Shorter Mike McGuire: With Latinos firmly in Billary’s camp, who looks primed to take the Democratic nomination, young voters and blacks will stay home in droves, pissed that Obama lost, which allows the Republicans to split the middle and retain the White House even though the election is the Dems’ to lose.
What? It could happen.
CC HERE. Pardon the interruption, but I'm going to exercise my authority ever so slightly to add my thoughts to LuLu's on this. "Socialist Gulag" Mike is technically right -- the GOP could, through some fluke of the cosmos, win the White House this fall. The more important question he fails to address, though, is: Should they? Do they deserve to?
See, in a normally functioning democracy, one would think that the normal course of events is that the candidates for an election have their say, the people ponder the choices, then they vote and the winner gets to run things. Until the next election.
At that point, the voters would be expected to look back at the record and ask themselves -- How well did that work out? If it worked out fine, then re-election is in order. If not, then it's time for a new face. How difficult a concept can that be?
Sadly, for Mike, it appears to be intellectually out of reach because, if one looks at the last seven years of Bush rule, it's almost impossible to make the argument that the Republican party deserves to continue occupying the White House.
Ignore, if you will, the current collection of criminals, dingbats and whackjobs that are the GOP presidential candidates at the moment. Instead, just marvel at the last several years of GOP dishonesty, corruption, bathroom stall antics, pedophilia and just plain mind-numbing wingnuttery and wonder how anyone could legitimately be arguing that these loathsome cretins deserve to be re-elected. What kind of cementhead would be proposing something like that?
What sort of pathologically diseased mind can be aware of the raging deficit, the tanking economy, the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, the steady stream of Republicans under indictment if not in jail, and the current military clusterfuck that is Iraq and still manage to say, "Yeah, things are looking good, those people should keep running things." Who the fuck is that indescribably retarded?
Sadly, I think we have our answer.
And now back to me. Mike really is just 10 pounds of stupid in a 5 pound bag. Having already outlined the Republicans’ path to retaining the Oval Office, he’s moved on to fixing the American economy while throwing in a little gratuitous Huckster leg-humping all at the same time. Behold Mike McGuire – multi-tasker and Econ wizard.
Thank You Hucka so very much for pointing out the insanity of this "plan". While every other politician is out pandering to voters in an election year, unwilling to tell it like it is, only Mike Huckabee points out that the only country who's economy in the long term will be stimulated is the Chinese. These tax rebates are not really even tax rebates, they're handouts courtesy of Red China, deepening America's dependence on a hostile nation.
How do you REALLY stimulate the US economy at this time?? First, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, second enact new tax relief measures for small business & manufacturers, & 3rd cut the obscene levels of waste & pork in the US budget, you know the kind of things fiscal conservatives are supposed to be for.
It's common sense, but when you remember that it's politicians making these decisions, you know that common sense will never prevail. As such, things are going to get worse before they get better.
CC's right - we really do have our answer.
22 comments:
I love it when you get all "authoritative" with me ...
"Yeah, things are looking good, those people should keep running things." Who the fuck is that indescribably retarded?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is 62,040,606 US citizens that voted to re-elect Bush in 2004. I don't buy in to the current conventional wisdom that the Dems are inevitable in getting back the Whitehouse. Rather I believe in the old adage that the Dems "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
That sounds an awful lot like something Vesti would say. But yeah, I have agree with you.
I think there's a typo there -- surely you meant "by", not "for", dummies.
And surely you meant "dishonest, ignorant, Kool-aid swilling redneck assholes", not "dummies".
Red Tory said...
That sounds an awful lot like something Vesti would say. But yeah, I have agree with you.
Trust me, no one has a bigger gripe about Dems than those who vote for them. The current situation with Reid and the Surveillance Bill is a prime example of the frustration that we feel when those we elect act like spineless jellyfish who feel they must acquiesce to a powerless and unpopular Bush whitehouse.
While I find the Repubs views to be vile and reprehensible, they at least demonstrate a consistency in their philosophy and voting.
m@ - picky, picky, picky ...
Trust me, no one has a bigger gripe about Dems than those who vote for them.
I don't know what choice American liberals/lefties would have at this point.
Bill Clinton was allowed, over two terms, to be a remarkably unprogressive president, and I don't remember a lot of griping then.
CC2 — I suspect your gripes with the Dems aren't all that dissimilar from mine with the Libs up here.
Ti-Guy — Quite so. In office, Clinton wasn't a progressive at all. And still the Right despised him.
I suspect your gripes with the Dems aren't all that dissimilar from mine with the Libs up here.
Except that the reforms American progressives are looking for are pretty entrenched in Canada. And, despite what the quarter-witted John Ibbitson said in The Globe the other day, Canadian progressives have at least a few viable political choices.
I really feel bad for American progressives. I can't imagine the frustration and hopelessness when faced with the scale of the reforms that need to happen, and that's not even taking into account the fierce opposition they face.
Ti-Guy - I'm not sure what "un-progressive" would mean. In Clinton's first half of his first term his admin tried to get through some progressive legislation, but got hammered for it by the Repubs and special interests which cost him the congress in '94. After that point Clinton became very much a moderate president in the truest sense of the word. He was still able to strike a good chord with the Dems as was generally viewed as an effective president by willing to do some compromise with Repubs to get legislation passed. He was also a master at co-opting a lot of the Repubs messages and internalizing them. There were some compromises that made him unpopular among progressives, but on the whole, he remained very popoular and people weren't arguing with the economic results.
He was also a master at co-opting a lot of the Repubs messages and internalizing them.
I don't quite understand...do you have an example of this?
There were some compromises that made him unpopular among progressives, but on the whole, he remained very popoular and people weren't arguing with the economic results.
Economic conditions are decades in the making, but in any case, good times and a popular administration are a time to enact some fundamental reforms.
Don't get me wrong...I really liked Bill Clinton (as much as I needed to), but I don't think he quite grasped the situation with the regressives that was brewing underneath him. Then again, I do understand the limits of a government organised the way the US's is and the political and media culture Clinton had to deal with and which the Democrats still have to deal with.
For social democrats, centrism is a disaster. The Liberals found that out the hard way.
Ti-Guy said...
I don't quite understand...do you have an example of this?
Sure have a read at this.
Sure have a read at this.
I lasted one page (out of four). What was the upshot? Did any of that result in a fundamental reform of some kind?
Ti-Guy said...
For social democrats, centrism is a disaster. The Liberals found that out the hard way.
The main issue for us here in the States is that the vast majority of the electorate are centrists. People that believe that abortion should be legal, but marijuana shouldn't be. People who believe in oil independence, but don't want to give up their minivans. Even within the current Dem nominees you'll see this kind of disagreement on the minutiae. They believe in universal healthcare, but not on how to go about achieving it. Just take a read through the TPM Election Central comments and you'll find all kinds of examples of this disjointedness.
Ti-Guy said...
I lasted one page (out of four). What was the upshot? Did any of that result in a fundamental reform of some kind?
You had asked me for an example of Clinton's cop-opting of Repub messages. The article I cited showed some good examples of how Clinton was able to do this extremely effectively and thusly was able to frame the debate and get legislation passed:
The next pivot point was Mr. Clinton's decision to embrace the Republican goal of balancing the budget. Virtually his entire White House staff opposed it, afraid the President would take the spotlight off the Republican program cuts and keep the Democrats from running as the defenders of Medicare, Federal health insurance for the elderly.
But Mr. Morris and Mr. Schoen, one of the pollsters he had brought with him, had an eye on Perot voters and suburban independents. They advised Mr. Clinton that he had to embrace fiscal conservatism to become relevant to those voters. The President heeded them and announced his conversion on national television. The speech enraged liberal Democrats, but it shifted the debate from whether to balance the budget to how to balance the budget.
Over the summer Mr. Clinton similarly used a series of speeches to diffuse social issues. He opposed a constitutional amendment on school prayer but said religious expression was allowed in schools. He joined the crusade against media violence. He defended affirmative action, but said that overt quota programs should be eliminated.
People that believe that abortion should be legal, but marijuana shouldn't be. People who believe in oil independence, but don't want to give up their minivans.
Oh...that kind of centrism.
The only consequences that arise out of satisfying those types of political needs is electoral success and policy incoherence. That's why a broader choice in political options is required.
Anyway, my real interest in this is not ending up with an adminstration that enacts too high a price for Canada to maintain good relations with the US...that makes our political and business elite go insane. Any of the Democrats will likely do, as far as that's concerned.
Ti-Guy said...
That's why a broader choice in political options is required.
I couldn't agree more! At least there in Canada you seem to have a much broader choice of candidate. People here rarely vote for a third party for fear of "throwing their vote away". That's why I've been a big proponent of the "two-tier" voting system as I feel that it would give third party and lesser known candidates a much better chance.
"the answer to that question is 62,040,606 US citizens that voted to re-elect Bush in 2004."
different dynamic back then: americans will re-elect a standing president during wartime.
the dynamic now is our disenchantment with the war, manifested in the '06 results, vs. the faulty, american-held notion that repubs are better at handling wars (i don't think wedge issues are going to be as effective this time around).
KEvron
KEvron said...
(i don't think wedge issues are going to be as effective this time around).
Here's hoping. My concerns over this cycle are two-fold: 1) If media-darling McCain becomes the nominee there's still this (extremely ridiculous) notion that he's a "maverick" and has a good shot at the independant vote. 2) This in-fighting with the Dems is doing no one any good. I'm hoping that the petty mud-flinging shit can be overcome by the time the nominee is chosen and the general starts.
People here rarely vote for a third party for fear of "throwing their vote away"
One thing it really does do is force the other parties to clarify their positions.
I don't actually require a better choice than the Liberals...muddling and coping and not fucking up too much is all I expect from any government. But the presence of the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens (and a few more fringe parties as well) forces them (and each other) to cut the bullshit.
Or multiply the b.s.
Post a Comment