, but the inflammatory things I post are just to stop and make you think...the irony is that most of the tools on here don't see how radical and inflammatory the things they say are, just from a different perspective. Examples, you ask?
-The Second Amendment is outdated and should be done away with.
-A trivial amount of people were killed on 9/11 - on par with bee stings and swimming pool accidents - so we shouldn't worry about terrorists.
-God does not exist and anyone who thinks so is a knuckle-dragging flat-earther troglodyte.
-We need to tax the shit out of carbon-based energy to do away with it is possible. Fuck the consequences. If it disproportionately affects the poor, then just levy higher taxes on the rich.
-Heavy taxes on just about anything/everything can solve a budget problem.
Want me to go on? When I see the lazy, thoughtless, and radical statements made day after day like the ones above or on other topics I haven't mentioned, it behooves me to rattle the cage a little bit and give people a taste of their own medicine but with a different twist.
Jon,
LOL!!!!
You lefties can't deal with being in total control. You have an overwhelming margin in the House and have a filibusterer margin in the Senate and you have a highly popular President.
Give me a break the powerless and leaderless Republicans are to blame for your Socialized Medicine becoming a reality.
I swear if there was just 1 Republican congressman, she would be the reason the left wasn't able to do what it wanted to do. Why am I not surprised the Democratic party blames others for its own inability to succeed? Sound familiar?
Ball. Your court. Where are the results? Bush isn't here to bail you out. The left doesn't know what to do, its entire M.O. is to blame problems on others, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER>>>>>>!!!!!
LOL!!
-The Second Amendment is outdated and should be done away with.
Yes. The virginia tech massacre and the recent holocaust musuem are lessons on exactly what results the second amendment is having today.
-A trivial amount of people were killed on 9/11 - on par with bee stings and swimming pool accidents - so we shouldn't worry about terrorists.
True. Terrorists could potentially get truly destructive weapons, but 9/11 killed fewer people than auto accidents do in a month, so it hardly justified the invasion of a whole country. Or for that matter the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.
-God does not exist and anyone who thinks so is a knuckle-dragging flat-earther troglodyte.
Yup. You might as well believe in the sphagetti monster. I despise religion.
-We need to tax the shit out of carbon-based energy to do away with it is possible. Fuck the consequences. If it disproportionately affects the poor, then just levy higher taxes on the rich.
Yes. They are destroying the environment.
-Heavy taxes on just about anything/everything can solve a budget problem.
Yes, that's how you raise revenue.
@CasualObserver
Hey, I'm still sort of waiting for that guidestone packet for how to become a real person? I mean I realize from everything you've said that believing in a perspective that's liberal is horrible (can you give me a guide on what's liberal? I don't want to risk accidentally, I don't know, being in favor of estate taxes like Warren Buffett and finding myself once again an inhuman traitor) bordering on the monstrous and subhuman, and believe me, it's convinced me.
Anyway:
What I find telling about the discussion is that, boiled down, it goes something like this. (And we must note of course that the people who pipe up are a tiny fraction, and one wingnut view among them on either side can thus balloon.)
Democrats/liberals: Sigh, Republican leaders are schmucks/offensive.
Republicans/conservatives/whatever: Liberals are horrible traitorous monsters, worse than any foreign enemies, and half the time we seem to be considering internment camps.
There seems to be a qualitative difference here.
This question really is pointless, for a reason not cited.
Barely half the sample could identify Obama as the Democratic leader (58%). If 42% of the sample couldn't identify the President, just how predictive can it be?
Now wait a minute.
Why are you predicting all this crap happening by the end of 2010 and then blaming it on Obama? If you actually meant what you were saying you WOULD be using 2012. in 2010, less than 2 years after Bush left office, of course we're going to see aftereffects of Bush's horrible policies.
If you actually think that Obama's policies are horrible, you should expect things to get worse from 2010-2012. For us people who think his policies will work, we're expecting constant improvement during that time.
But we don't expect things to get better in a couple of months just because Obama took office. Houses that were given their forclosure notice before Obama took office still haven't hit the market yet. Housing prices are going to keep falling for at least another year, and there's nothing Obama can (or would even want to) do about it. I have yet to hear any proposed solution where the economy would have fully recovered in 2010. Predicting that the economy will be worse a year from now is like predicting the sun will rise a year from now.
As for whether this site has occassionally gone beyond politics, it has, but I don't read those threads. Why don't you keep your comments on political threads political and your threads on the economy in the economy threads? That way I won't have to read 'em.
When you are wrong, beavis, I will see to it that you are guilty of treason and will find you in contempt for wrecking this once great country of ours.
If policies you defend make this country bankrupt and send us right down the shitter, you deserve no better fate than to have your neck snapped as you drop to your death while being hung in the gallows.
At least you are consistently fucking retarded and hateful.
Don't worry, when Obama fixes the health care problem, you will be able to afford your anti-psychotics.
Look in the mirror, your attitude is exactly what damaged the credibility of right wing, and that damage is irreversible.
Barely half the sample could identify Obama as the Democratic leader (58%). If 42% of the sample couldn't identify the President, just how predictive can it be?
Obama is the leader of the country and not necessarily the party. Some may think of him that way, but it is not always true.
Unlike the GOP, there are many competing ideas. In the GOP, going against the president(but not a dem president) is treason against the party and America.
Here is the core reason the hyperinflation wont happen:
China won't allow it. If the dollar radically devalues their cash reserves are useless. That's why they're slowly moving into other reserve currencies.
China and the US are completely co-dependent. Once, China is economically and politically self-sufficient, then the US is in real trouble. But China will need US buyers for at least the rest of Obama's term. By that time we'll have gotten back to 'level'. Then the question is wether the US will trend back towards responsibility or will continue to sell it self to the Chinese.
Post 2000 election, Bill Clinton was seen as leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary had just been elected to the senate, and if given the choice, the majority of Americans would have handed Clinton a third term ahead of a Bush or Gore presidency. Even though Clinton fatigue had set in, he still left office with exceptionally high job approval.
2005, and Hillary Clinton was seen as leader of the party. Why? Because she was considered the red hot favorite to get the Democratic nomination. Howard Dean certainly led on grass roots issues and got the base jumping again, but he was never leader. For one thing, the Clintons would never have allowed Dean to speak for them. Remember, Carville and the DLC tried to stop Dean from becoming DNC chair.
She may not register in the USA Today/Gallup poll, but Mooseburger and the Wasilla Hillbillies is hands down the biggest circus sideshow in the GOPosaur. Question is, whether it's good enough for the conservative nutbase. It's obviously good enough for the MSM.
I think markymark is the only sane and rational liberal on here whose comments are delightful and I admire..
I couldn't agree more. As I scroll down the comments, I always stop and read what markymark has to say. Very intelligent and persuasive comments and always willing to engage in respectful debate.
@jbs said... "I read this site, and don't generally post.. but "casual observer" is representative of that group of people who would rather die than question the validity of their basic political premise...
This is a perfectly sound point on its face but ignores the real issue. CasOb isn't interested in change, he's here to threadjack and generally make noise. His fresh, new ideas come from tired old conservative outlets.
I am all for free speech and open discussion, but I am sick and tired of his ad hom attacks, foul language and abuse of the open posting policy... or should I call it a liberal posting policy?
10-20% of all comments on any given post are from this guy (or to speak a language he might understand, "this assfuckclown".
If CO had a bonafide idea in his pebbly little head, he would start his own political website where people could read his abuse, obscenities and butt facts all day... Oh, sorry, a butt fact is a statistic pulled straight from one's ass.
Bet he wouldn't allow everybody to comment on that.
If CO doesn't want us to start a petition to ban him, he needs to stop posting multiple-comments in a row. Just do a long one and be done. He doesn't seem to realize that many of the regular readers have already blocked his comments anyhow, but just like the crazy street preacher, he doesn't care if anyone's listening, he just wants to yell loud enough to drown out the voices in his head.
And yes, Rush really does lead the Republican Party, and here's why.
Kisses!
Betting on future events, as some have proposed in this thread, is silly in a forum like this one, where nobody knows who anybody is or where they live. But CasualObserver and PeteKent, who are equally vociferous in predicting economic catastrophe within the next two years, should be investing everything they have in gold ingots and canned food. If they're right, they'll be sitting pretty when the rest of us are living in abject misery. If they're wrong, as I fully expect, they'll have lost a lot more than the $500 somebody was offering to bet, compared to those of us who foresee economic recovery and growth, and invest accordingly.
@ Paul from Santa Fe said... But CasualObserver and PeteKent, who are equally vociferous in predicting economic catastrophe within the next two years...
CO & PK aren't economists. Survey: Most economists see recession end in '09.
But if not economists, what are they? My guess is Teabagging D-bags, and I have stats to back it up, but I doubt you need to see them to believe me.
10kZebra wrote:
"CasOb isn't interested in change, he's here to threadjack and generally make noise."
Sadly, in wingnut circles "riling up the libs" is considered to be legitimate discourse and a "noble" attempt to create 'balance'.
Opinions not in line with the Received Wisdom must be 'countered' by attack, lest people get the "wrong idea".
IMO, this is something that markymark has failed to take into account. Wingnut "discourse" plays by different rules, and the attacks that would be very effective within that paradigm (e.g. "traitor") merely fall flat when "outside".
In the wingnut paradigm, all "facts" are "known". Failure to repeat those "facts" on cue is the mark of an "idiot" to wingnuts.
CO is engaging in behaviour that would be cheered in wingnut forums. It is a subcultural clash in which "respect" is seen as weakness in that paradigm, and a clash in which wingnuts truly believe they can "win over" people with their "strength".
From your link:
"Republicans, meanwhile, are encouraged to get in touch with the people, and not just the ones who attend ultra-conservative rallies, to get a better handle on the fact that it's no longer the 1950s, that American sensibilities have changed significantly, and that they better start evolving if they hope to hold any power at all in the future."
See, saying basically that is what earned me the label "traitor" from CO. Anyone who believes that the Party can "moderate" and move back to the centre really should consider that the average wingnut truly believes that they are on to a winning strategy with their subculture; everyone they talk to within their circle assures them of that, after all.
@Todd Dugdale said... Sadly, in wingnut circles "riling up the libs" is considered to be legitimate discourse and a "noble" attempt to create 'balance'.
I'd love to see the debate team from a christian school. "What do you mean I didn't win, I was way louder than the other kid!"
My cousin is fairly conservative and decided to scream at me over the holidays in front of about 20 people (not all family) for suggesting the "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" strategy was flawed. We don't talk much anymore, but no loss, we weren't in any sort of discussion then either.
There is a divide between Left and Right messaging. From what I can gather, the Right always go for talking points, regardless of basis in fact, and the Left always goes for individually formulated discussions.
Problem with talking points is they are so few in number it's easy to understand them. The benefit of individual ideas is they are numerous, span the spectrum and allow us to easily spot the point talkers.
I agree that their unruly behavior is praised in conservative circles, and that's the problem with the conservatives. They pride themselves on dividing rather than uniting. If the Republicans "new ideas" amount to old insults and causing disruption, shouldn't they act less surprised when they're swept out of power?
CO wrote:
"I'll oblige, Mr. Dugdale. I've sparred with you before and am quite certain you are as anti-American (yes, traitor!) as anyone I've ever met."
I was puzzled by this because I haven't "sparred" with CO before, but now I understand.
Casual Observer is the reincarnation of Nut Butter, and his many other sock puppets.
Todd Dugdale: See, saying basically that is what earned me the label "traitor" from CO. Anyone who believes that the Party can "moderate" and move back to the centre really should consider that the average wingnut truly believes that they are on to a winning strategy with their subculture; everyone they talk to within their circle assures them of that, after all.
What kind of rubbish is this? Are you seriously arguing that trolling is something unique to conservatives? Last I checked, DU and Daily KOS are also packed with posters who hold a pretty consistent set of facts to be true beyond all doubt and require no proof. For example, the certainty that Republicans are racists. At the most it's based on a few cases, but daring to question that dogma is heresy.
Or Democrats unshakable faith in a fantasy energy policy. Have renewable sources (non-hydro) actually worked to get a single country off carbon energy? No. But renewables are nonetheless an equally unquestioned for progressives.
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_137/ci_energy/35296-1.html
10kZebra: I agree that their unruly behavior is praised in conservative circles, and that's the problem with the conservatives. They pride themselves on dividing rather than uniting. If the Republicans "new ideas" amount to old insults and causing disruption, shouldn't they act less surprised when they're swept out of power?
Right, that's why Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to convince people RUSH LIMBAUGH is the leader of the democratic party... because they want to unite people.
I support Obama, but the party politics going on here is beyond laughable.
The irony of accusing them of being extreme is all the thicker given the ters we use for them... wingnut, teabagger etc.
@Bruce Right, that's why Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to convince people RUSH LIMBAUGH is the leader of the democratic party... because they want to unite people.
It feels to me more like a call to action. If GOP supporters don't want this guy dismantling their party, then need to stand up to him. I'm shocked and saddened that active republican politicians didn't top the list of who speaks for the party.
I see this as drawing a line in the sand. If they wanted to use it politically, they'd have done so closer to an election cycle. Doing it now only allows real republicans to distance themselves from his raving lunacy.
@Bruce I support Obama, but the party politics going on here is beyond laughable.
No you don't and no it isn't. Convince me. How do you support Obama, and what does "beyond laughable" mean? Like you laughed so hard you threw up or peed your pants? Because that's what's on the far side of laughter.
Is Wingnut an offensive term? I know it's mechanical hardware, but I don't know what's negative about it. Moonbat doesn't offend me, but I also don't know what that could possibly mean either.
For the record, you can also call me cracker. It's accurate and it doesn't offend me. It speaks less of me than it does of the person saying it. Conversely, calling PK and CO Teabagging D-bags is pretty damn funny.
Hey, I'm here to help.
It feels to me more like a call to action. If GOP supporters don't want this guy dismantling their party, then need to stand up to him. I'm shocked and saddened that active republican politicians didn't top the list of who speaks for the party.
No you aren't, you are pleased as hell. Well, actually, I don't know that but if we're going to make statements about what the other person believes...
And regardless of what YOU think, reading Tom's post it's pretty obvious that he sees the naming of Rush Limbaugh as a party leader as having been THE GOAL of Obama and Democrats.
He wrote, "After the midterm elections, when the battle for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and arguments about the future of the GOP thus get more fully underway, this will change. But for now, the DNC and Obama administration have succeeded in elevating Limbaugh's status."
And about wingnut not meaning anything - that's the case with most slurs. I guess you're fine with calling Obama a n*gger, since n*gger just is derived from black. What could be wrong with that? Why are these silly African Americans so riled up about a term that just means "black." It's not about the intent of the user of the term, and that intent becomes obvious when wingnut is equally applied to people at tea party protests and actual terrorists (timothy McVeigh).
@Bruce said... And about wingnut not meaning anything - that's the case with most slurs. I guess you're fine with calling Obama a n*gger, since n*gger just is derived from black.
Wow Bruce, you really drew a stark divide between the two of us. You are suggesting that's the equivalent of saying "wingnut". That's so peculiar. If you get a moment, why not invoke Hitler too so we can complete the cycle of life here.
You should write a book.
I only speak for myself. I am a registered Republican and voted accordingly through 2000. I don't want to see power consolidated in ANY one party.
Your grasp on reality seems tenuous at best. Now I'm sad for you... yes, I really am.
bruce wrote:
"Are you seriously arguing that trolling is something unique to conservatives? "
No, I'm not, but you went to a lot of effort to put words into my mouth, so I will paraphrase.
I am saying that CO/Nut Butter/whoever else is not really trolling at all, but is engaging in behaviour that his subculture deems to be acceptable. IOW, in his world, he is legitimately participating in discourse.
There is far less uniformity in thought among Democrats than you seem to believe, and the idea that any of that conformity of opinion could be enforced is laughable. I have used the term for the Democrat model before as "herding cats". It's a syncretic structure; a diverse coalition of alliances that agree to disagree - DLC, Blue Dog, Kossacks, etc. To choose one of these subgroups and point to a consensus is to miss the larger picture.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, is quite "top-down" and has always placed a premium on "unity" and "messaging".
"The irony of accusing them of being extreme"
I'm not specifically saying they are "extreme" in my comment (words in my mouth again). I am saying that they are isolated into a subculture, and that subculture operates under different rules of discourse. "wingnuts" and "teabaggers" are short-hand terms; feel free to offer appropriate alternatives for these factions. That would be more constructive. I hardly invented the terms.
"that's why Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to convince people RUSH LIMBAUGH is the leader of the democratic party..."
I think you mean "leader of the Republican Party", but I will do you the favour of not putting words into your mouth, bruce. Actually, it is the Republicans that are building Rush into the voice of their Party. The Democrats are merely pleased by the development. I certainly am. Is that wrong? It's what they seem to want, after all.
"the party politics going on here is beyond laughable"
Well, the frothing outrage you have worked yourself into over remarks that exist in your own mind is amusing to me, as well. Thank you for that, bruce.
Is "wingnut" or "teabagger" really a "slur"?
My working definitions would be as follows:
Wingnut: a person on the right fringe of the Republican Party who makes facile use of conspiracies, hyperbolic fear-mongering, jingoistic appeals and readily-summoned outrage based not on what on what Obama has done but what they "know" he intends to do in the future.
Teabagger: What do they stand for? Apparently, the belief that Obama is somehow a "fascist" by virtue of winning the election. And that a <4% increase in the marginal tax rate on $250k incomes is Cuban-style socialism. And that they really don't understand much at all about the Boston Tea Party, but feel comfortable invoking it.
Basically both of these terms identify, in my mind at least, those who stridently claimed that dissenting against Bush was treason because he is the President but who consider their own dissent against the current President to be ultra-patriotic somehow.
These terms are no more derogatory than "liberal" and nowhere near the level of racial or ethnic slurs such as you conflate them with. But then, I am not trying to gin myself up into some kind of sense of justified outrage, either, so your mileage may vary.
@Todd Is "wingnut" or "teabagger" really a "slur"?
You sir have outraged me with your appeal for rational decency!
There is an assumption among the wrong that readers can be persuaded by illogical arguments just because they haven't studied Logical Fallacies in college. While this may have been more true in the past, it is less true today.
Those who consistently make arguments based on logical fallacies are either stupid, or they're assuming that you are.
More importantly, if that's all they have in the bag of tricks, there is no legitimate debate to be had. If there was, they'd stick to the points.
I personally don't trust Obama because I heard from my friend's uncle that he's going to repeal gravity. I will not live in that world.
Oh straw man, I think I'll miss you most of all. (wait, it was Scarecrow, wasn't it?)
I've seen this many times before. Let's take this power thing and get deeper into it, shall we?
Seems like the CasuBob has taken the PeteKent thing to an extreme, and that riles many (remember: Greasemonkey).
Inane, yes, yet he does serve a purpose, and that is to challenge the polite society of progressives to sharpen their messaging. And he doesn't seem quite as obtuse as PeteKent or MuleRider or some of the other phantom turdballs who've appeared then disappeared like apparitions out of the sith.
"Talking points" (One might call it the "Cliff Note" approach to debate)- a product of the mid-90's, which, obviously, he and others like him seem to be schooled in-
certainly it is their MO- all one need do is take a deep breath and reflect on the insanity without being drawn in. There is enough information, knowledge, and wisdom available to discredit these types, and one's patience and/or time to sit at a computer and get drawn into extensive "debates" involving "asshat" and so forth ("poopy!" ha ha.) We ought to be to drive the discussion (yes, Liberals, you can DRIVE the DISCUSSION with GRACE!)
It's high time for weaving in what Al Franken called (I can't even remember the exact term he used in Lying Liars) "cutting down on the slide"- meaning saying "Fuck You" and meaning it, but not really meaning it. It's a way of not taking things so personally.
You need not be afraid or feel guilty! Just remember: Jessie Ventura made Hannity squeak like a 14 year old on his own show. Jessie may not call himself "progressive", yet what he embodies, in many ways, is a just such a mindset. Invite them, no matter how pathetically stupid they present their "argument", towards a discussion which does not devolve into reflexive Fox Nation banter. We have that capacity. It can be a strong suit. It ought to be our strongest suit. We have a president who embodies that, so each of us can too. We can also reach deep down with FAITH, something conservatives are always crooning about, and KNOW that WE can SOLVE these problems TOGETHER, and that those on the other side CAN EITHER JOIN IN or take a hike- see ya'll in 2010, 2012, whatever, bring that on bee-y-atch and good luck (but be polite, of course). That is what makes Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, Lefties who we are- we ascribe to the idea of bringing up others with us. Conservatives are generally too selfish to see that, yet they are human beings and some even have the capacity to listen.
And this will sound like a contradiction, yet power politics is full of paradox: what the Center-Left doesn't do well is bring it down to brass-tacks, the kind that will make them LISTEN, when such a tactic is apt. [ie, sometimes a little "SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST AMERICA" might serve the common good, instead of trying to out-reason the irrational or out-rationalize the unreasonable; when someone calls me a communist, that's what they get Abbey Fuck Off Hoffman. The cold war mentality that is driving their argument MUST be called out for what is: delusional nostalgia (or nostalgic delusions!). You do it once, you do it twice, it's second hand. The Right lives by that. The Left is appalled by that. Something needs to be turned on it's head. Somewhere. I'm not sure I have the answer to that. Force the Truth down their throats until they cry?
(posting more, character limit)
No one can predict the future, yet one must be able to handle a person in the throes of megalomania making unequivocal statements about 15% unemployment in 2010 or 2012. (Hey, Nostradamus, where ya been? Where were ya in September of '01?)
From what I can see, there are many supposed "conservatives" that are just into the whole power thing and are waiting for some leadership that they can identify with. Kind of like they have a modicum of respect for Obama because he won, and handily, but now what? Where are we going? They don't see it because they don't respond to subtlety. Kind of like they need some BDSM scenario acted out in by a butch lesbian near 6th and Market in SF so they can understand who is master now. Hillary would be a natural at that, probably did act that our with Billy Boy, yet she is not president. Cool and calm BHO is president-liberals to moderates of all stripes get it, otherwise we would not have coalesced into the force that we have- yet the pronounced bitch slap to the GOP might not come. It's time to take it to the next level, and the one neat thing about the current party in power is that it is much more responsive to input from the citizenry, in fact, it would be nowhere without it, so why not write in to BHO and maybe more importantly, the DCCC and let them know your thoughts about kindly bitch-slapping the GOP into submission so we might actually address some problems, the problems that Casual Voyeur is so dreadfully and morbidly concerned about. I mean, 15%... scary!
Good Morning 538's addicted.
Allow me this little O.T.
Soon there will be here in my country (Italy) the G8 meeting,Obama will ,obviously,join in it.
While I am really proud the have this outstanding person Here in Italy,I wish warning Him and You All about what kind of asshole we have in charge as prime minister.
Here a link,(english version) of His latest sexual performance:
http://tv.repubblica.it/copertina/usa-in-tv-si-ride-di-silvio/33826?video
have fun watching...
bye.
:)
The Religious Left said...
(Hey, Nostradamus, where ya been? Where were ya in September of '01?)
June 13, 2009 3:50 AM
*************
@Religious Left
Good point !!!!
To be honest, I think it would be better for Democrats that the GOP had an obvious figurehead at this point. At least we´d know what to expect and who to "take down". But none of the people who come to mind now really have the "charisma" (in a conservative´s eyes) or the credibility to remain in the forefront until the next elections...
Which makes me shudder to think that their next "Saviour" is still on the way... perhaps he/she is even being begotten by the Holy Spirit and a virgin at this very moment and, within the next 9 months, will be born with a shining star over his/her head, indicating the place to which conservatives should go in order to pay he/she homage and rejoice.
If not, they are screwed!
@Casual Observer,
With all due respect sir, I find it interesting that the moment someone wants to wager you when you make an outrageous statement, you suddenly start to walk it back, admitting to hyperbole (which is honest of you to own up to, so I salute you for that at least). But dropping from 33% to 25% is a MAJOR moving of the goal posts (8 points difference represents a 26% shift, roughly, between the two numbers), especially when poverty in the US is roughly 12% to 17% at any given point in time, for a country that has one of the highest poverty rates of any industrialized nation in the world.
Sorry, but the bet was for a solid 33% below the poverty line by 2012 . I do not accept your significantly dialed back "counter-proposal". But thank you for your reply all the same.
I may have made this point before, but I am very impressed at the way the Obama Administration has learnt some of the lessons of the early days and years of the Clinton Administration. By not taking on Limbsugh, Clinton allowed some of what he said to become mainstream. That had an impact in 1994, and allowed a radical platform from the GOP seem less dangerous. That's not to say that next years mid terms won't be tough, but I think early signs for this year in VA are promising, and that Limbaugh does not have as much credibility as perhaps he had in 1993, so I think it's a bad sign for the GOP if he is seen as it's voice.
@markymark:
I think you make a good point about the Clinton v. Obama handling of Limbaugh.
I do think however, that there will soon be a time when the American people are going to want answers to things like...
Why didn't TARP work, why isn't the stimulus bill working, why is unemployment nearing double digits, how are we going to pay for a $2 trillion deficit,why are interest rates going up, what are we going to do about N. Korea and Iran, why are Americans still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This website deals with Rush Limbaugh and Gay Marriage more than any other topic. I've been told here that this website represents the mainstream left. If this is true, the Dems may be in trouble.
I personally don't quite get Nate's fascination with the Gay Marriage issue at the moment. Personally I don't think it's politically that much of a deal right now. But I would disagree that the site is obsessed with Limbsugh. There has been some pretty interesting stuff on health care for instance, and not so much about Limbaugh really, beyond him symbolizing a party without leadership, which Is wider point.
But we have to remember that first a foremost this is a polling site, and there is not a whole lot of polling going on at this point, beyond hot button issues. Maybe that explains the gay marriage focus, though personally that's an issue I am largely ambivalent on. (I guess it's an issue the states are getting involved in as well)
I understand this is a polling site, but I think those hot button issues are what's going to effect polling for Obama and the Dem party more than anything. Not Rush or gay marriage.
We've seen a drop in Obama's polling numbers this week, but no mention of it from 538.
In fairness Nate has hardly touched approval ratings at all ever, good or bad, for either Bush or Obama. I wonder if that isn't actually fair enough, as other than over a long term trendline, they don't tell you all that much. So far Obama's trendline has remained fairly static. Over the long run I think both 2010 and 2012 may focus on healthcare and the economy. Healthcare needs to be sold, but the economy is all about whether people have jobs and secure homes.
Misleading headline ... ~86% of respondents said Limbaugh is *not* the main voice of Republicans. This does not suggest that the Democrats succeeded.
> We've seen a drop in Obama's polling numbers this week, but no mention of it from 538.
Come on GROG. Those numbers vary all the time. You think every time a new poll comes out on them 538 should generate a new post? Those do get talked about periodically here. Yes, even when they drop.
P.S. Sure I'll bite on your dubious, presupposing questions.
"Why didn't TARP work,"
It had serious shortcomings in no small part from being a rush job by a lame duck President on his way out the door.
"why isn't the stimulus bill working,"
You get what you pay for. It's a bigass hole and the government is only putting out the cash for a [relatively] small shovel. So it'll be a smaller bump going over it but it's still going to jar the crap out of our teeth.
"why is unemployment nearing double digits"
Because it is [hopefully] nearing the peak of the unemployment curve (which traditionally is a lagging stat) of the biggest economy shitstorm in several decades.
"how are we going to pay for a $2 trillion deficit"
In roughly the same manner as the prior $10 billion in debt.
"why are interest rates going up"
Because they were at historical lows. http://mortgage-x.com/trends.htm
"what are we going to do about N. Korea and Iran"
You haven't been paying attention?
"why are Americans still dying in Iraq"
Because they were sent there to start with.
"and Afghanistan."
Because this was procrastinated on for 8 years.
Dwight:
All I'm saying is that these are the topics the Democrats should be focusing on. Not bashing Rush Limbaugh. There will be a point in time when you will have to stop blaming Repulicans/Limbaugh for everything. The American people won't buy it forever.
GROG, there's a difference between blaming the Republicans for *everything* and blaming them for *the problems that they, in fact, caused*
If you want to blame Obama for TARP, which was passed during Bush's presidency, in response to the collapse of the banking and insurance, and automative industries during Bush's presidency. And the second round of TARP is paying dividends now.
Democrats ARE focusing on how to fix this. Obama's stimulus package is part of the response, and time will tell how effective it was. Given that most of the stimulus funds remain to be spent, it's a bit early to call it a success or a failure.
It amazes me that Republicans can bitch about Obama's deficit given the insane running of huge deficits in supposed boom years under Bush.
And as for "why are interest rates going up?", I'd say that's evidence of a recovery. When the bottom was falling out of every financial market, and the Fed was cutting interest rates to not much more than zero, Republicans thought this was evidence of a crisis. And not you have a problem with them going back up? WTF?
Peter K said...
June 13, 2009 11:55 AM
@Peter,
I just want to tell You:
Looks like You are NOT that "PK".
what a relief!
and:
good posting.
:)
GROG—
I suspect we don't see much on Obama's polling numbers for a couple of reasons.
The first is that there hasn't been much change. Aside from the daily trackers, in polling completed in June Obama is +31 (last +30) at Fox, +32 (last +34) at Ipsos/McClatchy, +34 (last +29 at Diageo/Hotline, +24 (last +24) at Marist, +32 (last +34) at Associated Press/GfK, +25 (last +26) at Democracy Corp (D) and +28 (last +28) at Quinnipiac. In the dailies he's gone from something like +36 to +30 at Gallup and from +13 to +8 at Rasmussen.
The second has to do with that last pollster. Rasmussen is working in a different polling universe (likely voters, as defined by the pollster, who all give an opinion.) There's nothing wrong with that, but the numbers produced are likely to most always be an outlier one way or the other depending, it appears, on the party affiliation of the individual whose approval is being polled.
Todd, et al—
Cas is one of the latest in the long line of psuedonyms used by Nate's obsessed "rival" in Memphis. There aren't really all that many contrarians here. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the ones who've posted more than once here in 2009 originated with him.
My sense is that there is Always a rush to judge a new President and there policies. I think people are actually fairly patient to make there own judgements and understand that very few political decisions bring instant results
markymark wrote:
"I think people are actually fairly patient to make their own judgements and understand that very few political decisions bring instant results."
True.
The Bush Administration benefited from that on Iraq. They blew that benefit early on, however, by firing the poor guy who suggested that the invasion could cost as much as a billion (we all wish) and by predicting it would last no longer than six months. Obama is not making such specific promises, which worries the Right.
Even if the worst case should come to pass, the Republicans have no real alternative plan beyond a return to the Bush Administration's policies.
As an aside, I would note that the Bush Administration was still invoking "Clinton's Fault" on the economy as late as 2008. While the public at large didn't buy that, the Republican base certainly did.
The Religious Left wrote:
"From what I can see, there are many supposed "conservatives" that are just into the whole power thing and are waiting for some leadership that they can identify with. Kind of like they have a modicum of respect for Obama because he won, and handily, but now what?"
Yes, and that speaks to a point I have made before: the models of the two Parties are fundamentally different.
The Democratic Party is a coalition model. It does not require "leaders", per se, but rather facilitators and consensus builders. This idea that there must be a single voice for the Democrats is inherently suspect in such a model, because the odds are heavy that such a single voice would not reflect the diverse nature of the coalition. It is a "bottom-up" structure.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, is the classic "top-down", corporate model. In such a model, a leader is absolutely necessary. Looking to the leadership for guidance is inherent to avoid a power vacuum, with all of the associated disunity and inefficiency that is anathema to such a model.
Thus, conservatives look to the President for the equivalent of marching orders, and instead get consensus talk. This is seen by them as a "lack of direction", which naturally leads to chaos, as we have seen vividly demonstrated here by some commenters.
This is why we constantly see Obama built up as "The Messiah" by the Right - because that is how their model works. They simply do not grasp, or panic at the thought of, the coalition model.
Todd Dugdale, June 13, 2009 2:05 PM
Very well stated.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Todd Said This is why we constantly see Obama built up as "The Messiah" by the Right - because that is how their model works. They simply do not grasp, or panic at the thought of, the coalition model.
Woah. You just blew my mind. I never understood the messiah thing. Don't know anyone who saw him that way, but it makes sense in the top-down scenario.
It's like how young-earth creationists attack Darwin. They think there is some sort of worship involved, and that they can tear him down and defeat the cause accordingly.
Dug-
You pin the tail on the Elephant. It's a point that really speaks volumes about the two parties and worldviews, two streams of American consciousness. It's almost inevitable that most people vilify that Left's coalition welteschung, as the Right cannot comprehend the concept of a coalition without it leading to "collectivism" and, conditioned by 20th century history, the seemingly logical jump to charges of "socialism" or "communism".
The Left is perplexed by the very charge and have a track record of reacting to what the Right initiates. Using Cold War terminology for outdated economic systems seems to be treading into Monty Python territory for many on the Left, yet too often they have not capitalized on the absurdity of the charge and get drawn into that same policy-wonk reaction to the ridiculous action of the Right. This is what we have seen in cable news from the Clinton era onward.
More to the point, the Left appeals to that part of the polity (or American psyche) that sees the need attending to that which is beyond one's tiny personal domain and ego. Civil Rights (the rights of Individuals!), making health care and education universally accessible, diplomacy over unilateral militarism, yes, consensus building.
The Right, conversely, appeals to that of the polity that is supposedly the sanctity of the individual. Except when it comes to certain things like abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, the military, police, or building roads, the rights of corporations superseding individual rights, demanding that this is a Christian country, etc., etc. When these items are pointed out, it exposes the fallacy of the argument that they are the "protectors" of individualism and reveals that deep seated need for the father figure, the patriarchy. They fear threats to the established social order (or rather, what was the social order- see Pat Buchanan). They prefer roles over relationships while the Left opts for the relationship over roles. On a fundamental level, the Right sees the world first from a set perspective and desires the rest of the world to conform to that perspective, particularly when it comes to relating to other people or other nations, while the Left builds it's very viewpoint from that very inter-relational experience. Without getting too New Age, I recommend reading Ekhart Tolle's A New Earth for deeper insight into this very subject.
(Umm, are Right wing websites discussing this at all? I kinda doubt it, at least in neutral terms)
A further thought: The Center-Left's challenge is to offer that semblance of the kind of leadership that appeals to that core nature of people who identify Center-Rightward. Obama is a unique individual in that respect, yet his subtlety gives us a lag-time in it's outward appearance, which only makes a real Right winger suspect. They don't do subtlety unless it's code words for attacking liberals, and those are so worn and tired that they are no really subtle.
The impatience that all our problem are not solved six months into his term is understandable only if you are looking desperately to score a talking point in your fantasy league politics game or you are so desperately threatened by the idea that the Democrats have studied a little Art of War and are effectively consolidating power so that they might actually have some unhindered ability to attack the very problems which you are impatient over not being solved (not to mention that you may be in complete denial that Bush and Cheney did anything that would affect the US into the first 6 months of their successors, let alone the next several years). Or, ya just can't handle a half-breed named Hussein in charge. Such fitting, poetic justice. Heaven forbid the GOP might actually do a little introspection and get with the program. Democrats by and large are not for dictating and by our nature, as Dug said, are oriented toward building consensus. Conservatives of all stripes are faced with three choices: ignore it and obstruct, fear it and obstruct, or, listen and participate.
Comparing Obama or the Democratic leadership to Nazi Germany or Stalin serves absolutely no purpose and does a disservice to one's intellect, for it is apparent that such vitriolic and violent minds have very little comprehension of the problems facing us today, let alone any understanding of history. People in the center understand this and are by-and-large appalled that this is where the conservatives mostly demand to keep the argument. Now, back to these problems...
egregious typos, sorry:
"not really subtle"
"The impatience that all our problems..."
talk about disservice to one's intellect...
Casual Observer said...
This is ridiculous and a waste of fucking time arguing with a bunch of know-nothing asshats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just doing the quick math, from comment #11 to comment #80 ie (69) posts, CO had 27 comments which means CO encompassed (39%) of the conversation er debate lol
Bottom line since the election there has been a definite increase in wingnut troll population here and at HP and a few other progressive chat sites which of course is good for increased ad revenue ie the bottom line.
So Nate says thanx! :)
Sadly at Politico ;) I believe there has been a decrease in the wingnut troll population. But as a casual observer my own self, hard to be sure re: all these political forums.
but, but, but as an independent liberal and one who is used to being in the political minority, seeing all these bitter, lonely, sour grape, disingenuously smug conservatives (((waste))) their pathetic lives at progressive sites trying, and failing miserably to cause trouble, warms one's heart, eh! :)
and as I said, it increases ad revenue for the progressives! Entertaining and cost effective for liberals at the same time ...
take care, blessings
I think it exposed the gamemanship and the politics of polarization of the administration more than anything. Right now there are four to six parties within two and a good percentage of the population is not represented AND know it.
The split in the democratic party and the obvious power struggle is between the progressives and liberal and then there is the blue dogs
The split in the republican party has just come about sooner and is more pronounced. The country club republican vs.conservative republican vs. libertarian leaning republicans. The later two have distanced themselves from the party itself for the abandonment of principles since 98 and being more conerned with party than principle.
Much of this abandonment happened before the election as well where they would not vote for Obama or Mc Cain.
This did more to give some red meat to the dems and jerked the country club republicans, but conservatives and libertarians yawned.
John,
the Democratic Party is vulnerable to schism, as you note.
My greatest fear, post-election, was that the Republicans would moderate and peel off substantial numbers from the Democratic coalition with wedge issues. This tactic would have required strong leadership from the Republicans, but that has always been their strong suit.
Instead, they fell victim to their own propaganda and consolidated the base. They are now caught up in a "siege mentality" that makes it impossible to draw new people in. Who wants to join the besieged?
The Democratic Party, however, has the best glue there is to hold a coalition together: power.
At this point, the Democratic Party can be undone, not by anything the Republicans can do, but rather by a substantial number of Independents joining it and diluting the coalition enough to the Right that a schism appears attractive to the progressives. I'm sceptical of this scenario mostly because the DLC has been pushed to the margins by Obama's victory, but I'll concede that it's possible.
GROG said...
Dwight:
All I'm saying is that these are the topics the Democrats should be focusing on.
The thing is though that calling out Rush for the foolishness that he spouts, and calling out the honest-to-goodness elected GOP Congress members to turn away from that sort of non-constructive attitude that Rush embraces is attempting to bring the focus on important topics ... in way that'll get crap done.
In that sense I'm not sure I'd call this a victory, yet. Besides, as someone else pointed out, he's not seen as the clear "leader" as he only has a slim lead over Cheney and is tied with Newt within the GOP. This step is just the means to and end.
It might work, it might not. I take it as a good sign that Senator Cornyn is standing up and calling for an end to the nonsense noise about Sotomayor being a racist and such.
I think Casual Observer should be the spokesperson for the Republican Party.
Well, I can see there's no point arguing with you guys about what kind of tone is appropriate...
It's inevitable that the party in power become haughty and abuse their position to undermine the political opposition (not in a criminal way, but rhetorically), but the speed that the switch took place is pretty astounding. Just a year ago Democrats (rightly) bemoaned how Republicans impuned their national security credentials. Republicans suggested that Democrats differening stance on the war on terror implied that they actually didn't care about American lives (You remember, the thing where Republicans implied that Democrats were aligned with Osama Bin Laden?).
Now just six months into the Obama presidency, we're already going FULL SWING with implications that Republicans are responsible for "right wing" terror or somehow less interested in protecting people from it. WOW, THAT WAS FAST.
And about the term wingnut, my problem IS NOT your definition of it. That's fine. It's the fact that it's used by the same people to describe both ideological extremists and ACTUAL TERRORISTS - do you understand that's exactly the same kind of CRAP you guys were (rightfully) just complaining about over the last six years of the Bush administration?
A year ago I really was stupid enough to believe that Democrats actually honestly denounced this kind of politiking. Now I see they are just as willing to engage in the same kind of nausating partisanship. I still prefer them, barely, because of policy. But my preference for them "as people" no longer exists.
If I just hated Democrats I wouldn't bother arguing this, by the way. But the absolute partisan pushback on even a basic logical point (acknowleding that there is a similarity in the way Republicans used islamic terror for Political cheapshots and some Democrats are now doing the same with right wing terror) goes a long way to confirm the very point I'm arguing...
Todd Dugdale:
Actually, it is the Republicans that are building Rush into the voice of their Party. The Democrats are merely pleased by the development
Well, at least you guys admit you are happy to see Limbaugh as the leader of the Republicans. Yeah, its good political move, I didn't say it wasn't. But by encouraging it and giving Limbaugh prominence Obama is reinforcing that status - which is NOT something someone interested in UNITING would do. It's something someone interested in WINNING does. That's fine, just drop the line about Obama being a "uniter" because it is no longer the case.
I have used the term for the Democrat model before as "herding cats". It's a syncretic structure; a diverse coalition of alliances that agree to disagree - DLC, Blue Dog, Kossacks, etc. To choose one of these subgroups and point to a consensus is to miss the larger picture.
The primary difference there is one of perspective. You're on the outside, so the Republicans naturally look like a united behemoth. Guess what? Republicans feel exactly the same thing about the Democrats, while feeling that their own party is riven by ideological differences as they struggle to make a viable party.
And how you can even pretend to argue that Republicans are a united ideological machine in the face of Specter's switch boggles the mind. Specter was endorsed by the "top" of the Republican establishment, Bush and every Republican senator who was asked to did so. Oh wait, Limbaugh is the leader and he's responsible for Specter leaving. But if Limbaugh is the leader, why did McCain win?
Oh yeah, great arguing tactics, accuse me of "forthing outrage" Yup, way to take the high road and forgoe logical fallacies.
Dwight: The thing is though that calling out Rush for the foolishness that he spouts, and calling out the honest-to-goodness elected GOP Congress members to turn away from that sort of non-constructive attitude that Rush embraces is attempting to bring the focus on important topics ... in way that'll get crap done.
In that sense I'm not sure I'd call this a victory, yet. Besides, as someone else pointed out, he's not seen as the clear "leader" as he only has a slim lead over Cheney and is tied with Newt within the GOP. This step is just the means to and end.
It might work, it might not. I take it as a good sign that Senator Cornyn is standing up and calling for an end to the nonsense noise about Sotomayor being a racist and such.
Thanks Dwight, glad to see someone here can acknowledge basic reality. I was starting to feel like I was in a nuthouse, with people honestly simultaneously saying that the effort at branding Limbaugh the leader of the Republican party was succesful, while saying that Obama is only trying to unite people and end partisanship.
@Bruce:
Well, I can see there's no point arguing with you guys about what kind of tone is appropriate...
I'm a very strange, very extreme in most "liberal" view points, part of one of the coalitions that is part of the Democratic Party. And I am all about civil, constructive debate, and will answer, or respond to evertything from that post as it comes up, but understand I follow the dual credo's of "basic logic" and "Sir, I may disagree with you in every way imaginable, but I would lay my life down for your right to say it." (i.e. I value unlimited free speech, but expect a civil discussion, which you seem capable of, and wont and hope you wont resort to pettiness and name calling. :) )
It's inevitable that the party in power become haughty and abuse their position to undermine the political opposition (not in a criminal way, but rhetorically), but the speed that the switch took place is pretty astounding. Just a year ago Democrats (rightly) bemoaned how Republicans impuned their national security credentials. Republicans suggested that Democrats differening stance on the war on terror implied that they actually didn't care about American lives (You remember, the thing where Republicans implied that Democrats were aligned with Osama Bin Laden?).
First off, I agree that the party in charge after a certain time become haughty and invariably attempts to corrupt the elections (remember how the "Threat Levels" went to orange, nearly always near a month before an important election???). The whole dems painting the Rep. voice as a man most non-ditto-heads despise, is doing so a bit early in the game, and is kicking a man while he's down on top of it all.
As someone pointed out above, 51% of adults, 43% rep., 49% dem's don't know or have no opinion. So, the real headline is, "Crossectionally, nearly 50% of polled people don't know or have no opinion who the "voice of the republican party is". Seriously, if you added up EVERY OTHER PERSON LISTED INCLUDING OTHER it's about the same. Sure, on the average 1/10 people thought that Rush was the voice, and 1/10 thought Newt was, but that's an exception by far, those two. And the fact is, it's about right. The most vocal Rep. got the highest ratings, various cult followers/constituents/up-and-comers got some token % points, but even after you get all of those things out of the way, 1/2 the people don't know who the voice is. The neo-cons, the libertarians, the evangical/social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, the old guard rep, the Reagan "Democrats", and Military Defense Spending/Cold Warriors, are fighting it out to see which ideology will be the most dominate. And they aren't mutually exclusive, so a hybrid will emerage like last time. The Fsical WILL be part of it, and I fear the Evangel/Social Con will likey be apart of it as well since no matter what Dem's are too progressive on the social issues for them, and probably one more will emerage with it. Fiscal will be a large role, social will NEED to be a small role to not frighten off the young vote- but big enough to give 3-5% in an election, and I hope the old-guards since what they said at least made SENSE back around Reagan and before.
(Continued due to character limit)
As for the "right wing terrorists", I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I have a psych degree, and I can tell you this- we will see more shootings/maybe bombings. When the people on the abortion issue, or violent racists like the KKK and the like with a black president who is apparently "a secret sleeper Muslim", they are very passioniate about those issues, feel without a doubt they are morally right, and you get a crazy .1% of them feel they are doing the right thing by stopping this obvious desctruction of our society happening, they kill. It didn't happen in the Bush years because they didn't feel so threatened by the Federal government and felt they actually had a shot to make the changes through policy instead of vigilantism. But now, yes, the fringe, of the fringe who are literally crazy on the right are much more likely to use violence since they feel trapped like a rat in a corner with no other option. Frankly, part of it is the partison 24-hr news cycles. The fringe, fringe, crazy right are frankly watching Fox News and reading the right-wing blogs, Limbaugh/Hannity, and reading the New York Post and are seeing all these threats coming around what defines them, certain single issues they dedjcated their lives to, hear speculations and the sky is falling predicitions, have O'Rielly saying Obama supports enfatically even, partially birthing the child- then killing it. They don't see the moderate, intellectiual listener, who is pragmatic and is willing to compromise. They feel locked out of the process by this "Communist" (Alan Keyes), "Socialist" (Rush, and the RNC), who is nominating a "reverse racist latina woman" to the Supreme Court who thinks that white men come to less wise desicions (Out of Context quotes from her, and from both Newt and Rush, and Newt said so on Hannity's show), and "A man who isn't even pro-choice, is so radical is PRO-ABORATION UP TILL THE DAY OF BIRTH" (O'Rielly on his TV AND Radio show).
The "Domestic Terrorist" thing being right wingers are talking about >.01% of people. The labeling of the Democrats or anyone who voted for them as "un-American, The Party of Defeat/Weakness, un-Patriotic, Terrorist Apologists, & In League with Osama" is talking not about a fringe, fringe group with mental illnesses, but nearly 50% of the population. Can you see why I stand by my belief in the trueism of that statement by the DoD, but think people are taking it overblown and the wrong way?
like forrest gump says, "stupid is as stupid does . . ."
as long as limbaugh keeps bloviating mean-spirited and down right hateful, malicious and destructive musings at breakneck spead, republicans can only sit back and enjoy it, much like GOB claton williams said about rape: "if it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."
. . . unless a few of the more respected republicans can grow a pair and stand up to this bloated egotistical maniac. yeah, good luck with that!
Post a Comment