It wasn’t a huge long-term win for Democrats, but it had the potential to be. It certainly positioned Democrats to retake the presidency at the next actual election. If Carter hadn’t been some combination of unusually hapless and/or unusually unlucky with developments in Iran and in the economy, he might have been a successful two-termer. The 1984 election would then be: in 25 years, we’ve had three successful Democratic presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter), and two failed Republicans (Nixon, Ford). Which party are you going to support?
Unfortunately for Dems, through Carter’s presidency they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory…
I would similarly argue that GW Bush’s two terms, for all the damage to the country, were a long-term win for Democrats. They gave us two terms of Obama; they so severely damaged the GOP brand that the party barely knows what it stands for anymore and is seriously contemplating putting forth Donald Trump as their best guy; and we’ll probably end up with at least another 4-8 years of Democratic control of the WH.
Did anyone else notice at the end of the debate when the moderator Cavuto said, “it wasn’t about us, it’s about them” which was clearly a stab at the CNBC moderators? At the same time, his tough questions were basically re-stating what the candidates said back to them. “So, just to be clear - you would not bail out the banks”?
I felt myself yelling at the TV - HE JUST TOLD YOU HE WOULDN’T BAIL OUT THE BANKS!
Cavuto kept asking preceding questions with “Just to be clear” on questions where there was no ambiguity.
At the same time they rarely challenged what the candidates said. The pendulum swung too far in the other direction and the moderators didn’t add much value at all.
See, those actually are good questions, because they don’t spin a narrative or pander to the candidate’s talking points.
Questions like that would actually challenge the candidate to give concrete answers instead of obfuscating with trite anti-liberal rhetoric.
Objectively I think John Kasich and Jeb Bush had good performances. I liked several of Jeb and John’s views.
Putting performance and whether or not the ideas are good or not, I must say Ted Cruz is just an unlikable guy, I just can’t like this guy. Now he was right with regards to bank, at least ideally but he is too unlikable. He could donate millions to me and help with my career and I would still not be able to like him.
I’d like to see Trump announce that all of his employees are taking an immediate 10% pay cut. Those who are already making minimum wage will have to wait until he is elected president, at which point he will cut the minimum wage by 10%. Proceeds to be deposited in Trump’s pocket.
They have? The party that put a war on the credit card while adding the Medicare drug benefit on the credit card all the while slashing taxes “have struggled to fight the politics of fiscal deficit spending”? How many prisms and mirrors are you filtering reality through?
This, to me, is the simple fact that points out the hypocrisy of Republicans claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
Bush takes office. Bush calls for tax cut. Bush gets tax cut. OK, so far so good, let’s see what happens.
Bush starts two wars. This is the point at which all members of a party claiming to be fiscally responsible should be proclaiming, in chorus, “Sorry guys, we tried, but we’ve got two wars to fight. Taxes are going to have to go up.” There was no such chorus.
Yet people turn around and say that the deficit is Obama’s fault? With a straight face? Give me a break.
Another good question would be if the candidates were asked “Please identify one thing you think the current administration has done right, and how you think that has helped the American people”.
Their responses would indicate what level of knowledge they (think) they have on current issues and trends, and would provide a glimpse of any shred of crossover appeal. Altho, it would be dangerous to acknowledge anything went right for Obama according to the red-meaters, so Ted Cruz and Carly would look into the camera and state with a straight face “Nothing, next question.”
Indeed. Anyone who believes the GOP line that they’re the party of small government is a useful idiot. A gratuitously huge military budget; the expensive and destructive war on drugs / mass incarceration for victimless crimes; capital punishment; unaccountable policing; Medicare; the mortgage interest deduction; NSA surveillance; various forms of corporate welfare; etc are all examples of Big Government that just happen to cater to their ideology. Both parties favor a pretty big and active government, they just have different spending priorities and Republicans seem to have a bias against, you know, that whole “revenue” thing.
The establishment GOP, I think you’re right, doesn’t care so much about small government. But there are Republicans like Rand Paul who genuinely do want to significantly shrink government.
That’s true. And Republicans like Rand Paul get dismissed by the establishment GOP as wackos, especially on issues of foreign policy, national defense, and anti-terrorism. I have long felt that libertarians are the only intellectually honest movement on the right.
I think Medicare Part D is more indicative of Republican hypocrisy on deficit spending. You don’t usually have much time to prepare a full legislative agenda for a war. If it’s necessary, it’s usually necessary right away. Plus, it’s supposed to be temporary.[sup]*[/sup]
The prescription drug benefit, on the other hand, was not an emergency, and is expected to continue into perpetuity. They had plenty of time to figure out the cost, and to make an attempt to pay it, at the time. They didn’t.
Whether that all truly applies to Iraq and Afghanistan is another matter. But the pols who were trying to get support for the war thought, or wanted us to think, that it did.