Forget “the base”. The “base” is not enough to win elections. You have to get “the middle” and the “undecideds” and the “fence sitters”. Personally, my “kneejerk reaction” when I hear about The Base, is a mental image of bible thumping New Earth prohibitionists, Dominionists, and other far far FAR right wingnut types. I imagine I’m not the only one with that perception. But, even if it’s wrong, the Base is simply not big enough to carry an election on its own. I would have thought this should be evident. You don’t win elections by preaching to the choir and courting the people who are already with you. You court the people who aren’t. As far as California and our governator go, don’t be so fast to blame it all on Arnold. The “old school political establishment” here has a lion’s share of the blame. Arnold just happens to be a convenient fall guy, taking all the blame for something he only has a small part in.
Cite?
No, really…certainly, Obama said he’d reform earmarks. Certainly he said he’d “go through the budget line-by-line and eliminate wasteful spending”. Certainly, McCain campaigned on an anti-earmark plank. But where/when did Obama say that he’d “get rid of earmarks”?
You’re right. He didn’t say he’ll get rid of earmarks. But given what he said (“go through the budget line-by-line and eliminate wasteful spending” ), the criticism is still valid.
That simply doesn’t jibe with the facts. I don’t know how much more you want and I’d be glad to comment at length in a dedicated thread on the subject, but it’s just totally false. There has not been serious effort from any meaningful position on the political spectrum to solve global warming, and the unwillingness of liberal and moderate politicians to do anything is not the fault of conservatives.
Look, I’m no paleoconservative. I’m just calling into question your grasp of the magnitude of the issue and the reality of how liberal and moderate governments are ACTUALLY responding to it, as opposed to what they’re saying in their press releases. I used Canada’s government as an example, where our quite liberal-moderate administration did jack shit, but I can show you a hundred other examples if you like.
If you revise and expand on that, I’ll agree with you that the criticizm may have merit.
As it stands, it doesn’t, IMO, and is much like saying the point of this post is factually incorrect because I misspelled “criticism” in the first sentence.
Does the word “Kyoto” mean anything to you?
To get things back on track, a follow-up: at what point can we safely say that Obama (or any president, for that matter) has had “enough time” and “done enough” to judge “competence”? Or is that something that’s better left to history?
(As another follow-up, I’ve seen many more articles about all sorts of people “worried about Obama’s competence,” all from the types of sources you’d expect. But as I said in my OP, given what was said about Bush in his time, maybe it’s not that much of a surprise.)
I’d say you have to wait at least long enough to start seeing the results of some of Obama’s actions. All were getting now is predictions - supporters predict his actions will succeed; opponents predict they’ll fail.
Stalin was not true communist. What a load of poopy. Bush started a stupid macho war of posturing, lowered taxes on the rich, destroyed the environment and deregulated banks to the point of a new Great Depression. What’s not to like for a conservative?
The Republican base supported Bush from day one until the very end. They have not disavowed him, but rather said that he failed because he wasn’t pure enough. Yeah, right. I like Obama just fine. If the most prominent Republican in the nation wants him to fail, well, so be it, at least we know how Republicans truly feel about American.