Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

How will Obama get reelected as the incumbent?  [...]  I just hope he does a good enough job that people will keep him aboard for his accomplishments alone.

Yeah, pretty much that.

Clinton/Dole wasn't even really a race.  Clinton's the only Dem to carry Arizona since Truman.

I expect Obama will be a better President than Clinton.  But he's also got a lot more of an uphill climb than Clinton.  But he ALSO also doesn't have the baggage Clinton did.

[Brentai]

Yeah, I'm not worried about reelection.  If he were actually getting in solely due to circumstances and not on any actual merits things would be different, but I kind of trust he'll do a good enough job that getting reelected as incumbent will be a walk.  I mean the way the Reds are going now all he'll have to do in the next four years is come off as moderately sane.

[Mongrel]

It hurts itself by drinking the suggesting that Obama is a far-left liberal.  He's not.  He's moderate.

I've never thought of that as anything but right-wing spin. O-dawg is only far left if you think a true laissez-faire economy is centerist.

Every year, e-mails get circulating saying that studies were done, and Sen. X is the most liberal Senator in the Senate.  So far to the left are they that they had to install new seats even more left than the previous ones.

Were they so far to the left that they had to be placed outside the door?

_{You know, the one marked "colored service entrance".}

[Ted Belmont]

Saw Ann Coulter on some talk show or other this morning, saying McCain lost because he "was never a real Republican."

[Pacobird]

Saw Ann Coulter on some talk show or other this morning, saying McCain lost because he "was never a real Scotsman."

[Thad]

Yeah, but then neither is she.

[Kazz]

I think he was the only real Republican.  Or rather, the only example of what a Republican is supposed to be.

Referring here to the real McCain, not MechCain.

[Thad]

Again, I'm curious if the "He lost because he wasn't right-wing ENOUGH" idea will gain traction -- and hope, for our sake, that it does.

[TA]

This idea of a "real McCain", that we saw in 2000 and who knuckled under to the evils of the GOP in 2008, is kind of insane.  The McCain we saw in 2000 was a public front.  The only "real McCain" is the one that nepotism'd his way out of court martials, ditched the wife that waited for him to come home from the camp and married a beauty queen heiress to fund his political career, eagerly signed on to the Keating Five, talks a big game about torture and campaign finance until it actually comes time to vote, tells reporters that he'll hate the gooks until the day he dies, and consistently suckles at the deregulative, bigoted party teat.

The real McCain is the one we've seen during the race.  Last night's speech was a desperate attempt to rebuild his image and hang on to his senate seat in 2010.

[Romosome]

Well, this election has been dominated by general nonvoters coming out of the woodwork because they're pissed off by the current administration.  Theoretically that could go both ways; if Obama does a good job but turns out to be some kind of Bible-burning nigger faggot, the college students will all be too appeased to care and the far-tight might stuff the ballot box in droves.

That hit me like a ton of bricks the other day.  How will Obama get reelected as the incumbent?  Can't really use "change" or "hope" to keep the current administration.  Much of the enthusiasm is coming from getting the Republicans out of office and getting this idealistic guy in.  How enthusiastic can people stay after four years of an administration?  I just hope he does a good enough job that people will keep him aboard for his accomplishments alone.

So you're saying you hope he does a good enough job to be re-elected?

No offense, but I would hope that for any President.

[Kazz]

A thought:

After 9/11, Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed.

I imagine that the opposite would occur during Obama's administration.

[Thad]

This idea of a "real McCain", that we saw in 2000 and who knuckled under to the evils of the GOP in 2008, is kind of insane.  The McCain we saw in 2000 was a public front.  The only "real McCain" is the one that nepotism'd his way out of court martials, ditched the wife that waited for him to come home from the camp and married a beauty queen heiress to fund his political career, eagerly signed on to the Keating Five, talks a big game about torture and campaign finance until it actually comes time to vote, tells reporters that he'll hate the gooks until the day he dies, and consistently suckles at the deregulative, bigoted party teat.

The real McCain is the one we've seen during the race.  Last night's speech was a desperate attempt to rebuild his image and hang on to his senate seat in 2010.

Maybe.  But in the same way that remembering Sandra Day O'Connor as a moderate gives our side more power than if we tried to fight to set the record straight, I think letting the myth of the "real McCain" take root will have a positive impact.

Right now I'm listening to Bill Moyers (himself no stranger to myth) pushing the idea that the day McCain lost the election was the day he spoke at Liberty University, that he lost the election by courting Falwell's disciples.  Regardless of whether the 2000 McCain or the 2008 McCain is the "real" one, I think that's true; Palin is the ultimate example of him throwing out his veneer of bipartisanship in order to appeal to the craziest people in his party, but Falwell was where it all started.  Obviously September's market meltdown didn't help, but I think his courting of "agents of intolerance" was his real downfall.

Anyway.  That seems to be the narrative on the left; and this thread is all about debating whether that's going to be the narrative on the right.

[Brentai]

I think the right's going to sour grapes the thing.  "Yeah, they had kind of a rock star candidate, and we were too damn tied to Bush.  We didn't make any mistakes!  We had it lost from the start!"  That last part may or may not be true, but more importantly I think they're going to end up believing the first part.

[Thad]

Yes, but Bush is WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PARTY.

[Thad]

Jason Linkins @ HuffPo notes the current disrest in the party; suggests the possibility of the leadership being overthrown and believes the party's going to go farther right.

[king_tut22]

Jason Linkins @ HuffPo notes the current disrest in the party; suggests the possibility of the leadership being overthrown and believes the party's going to go farther right.

I believe that they really need to rethink their structure.

[Detonator]

Palin's problems surprisingly deeper than revealed pre-election.  Or not so surprisingly, really.

Just in case you were wondering how quickly she would be thrown under the bus.

[Thad]

Det, moved your post here because I think this is the place to talk about it.

I think this is probably a sign of Fox News working to undermine the Palin wing of the party.  This shouldn't be terribly surprising -- Giuliani was their guy; what they really want is a guy who plays nice with the military-industrial complex.  They pander to the Palin base, but Murdoch only uses those people as useful idiots; he doesn't actually like them.

[Detonator]

Det, moved your post here because I think this is the place to talk about it.

Fair enough, I think there are six different threads now where it could have fit.

I guess the question now is whether the rest of the party will follow suit.

[Romosome]

Giuliani was their girl

Sorry.  I'm getting all the petty stupid bullshit out of my system so I don't have to think about politics for the next 4 years.