If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   At this point in 1980, Jimmy Carter was on the path to oblivion but didn't know it. Barack Obama may share Carter's fate if he doesn't change course soon   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 143
    More: Obvious, obama, Jimmy Carter, The Republicans  
•       •       •

1806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2012 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-06 12:00:54 PM
At this point, the Irianian revolution was holding dozens of american diplomats hostage.

OTOH : Osama Bin laden will not be releasing any tapes in reaction to this election.

/different times are different
 
2012-07-06 12:00:59 PM

Mjeck: In the last four years, he's failed to show American's the importance of critical thought, science, health, sustainability.... you lose Obama


Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Republican party is the party of "critical thought, science, health and sustainability"? Because...wow, that takes some SERIOUS delusion.
 
2012-07-06 12:02:29 PM

qorkfiend: The Bestest: Serious Black: Did any of you jackasses actually read the article? Jon Rauch isn't exactly an Obama concern troll, and his proposal is a goddamn smart one IMO.

It's -A- plan to be sure, but one that could also blow up in Obama's face if he went that way.

the concern he presents is that Obama is losing his message towards independents, but making further left proposals, while base-pleasing, (and making economic sense, IMO) isn't the way to win the middle over. I don't like it, but unfortunately this year, you pretty much HAVE to go all negative.

You're not going to convince a largely right-leaning independent group that more progressive approaches are the answer. You're going to have to hammer home that the alternative (Romney) is that much worse. It's ugly, it's not how things should be, but it is what it is.

There may be a sense in the campaign that Romney is doing a fine job of making himself look bad, and they've got some room to play to the base.


To be fair, I think the best way to make it work is in combination with the negative attacks on his career at Bain Capital. Right now, low-information voters don't really believe that Romney (or any other politician for that matter) would follow through on his promises to cut taxes even further on the rich and abolish the current form of Medicare. The Bain attacks show them that he really was that heartless in his business past and would be willing to be that heartless as president, so they start believing that he'll be a toady for the rich. Then Obama can show how his plans don't make him a toady for the rich and would help rebuild the middle class.
 
2012-07-06 12:04:18 PM
If Obama did that, he'll still lose.

The Democrats are too wedded to their political philosophy to read the pulse of the nation. They've convinced themselves that all the opposition to Obama is because of racism, stupidity, etc. They've eaten their own dogfood for so long they think it's caviar.

It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

American see their own standards of living going down the toilet. They see their children's futures being mortgaged to China. And the Democrats are running on a campaign of more spending and giving out free birth control to everyone. But that only exacerbates the problem: you don't fix the perception that you're spending too much by spending more.

I think the Carter comparisons are fairly apt, although Romney is no Reagan. At the end of the day, Obama is polling consistently at 46-48%. Romney is polling a couple of points lower. But there are plenty of undecided voters who are pissed off at the state of our economy but don't necessarily support Romney - and the chances that those voters will be motivated to support Obama is pretty damn low.

If the trend of undecided voters swinging toward the challenger proves true in this election cycle, the Obama as Jimmy Carter metaphor may prove very apt.
 
2012-07-06 12:06:07 PM
What's going to put Obama over the top is that Romney is pretty much the worst candidate on all the issues being discussed during this election:

Health care: obvious
Job Creation: his record at Bane has been an effective rebuttal to Obama's record
Taxation: He's super rich and pays a smaller proportion of his salary than middle class Americans, has all kinds of offshore bank accounts.
Terrorism: There are those clips of him saying capturing OBL wasn't important.
Immigration: Audio and video of him coming down hard against the Dream Act.
 
2012-07-06 12:08:01 PM
Any attempt at either #2 or #3 and there will be no end to the household budget analogies we suffer from already.

Also, comparing Obama/Romney election to the Carter/Reagan election is just ridiculous. It won't be a sense of patriotism and charisma that pushes Romney into the White House, it will be money and Tea Party idiots.
 
2012-07-06 12:08:46 PM

thornhill: What's going to put Obama over the top is that Romney is pretty much the worst candidate on all the issues being discussed during this election:

Health care: obvious
Job Creation: his record at Bane has been an effective rebuttal to Obama's record
Taxation: He's super rich and pays a smaller proportion of his salary than middle class Americans, has all kinds of offshore bank accounts.
Terrorism: There are those clips of him saying capturing OBL wasn't important.
Immigration: Audio and video of him coming down hard against the Dream Act.


I voted Funny, Smart was not an option
 
2012-07-06 12:09:17 PM

WombatControl: If Obama did that, he'll still lose.

The Democrats are too wedded to their political philosophy to read the pulse of the nation. They've convinced themselves that all the opposition to Obama is because of racism, stupidity, etc. They've eaten their own dogfood for so long they think it's caviar.

It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

American see their own standards of living going down the toilet. They see their children's futures being mortgaged to China. And the Democrats are running on a campaign of more spending and giving out free birth control to everyone. But that only exacerbates the problem: you don't fix the perception that you're spending too much by spending more.

I think the Carter comparisons are fairly apt, although Romney is no Reagan. At the end of the day, Obama is polling consistently at 46-48%. Romney is polling a couple of points lower. But there are plenty of undecided voters who are pissed off at the state of our economy but don't necessarily support Romney - and the chances that those voters will be motivated to support Obama is pretty damn low.

If the trend of undecided voters swinging toward the challenger proves true in this election cycle, the Obama as Jimmy Carter metaphor may prove very apt.


So people seriously concerned about the debt are going to vote for the GOP? Go on, pull the other one.
 
2012-07-06 12:09:20 PM
WombatControl:

Three elements to The Fark Independent:

1) Blatant projection

2) Colorful metaphors, lacking any real substance or facts

3) Disconnection with reality.
 
2012-07-06 12:10:55 PM

WombatControl: It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.


Where was this opposition to out-of-control government spending when Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republican Party were in charge of the government?
 
2012-07-06 12:12:20 PM
WE GET IT. HE'S BLACK.
 
2012-07-06 12:12:48 PM

Serious Black: Where was this opposition to out-of-control government spending when Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republican Party were in charge of the government?


Those people are harder to find than 2004 Bush voters.
 
2012-07-06 12:14:36 PM

cubic_spleen: WE GET IT. HE'S BLAHCK.


FTFSantorum
 
2012-07-06 12:14:52 PM

Generation_D: I like how the right goes batsh*t insane over the trumped-up 'fast and furious' arms thing, which sounds like bureaucratic screw up more than anything so far, but manages to completely ignore things like the existence of gitmo or how it was allowed to come into existence, or what legal hoops had to be created to justify torture, or the ongoing lack of investigations around Cheney's various doings early after 9/11.


Wasn't it a Bush appointee in Arizona who let the guns walk against ATF orders during Fast & Furious in the first place then later blew the whistle about it?

I know it was the Arizona state prosecutor's office that blocked the prosecution of the men involved prior to the fact, and it was that act that allowed those men to walk free long enough to blow away a border patrol agent.

And I also know it was Congress that managed to blow an ongoing FBI investigation into the Sinaloa cartel as collateral damage, going after Holder to score political points.

So both sides are bad, vote Republican.
 
2012-07-06 12:15:19 PM

Generation_D: At this time in 1980, George Bush senior was over in Iran cutting a deal with the Ayatollah to release the hostages in return for a nice big shipment of weapons.

-=-
Done in one.

But you wont find that in the article.
Carter was hen-pecked by the GOP, same as Carter, same as Obama. But you know Obama started the wars and allowed AIG to run amok, and, and, and.
The GOP is full of dick.

Makes me want to be a Liberal.
 
2012-07-06 12:15:58 PM
the media sure is working hard to make Romney the heir apparent aren't they?
 
2012-07-06 12:16:42 PM
qorkfiend

Sure, here's an excerpt from his recent book- Link. Of course, Greenwald sees the decline since 1970s mainly in terms of civil liberties and the growth of executive power. I think there have been waves of better times and worse times throughout U.S. history on these issues but Greenwald focuses on the recent past because for his political project we have to get "back" to where we were before. I'm not sure America ever was so perfect.
 
2012-07-06 12:17:35 PM
If you can't teach American's that healthy American's are productive American's; that the ability to think for yourself is a benefit; that having a sustainable country that takes care of it's citizens and resources is good and that science, facts and truth are also good things... how do you expect to get re-elected?

//it's what plants crave
 
2012-07-06 12:22:32 PM

The Bestest: Serious Black: Did any of you jackasses actually read the article? Jon Rauch isn't exactly an Obama concern troll, and his proposal is a goddamn smart one IMO.

It's -A- plan to be sure, but one that could also blow up in Obama's face if he went that way.

the concern he presents is that Obama is losing his message towards independents, but making further left proposals, while base-pleasing, (and making economic sense, IMO) isn't the way to win the middle over. I don't like it, but unfortunately this year, you pretty much HAVE to go all negative.

You're not going to convince a largely right-leaning independent group that more progressive approaches are the answer. You're going to have to hammer home that the alternative (Romney) is that much worse. It's ugly, it's not how things should be, but it is what it is.


See my comment here.
 
2012-07-06 12:28:54 PM

Serious Black: WombatControl: It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

Where was this opposition to out-of-control government spending when Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republican Party were in charge of the government?


There was opposition on the right to Bush's spending habits, especially in his second term.

And here's the difference: when you're running a small structural deficit, you can grow your way out of it. When you're running a huge structural deficit, you can't. We've reached the tipping point where our spending habits are just not sustainable.

And what Obama has done has taken the stimulus and set that as the new spending baseline (which is why he can make the false argument that government spending has only gone up 1.3% under his administration - because he's ignoring the effect of the stimulus).

Government spending under George W. Bush was a bad idea, and Bush and the Republican Congress bear the blame for their additional spending. But saying that their spending justifies Obama's policies is not a rational argument - first, it's a tu quoque, and second it's logically inconsistent. If Bush's spending was terrible, then there's no justification for Obama's even greater spending. At least under Bush there was enough GDP growth to have a chance at paying down the extra debt.
 
2012-07-06 12:29:53 PM

propasaurus: Oh, yay. Looks like we've circled around to the Jimmy Carter trope again.


Or trying to. Then again, that trope only has 'he's a Democrat, he's in his first term, and all Democratic presidents in their first term fail IGNORE CLINTON AND EVERYTHING HE DID TO MAKE THE '90S AWESOME.' But the real appeal of this isn't just to ignore Clinton's awesome second term and Obama's popularity, it's also to imply that the Republican salvation is just around the corner. And that the Republican Party isn't a dead man walking with their sad, overused attempts at narrative control.

That's what this trope is really about. The Republicans feel directionless. The anger that drove them through the Clinton years is taking its toll. Ever wonder why Republicans look older? It's because that anger destroys you after a while. When people joke about Republicans dying off so the country can get better, it's mostly because Republicans' aren't in the best of health. You can't be when your whole life is raging for an ideal that will never exist in a world that can't work with it at all.

So yeah, call Obama Jimmy Carter. Ignore his popularity. But the heart of that trope isn't about Obama, it's about the Republican Party's demise. And it's coming soon, mostly because the rich are deaf to what is really going on in their party, and the contempt they have for the rubes can't really be hidden any longer. And the rubes are starting to realize the world isn't the way they thought it was, and are getting really angry about it.
 
2012-07-06 12:36:59 PM
So does this mean that the Republicans will take over and we'll be able to enjoy the next 10 years of recessions, Reaganomics, growing of the lower class, higher taxes on the middle class, increased government spending, growing debt, inflation and stagnation, unemployment back over 10%, the rise of the moral majority and worst of all...yuppies?
 
2012-07-06 12:37:50 PM
All of those plans outlined in the article require action by Congress, and the Republicans are holding everything up in filibuster because they want Obama to look bad.

So, how exactly is Obama supposed to be enacting all of these things before the election?
 
2012-07-06 12:39:52 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: WombatControl: It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

Where was this opposition to out-of-control government spending when Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republican Party were in charge of the government?

There was opposition on the right to Bush's spending habits, especially in his second term.

And here's the difference: when you're running a small structural deficit, you can grow your way out of it. When you're running a huge structural deficit, you can't. We've reached the tipping point where our spending habits are just not sustainable.

And what Obama has done has taken the stimulus and set that as the new spending baseline (which is why he can make the false argument that government spending has only gone up 1.3% under his administration - because he's ignoring the effect of the stimulus).

Government spending under George W. Bush was a bad idea, and Bush and the Republican Congress bear the blame for their additional spending. But saying that their spending justifies Obama's policies is not a rational argument - first, it's a tu quoque, and second it's logically inconsistent. If Bush's spending was terrible, then there's no justification for Obama's even greater spending. At least under Bush there was enough GDP growth to have a chance at paying down the extra debt.


You realize that Mitt Romney's economic policies would drastically increase spending and the debt, right? And that the increases in spending and debt would mostly go to benefit defense contractors (in the form of increased defense spending) and top income brackets (in the form of tax cuts)?

Why would anyone who is concerned about spending vote for Mitt Romney? More importantly, why would anyone outside the top brackets (like most independents) who is concerned about spending vote for Mitt Romney?
 
2012-07-06 12:41:34 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: WombatControl: It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

Where was this opposition to out-of-control government spending when Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republican Party were in charge of the government?

There was opposition on the right to Bush's spending habits, especially in his second term.

And here's the difference: when you're running a small structural deficit, you can grow your way out of it. When you're running a huge structural deficit, you can't. We've reached the tipping point where our spending habits are just not sustainable.

And what Obama has done has taken the stimulus and set that as the new spending baseline (which is why he can make the false argument that government spending has only gone up 1.3% under his administration - because he's ignoring the effect of the stimulus).

Government spending under George W. Bush was a bad idea, and Bush and the Republican Congress bear the blame for their additional spending. But saying that their spending justifies Obama's policies is not a rational argument - first, it's a tu quoque, and second it's logically inconsistent. If Bush's spending was terrible, then there's no justification for Obama's even greater spending. At least under Bush there was enough GDP growth to have a chance at paying down the extra debt.


Spending has only increased an average of 1.4% under the Obama administration, which is under the rate of inflation.

Spending increased MASSIVELY under GW, but you already knew that.

And getting rid of a lot of that spending requires action by Congress, which is stagnant.

But, yes, we need to cut spending. Fortunately Congressional stagnation will lead to both massive cuts AND the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts, which should go a long ways to bringing our deficit under control.
 
2012-07-06 12:42:58 PM

WombatControl: There was opposition on the right to Bush's spending habits, especially in his second term.


I never heard of the Tea Party until 2008.
 
2012-07-06 12:44:18 PM
Bush: off limits
Carter: A-OK
 
2012-07-06 12:44:37 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: WombatControl: It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

Where was this opposition to out-of-control government spending when Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republican Party were in charge of the government?

There was opposition on the right to Bush's spending habits, especially in his second term.

And here's the difference: when you're running a small structural deficit, you can grow your way out of it. When you're running a huge structural deficit, you can't. We've reached the tipping point where our spending habits are just not sustainable.

And what Obama has done has taken the stimulus and set that as the new spending baseline (which is why he can make the false argument that government spending has only gone up 1.3% under his administration - because he's ignoring the effect of the stimulus).

Government spending under George W. Bush was a bad idea, and Bush and the Republican Congress bear the blame for their additional spending. But saying that their spending justifies Obama's policies is not a rational argument - first, it's a tu quoque, and second it's logically inconsistent. If Bush's spending was terrible, then there's no justification for Obama's even greater spending. At least under Bush there was enough GDP growth to have a chance at paying down the extra debt.


Of course there's justification. The justification is that WE HAVE TO. NOT spending on economic stability isn't a luxury we don't have currently; what's REALLY dangerous is the steadfast, bullheaded opposition to revenue increases. THAT's what we can't afford right now. Kill the tax cuts and MAYBE you can have them back after things get back to "normal".
 
2012-07-06 12:49:36 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: propasaurus: Oh, yay. Looks like we've circled around to the Jimmy Carter trope again.

Or trying to. Then again, that trope only has 'he's a Democrat, he's in his first term, and all Democratic presidents in their first term fail IGNORE CLINTON AND EVERYTHING HE DID TO MAKE THE '90S AWESOME.' But the real appeal of this isn't just to ignore Clinton's awesome second term and Obama's popularity, it's also to imply that the Republican salvation is just around the corner. And that the Republican Party isn't a dead man walking with their sad, overused attempts at narrative control.

That's what this trope is really about. The Republicans feel directionless. The anger that drove them through the Clinton years is taking its toll. Ever wonder why Republicans look older? It's because that anger destroys you after a while. When people joke about Republicans dying off so the country can get better, it's mostly because Republicans' aren't in the best of health. You can't be when your whole life is raging for an ideal that will never exist in a world that can't work with it at all.

So yeah, call Obama Jimmy Carter. Ignore his popularity. But the heart of that trope isn't about Obama, it's about the Republican Party's demise. And it's coming soon, mostly because the rich are deaf to what is really going on in their party, and the contempt they have for the rubes can't really be hidden any longer. And the rubes are starting to realize the world isn't the way they thought it was, and are getting really angry about it.


Well said, and as a former republican and true "decline to state" independent, I think it can't come soon enough...
 
2012-07-06 12:50:11 PM

WombatControl: There was opposition on the right to Bush's spending habits, especially in his second term.


I'd be interested in seeing some sort of citation for that, if you don't mind.

/Granted, I was in Ireland from '04 to '08, so it's possible I might've missed it.
 
2012-07-06 12:51:15 PM
Let's see, a traditionally conservative man with a penchant for national defense defeats a incompetent fool who wasn't really liked by his own party.

President Obama is black Reagan!
 
2012-07-06 12:51:32 PM

FlashHarry: Generation_D: At this time in 1980, George Bush senior was over in Iran cutting a deal with the Ayatollah to release the hostages in return for a nice big shipment of weapons.

the fact that reagan negotiated with terrorists to hold americans hostage long enough for him to win the election is one of the most egregiously anti-american acts by an american politician ever. worse than eric cantor's pledge to defend israel against america while visiting bibi netanyahu.


Didnt Lee Atwater say that he stole information on Carter's campaign too?

They are scum. We would be in such a better place if the Reagan years had never existed. And double for the Bush years (any of them).
 
2012-07-06 12:57:03 PM

HighOnCraic: I'd be interested in seeing some sort of citation for that, if you don't mind.


Don't you remember when TARP was shot down by the Republicans in Congress?
 
2012-07-06 01:06:49 PM
cdn.cutestpaw.com

"Lemon. Wet. Good."
 
2012-07-06 01:07:39 PM

Lando Lincoln: In this week's episode of "God, how I hope Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter instead of Ronald Reagan"


...with an added bonus of "God I hope Mitt Romney is Ronald Reagan instead".

Let me you clue you guys in-he isn't. He's a dumbass. Admittedly, he was the most electable candidate in the Republican primaries this year, beyond Huntsman, but that's like winning "tallest midget".

And, yes, the economy sucks now and Obama is beatable due to it. But you still have to have a good candidate to beat an incumbent, and Romney ain't it.
 
2012-07-06 01:12:03 PM

Dog Welder: Spending has only increased an average of 1.4% under the Obama administration, which is under the rate of inflation.


You even quoted the part where I showed why that figure is deceptive...

Mugato: I never heard of the Tea Party until 2008.


It didn't start until 2009 - the name came from Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC, which I believe was in April of 2009.

HighOnCraic: I'd be interested in seeing some sort of citation for that, if you don't mind.

/Granted, I was in Ireland from '04 to '08, so it's possible I might've missed it.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217520/george-w-milhous-bush/j o nah-goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/213564/money-where-ws-mouth/ve r onique-de-rugy
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/conservative-bush-spends- m ore-liberal-presidents-clinton-carter
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/235 m jdqp.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR200 6 030701403.html

Etc...
 
2012-07-06 01:12:27 PM

Mjeck: In the last four years, he's failed to show American's the importance of critical thought, science, health, sustainability


The GOP certainly has shown us the importance of critical thought and science. They've shown us a political party that hates those things.
 
2012-07-06 01:15:29 PM

WombatControl: If Obama did that, he'll still lose.

The Democrats are too wedded to their political philosophy to read the pulse of the nation. They've convinced themselves that all the opposition to Obama is because of racism, stupidity, etc. They've eaten their own dogfood for so long they think it's caviar.

It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

American see their own standards of living going down the toilet. They see their children's futures being mortgaged to China. And the Democrats are running on a campaign of more spending and giving out free birth control to everyone. But that only exacerbates the problem: you don't fix the perception that you're spending too much by spending more.

I think the Carter comparisons are fairly apt, although Romney is no Reagan. At the end of the day, Obama is polling consistently at 46-48%. Romney is polling a couple of points lower. But there are plenty of undecided voters who are pissed off at the state of our economy but don't necessarily support Romney - and the chances that those voters will be motivated to support Obama is pretty damn low.

If the trend of undecided voters swinging toward the challenger proves true in this election cycle, the Obama as Jimmy Carter metaphor may prove very apt.



So elect a guy from the party that spends the nation's money on a scale the Democrats couldn't achieve even if they got every single thing they wanted, including enough funding for NASA to put a colony on Mars???? Yeah, okay. That makes sense. Were you in a comma between the years of 1980-1992 and 2001-2009 or something?
 
2012-07-06 01:18:05 PM

WombatControl: Mugato: I never heard of the Tea Party until 2008.

It didn't start until 2009 - the name came from Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC, which I believe was in April of 2009.


It didn't get subsumed as part of the RNC until 2009. The RONPAUL people started it back in 2007 or so to prepare the country for RONPAUL's limited Constitutional governance.

Then, when the GOP leadership saw that the RONPAUL RELOVEUTION MONEYBOMB worked so well, the dick army bankrolled it to use for their own ends (defeating what eventually became PPACA).

"Teabaggers" is what Santelli started. With hilarious results.
 
2012-07-06 01:26:17 PM

coco ebert: Generation_D: FlashHarry: Generation_D: At this time in 1980, George Bush senior was over in Iran cutting a deal with the Ayatollah to release the hostages in return for a nice big shipment of weapons.

the fact that reagan negotiated with terrorists to hold americans hostage long enough for him to win the election is one of the most egregiously anti-american acts by an american politician ever. worse than eric cantor's pledge to defend israel against america while visiting bibi netanyahu.

There have been some fairly curious acts by well connected individuals. I like how the right goes batsh*t insane over the trumped-up 'fast and furious' arms thing, which sounds like bureaucratic screw up more than anything so far, but manages to completely ignore things like the existence of gitmo or how it was allowed to come into existence, or what legal hoops had to be created to justify torture, or the ongoing lack of investigations around Cheney's various doings early after 9/11.

Republicans selling off American principles for profit is a long running theme, all the way back to this was the military-industrial complex Eisenhauer warned about.

They're so deeply woven into the fabric of American life that I really have given up any hope seeing them be removed or prosecuted in my lifetime. Vietnam/Watergate was a blip anomaly, and laws came into being shortly after (forbidding reporters from covering the war, making FOIA requests more difficult, on up to Citizens United just recently) .. the fix is in, the good guys lost.

Hunter Thompson seemed to have the best view of things, he'd been in on watching America decline since the 1970s, the America we were brought up with believing in, long gone now. Any wonder the sons and daughters of those are all about promoting an America that gives them handouts and bailouts and tax cuts, but screws everyone else?

We can't even build a highway any more, or a bridge, or a solar wind farm without some sort of politics involved.

Word. S ...


Part of me is in agreement that we've been completely screwed over by all this, and part of me wonders why we choose to sit on the sidelines. If we have the people behind us, shouldn't we act? Instead of biatching that the America we knew and loved is long since dead? Why complain about the situation we're all in if we refuse to stand up and fight against it?
 
2012-07-06 01:33:35 PM
So much concern from the liberal media.
 
2012-07-06 01:42:02 PM

rumpelstiltskin: He was challenged by his own party. When else has that ever happened?


Ford in 1976 and Bush in 1992 each faced serious primary challengers.
 
2012-07-06 01:42:23 PM
I think that both Carter and Bush had the same issue in their last terms (though Bush was not up for re-election).

Both had economic meltdowns that were obviously getting worse at the time of the vote. Bush's meltdown was longer and deeper, so if it happened in Bush's first term I think he would have easily lost to Kerry.

Obama is like Carter (and Bush) only if there is another recession or the economy is obviously getting worse at the time of the vote... right now the economy is getting better. Both sides agree to that, the only arguement is the pace of the recovery... not the same as Carter at all.
 
2012-07-06 01:45:17 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: BillCo: It is fitting that we find similarities between Obama and Carter. Both are destined to go down in history as 2 of the worst presidents in the history of the United States.

I just want you to take a good long look at Mitt Romney and say to yourself, "There he is. The next Ronald Reagan. Let's meditate upon his wisdom: Lemon. Wet. Good."

/if you can't do this without sobbing uncontrollably, I'll understand


You only have to back to 2009 where there are clips of him saying "Orange.Dry.Bad". Which is it Mitt?
 
2012-07-06 01:47:18 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: It is fitting that we find similarities between Obama and Carter. Both are destined to go down in history as 2 of the worst presidents in the history of the United States.

Your tears probably taste really good. I am looking forward to a bountiful supply in November.


Is this a prediction thread?. Last time I posted the screen-hot of BillCo's prediction on the SCOTUS decision he ran to the mods and had it deleted immediately. I wonder if I'm permitted to post it here.
 
2012-07-06 01:51:51 PM

Geotpf: Lando Lincoln: In this week's episode of "God, how I hope Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter instead of Ronald Reagan"

...with an added bonus of "God I hope Mitt Romney is Ronald Reagan instead".

Let me you clue you guys in-he isn't. He's a dumbass. Admittedly, he was the most electable candidate in the Republican primaries this year, beyond Huntsman, but that's like winning "tallest midget".

And, yes, the economy sucks now and Obama is beatable due to it. But you still have to have a good candidate to beat an incumbent, and Romney ain't it.


Romney isn't Carter or Reagan. He's Dukakis.

The deft publicity photos, the glib turns of phrase, the state he used to be governor in. He's got it all!
 
2012-07-06 01:53:42 PM

WombatControl: If Obama did that, he'll still lose.

The Democrats are too wedded to their political philosophy to read the pulse of the nation. They've convinced themselves that all the opposition to Obama is because of racism, stupidity, etc. They've eaten their own dogfood for so long they think it's caviar.

It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

American see their own standards of living going down the toilet. They see their children's futures being mortgaged to China. And the Democrats are running on a campaign of more spending and giving out free birth control to everyone. But that only exacerbates the problem: you don't fix the perception that you're spending too much by spending more.

I think the Carter comparisons are fairly apt, although Romney is no Reagan. At the end of the day, Obama is polling consistently at 46-48%. Romney is polling a couple of points lower. But there are plenty of undecided voters who are pissed off at the state of our economy but don't necessarily support Romney - and the chances that those voters will be motivated to support Obama is pretty damn low.

If the trend of undecided voters swinging toward the challenger proves true in this election cycle, the Obama as Jimmy Carter metaphor may prove very apt.


It is a little bit of partisanship, sexism, blindness, bigotry, ignorance, stupidity, racism, manipulation, confusion and fear all mixed in to a big fail soup.

No Liberals claim opposition to Obama is just about racism. Clearly Conservatives fail in many other ways when it comes to voting against their own self-interest.
 
2012-07-06 01:53:42 PM

WombatControl: The Democrats are too wedded to their political philosophy to read the pulse of the nation.


There is so much projection in that statement that I can read it on the surface of the moon from here.
 
2012-07-06 02:19:44 PM

WombatControl: Serious Black: WombatControl: It's not that hard: what motivated the opposition to ObamaCare, the Tea Party, the 2010 takeover of the House, and the reason why Obama is not running away with this election is one thing: opposition to out-of-control government spending. It's not racism, it's not sexism, it's not bigotry, it's not any of the convenient stereotypes that the Democrats trot out. It's spending.

Where was this opposition to out-of-control government spending when Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republican Party were in charge of the government?

There was opposition on the right to Bush's spending habits, especially in his second term.

And here's the difference: when you're running a small structural deficit, you can grow your way out of it. When you're running a huge structural deficit, you can't. We've reached the tipping point where our spending habits are just not sustainable.

And what Obama has done has taken the stimulus and set that as the new spending baseline (which is why he can make the false argument that government spending has only gone up 1.3% under his administration - because he's ignoring the effect of the stimulus).

Government spending under George W. Bush was a bad idea, and Bush and the Republican Congress bear the blame for their additional spending. But saying that their spending justifies Obama's policies is not a rational argument - first, it's a tu quoque, and second it's logically inconsistent. If Bush's spending was terrible, then there's no justification for Obama's even greater spending. At least under Bush there was enough GDP growth to have a chance at paying down the extra debt.


I'll go through point by point.

Regarding the claim that there was opposition to his spending in his second term, I have no doubt that there were some Republicans who were complaining about it, but you absolutely did not have a giant outcry from the Republican Party writ large about this. And even if I'm wrong and there was an outcry, it had absolutely no effect whatsoever on how people viewed him. Evidence? The last poll Gallup took of Bush's approval rating saw three out of four Republicans approving of his performance even though we were in the middle of losing about 6 million jobs in the span of 12 months. Three out of four Republicans.

Regarding the deficit being structural, guess what? All we'd have to do to essentially wipe out the federal deficit is do nothing. If we did nothing and let the tax rates revert to what they were in 2000, let the Medicare SGR reset, and let all of the sequestration take hold, we would wipe out about $6 trillion of the deficit expected over the next ten years in one day. What I see from the Republicans is a fight to cut taxes even more, a fight to implement yet another "doc fix", and a fight to stop several hundreds of billions of dollars in the sequestration from being implemented. And that says nothing about actually executing the Ryan budget and leaving the public part of Medicare in place for another ten years while increasing the federal debt more than under Obama's budget! Oh, and I'd just like to point out that the CBO says federal spending has gone from 25% of GDP in 2009 to 23.8% of GDP in 2010 and actually went down in raw dollars by $62 billion. That said, I think this is the wrong thing to do today.

Regarding the justification for Obama's spending, I'm not at all trying to pull a tu quoque. What I'm trying to pull is your head out of your ass. The recovery from this recession has been drastically hindered because we are in the middle of a liquidity trap. All kinds of people and businesses are taking money they used to spend on consumption and investment for the future and devoting it to paying down their debts. Interest rates have been lowered to as low as they can possibly go, but economic growth is stagnant at best. We have essentially killed economic demand in this country. Countless surveys by various groups, including the Federal Reserve, confirm this. The top reason businesses say they are not expanding is because they believe that if they do expand, people will not buy their stuff, they will lose money, and they will go out of business. Can you guess what will get you out of a liquidity trap? You got it: government spending! The market is practically begging us to do this by asking us to take free money. The real yield (meaning interest rate after inflation) on 5-year, 7-year, and 10-year T-bills have all been negative since the beginning of the year, and the real yield on 20-year T-bills actually dipped negative for three days at the beginning of June and has been hovering near zero since then. If there is ever a time where the government should be borrowing dump-trucks full of money to pour into the economy, this is it!

But no, you're probably going to ignore all of this and insist that we're about to hit Zimbabwean-style hyperinflation of our currency if we don't immediately retrench even more than we already are while suggesting that we can cut taxes and increase defense spending dramatically at the same time. I'm honestly kind of pissed off at myself for writing all of this shiat down when you're going to insist that I'm sucking on Krugman's dick because I disagree with you and think the Tea Party is absolutely insane. I should go bang my head against a brick wall repeatedly...maybe I'll learn this time.
 
2012-07-06 02:31:23 PM
If Romney Wins we are on a one way trip to oblivion.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report