That’s not the way that I remember it. By the time that it ended, there was a lot of agreement within the two parties about Vietnam. Things were not as they had seemed to be. Opinions were not always drawn along party lines. Keep in mind that the anti-war movement had strongly protested against the things that Johnson had done in Vietnam. He couldn’t even run for President a second term after winning his first full term easily. And much of the problem seemed to be McNamara’s fault. He served as Secretary of Defense for both Kennedy and Johnson. Thinking of the war protesters as being “Democrats” would be a mistake.
I was referring to situations that arise in the future that will not be easily blamed on Bush. I realize many will try but there would come a time when it just doesn’t work any more.
I read your OP and disagree with your assesment that most who criticized Obama over the Wright flap believe that he (Obama) is an evil racist black man.
We do believe that Wright is a racist who is out of the mainstream of America and that Obama should be held accountable for associating with him for 20 years as well as his ingenous claims that he had no idea.
In the first two years of an Obama Presidency, the lefties within the Democratic wing of Congress will so overreach themselves that the 2010 Congressional election results may well resemble 1994s.
Could you elaborate on just how they’ll overreach themselves? Frankly, the Democrats have had a majority in Congress since January of 2007, and they have so far shown very little sign of simply reaching, let alone overreaching. In fact, except for a handful of issues, they’ve spent more time cowering before Bush’s threats of veto than actually doing anything “left-wing”. Not that the Democrats ever come close to actually doing or believing anything truly left-wing by the standards of anyone who isn’t somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun in the first place…
By “some” I was referring to such as Martin Hyde. There’s no question he believes exactly that – he said so in the post giving rise to that OP – and he can’t be the only one. Relieved you are at least not defending that POV.
But, the 1994 results did not happen because the “lefties” “overreached” themselves. There was no left-radicalism at all on the agenda in Clinton’s first term. Even plain, liberal-moderate, common-sense changes like gays in the military and UHC got shot down. Looking back, I would attribute the Pub success to an inchoate desire for “change” which Clinton and the Congressional Dems had failed to satisfy, and to the Pubs at least having a definite and apparently reformist program (including term limits – say, what ever happened to term limits?). Bear in mind also that it was very close – less than 1% Pub-Dem margin in aggregate national vote total – and Gingrich ran with that meh of a victory as if it had been the most significant realignment since 1932. That ain’t gonna happen again within our lifetimes.
Which won’t stop the Pubs from dishonestly blaming the Dems for failures that happen on Obama’s watch but are attributable to Bush.
Did I miss it? How does that article blame anything on the Dems? I wonder about the truth of it, and it’s in part an opinion piece, but I didn’t see the Des get blamed for anything?
My point is that by unrealistically predicting “success” in Iraq they’re laying the groundwork to blame the Dems for the inevitable failure. (I hope you’re realistic enough to see that whatever happens in Iraq after our troops pull out, even if it is not a full-blown civil war, will be failure in terms of the neocon agenda.)
It will be a failure by anyone’s standards, not just the neocons’. The problem is that the failure was inevitable the moment that the architects of the war got their hot little hands on the country. Once Jay Garner was replaced by Paul Bremer, success was impossible. Garner isn’t exactly a liberal darling, but he at least had a reality-based view of what needed to be done to reconstruct Iraq. But that reality-based view didn’t coincide with the Bush administration’s desires.
I don’t think there are going to be too many such situations. Mostly everything that goes wrong from now until the next Republican administration will be blamed on Bush by some idiot or other.
The only question is whether this will be true even for stuff that is clearly not Bush’s fault. If BO makes it to the White House and then one of his Cabinet appointees gets caught with his hand in the till, or Barack himself says something stupid about invading Pakistan or something. Hard to spin that against Bush, although no doubt the Usual Suspects will make a valiant effort.
As regards the OP, I tend in the direction of FriarTed. Democrats have control of Congress, and if the voters pick chocolate over vanilla this election cycle, they will have the White House again. Last time we picked a smiling incompetent for the Oval Office, we wound up with big problems with Iran, sky-rocketing oil prices, stagflation, and foreign policy advice from children.
The silver lining that time was Ronald Reagan four years later. We will probably have to wait an equal amount of time to return to sanity in 2012 - the Congressional elections of 1994 were affected by the brilliant idea of the Contract with America (thank you, Newt) as well as the firecracker string of scandals and lies issuing from the White House starting three days after Slick Willie first infested the White House.
I expect Obama to be more of a bumbler than a crook, so it may take a while for it to sink in that he is in over his head.
If he makes it, which is still problematic.
Regards,
Shodan
Because, of course, Democrats never do that sort of thing, do they?
It’s too easy, but…we have stagflation right now? And I didn’t realize this administration was taking foreign policy advice from anyone. 
I find it fascinating that, with a slight adjustment of time-frame, I (and many, many others) would apply exactly that sentiment to the current situation…finally, assuming an Obama win, we will have a return to sanity… 
We do? Most recent figures I could find are for first quarter 2008, but GDP was growing, albeit only about as fast as it did at the end of the recession triggered by 9/11 and the stock bubble popping. And the rate of inflation is not even close when comparing the Carter years to the Bush years.
Another of Carter’s notions was the Misery Index - unemployment plus inflation. Carter unfortunately lost a debate with Reagan when Reagan mentioned that Carter had campaigned against Ford by claiming that no one had any right to be re-elected as President when the misery index was as high as 12.5. Reagan then pointed out the index was currently over twenty. Oops. (Cite.)
But we’ll see what the economy does under Obama (if he makes it). If we are currently in recession, we will probably be out by the first of the year. It will be more instructive to see what happens in 2010 and beyond, once Obama and Co. have a chance to start raising taxes and spending. (No, we won’t be out of Iraq by then.)
Regards,
Shodan
Taxes will be raised regardless. We have squandered a huge amount of money, and put it on the credit card. The waiter holds the dinner bill and taps his foot impatiently as we ask for more coffee and perhaps another look at the dessert menu…
You will no doubt be heartened to hear that social programs we might otherwise envision are moot. We pissed that money away already, so there is scant threat of that.
You misunderstand me, but that’s OK; I figured the “too easy” and the “?” was enough of a tip that I was mildly joking with you. It was just too inviting an opportunity to pass up when you lead off with "Last time we picked a smiling incompetent for the Oval Office…
Which was no doubt part of the point of creating such a massive debt, and part of the point of having such a huge military. Suck up resources, make further social programs impossible. Or even better, shut down the ones we already have. They don’t have the political strength or guts to just shut down Medicare, Social Security, and so on, so they’ll run us into such poverty we have no choice; “starving the beast” it’s called.
And with Bush, they may have succeeded in doing so much damage to the country that they’ll get what they want.
I see. I did hear the US death toll was lower and I remember JM talking about occupying Iraq as we do South Korea, {no casualties} but I just don’t see that as realistic. I do wonder about the accuracy of the claims about the Iraqi army. I don’t remember it being on the news and I expect it would be big news.
And Yes, I see the Dems getting blamed no matter what. I doubt the majority will buy that though.
That was in 2000, as you know. (Well, we didn’t exactly pick him, but the rest applies.)