Not trying to pile on here - but I do want to ask as reasonably as possible: Where was the vehement opposition when Bush was spending high and expanding government?
As I said earlier in the thread, I have no big problem if someone just plain dislikes Obama or any other politician. So I don’t pose my question just to negate a view contrary to my own. I pose it because I think it gives some form of evidence that a lot of people aren’t really fiscal conservatives. If they were, the creation of the TSA alone should have been enough to cause widespread unrest far worse than any Tea Party.
You think there was no opposition to Bush’s big spending? Bush had trouble getting re-elected in 2004, and likely wouldn’t have if the Democrats had put up a better candidate. And why? Because the Republican party had difficulty energizing their ‘base’. That’s why the Republicans pandered so hard to the religious right - they lost the fiscal conservatives. The only thing that saved them was that everyone knew the Democrats would be worse.
And how did Obama get elected? He pandered to fiscal conservatism. Remember his speeches about government fiscal responsibility? His promises of PAYGO, and his promise to bring the deficit under control? Remember no new taxes on the middle class?
Obama successfully portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative, and a compliant media went along with it. And, John McCain was no darling of the right in the first place.
But once Obama started governing as a fiscal liberal, he lost the indepedents, and reunited the right. And now the Democrats are going to pay the price.
Have you seen the poll results in Virginia? Right now, the Reublican is up almost 2-1 in votes. And the early analysis shows that it wasn’t the hard-core right that did it - rather independents, the ones who voted overwhelmingly for Obama, this time broke heavily for the Republican.
If those results carry over into the other two elections, it’s a huge red flag for Democrats. It probably will also mean the death of health care reform, because you’ll see the blue dogs in the Senate running away from it as fast as they can.
So much for the Republican ‘circular firing squad’.
Nobody was painting Hitler mustaches on Bush and calling him a “socialist.” There was mild grousing, but overall the teabaggers were fine with him because he hated all the right people and was big on Jesus.
Obama got elected because of the Iraq war, not because he ran as an economic conservative (even though he is one), and if you think Obama is governing as a fiscal liberal, you’re out of your mind.
Virginia is a redneck state. Who gives a shit? It’s an off year election in which only the most motivated voters vote. The racists came out in force. Bully for them.
The “independents” number is inflated because of the number of people who have peeled off from the Republican party in the last year. Only 22% of voters will admit to being Republicans anymore. A lot of those “independents” are just teabagger morons who think the GOP is too liberal now.
To those going with the “B-b-but Bush” argument, here’s some possible evidence as to why the exasperation some had with Bush’s spending is coming to a head this year under Obama. Obama has exponentially multiplied the trend these people find troublesome.
I love it when these knuckle walkers try to say that they find economic data “troubling.” Like they understand a fucking word of it. What they find “troubling” is that they lost an election fair and square.
Translation: People like Obama personally, but they hate the direction the Democrats are taking the country. They’re just not holding it against Obama.
But don’t worry, Diogenes. I’m sure they are all just racists and rednecks, and therefore you’ve got nothing to worry about. The ‘reality based community’ will ride in to the rescue any time now.
Early returns from New Jersey: Christie is currently leading Corzine by a 2-1 margin there as well. And the election has been called in Virginia, with McDonnell still up nearly 2-1 over Deeds.
Who knew there were so many rednecks in New Jersey?
Not at all. A fiscal conservative is not an economic libertarian. A fiscal conservative is simply hostile to deficit spending. He can be for big government so long as it spends no more than it takes in. Ross Perot was a perfectly good fiscal conservative: He promised to slash spending and raise taxes to reduce the national debt. But the electoral appeal of fiscal conservatism, so defined, is limited.
Not in those terms, perhaps, but I’m sure you could find plenty of instances of officials being voted out of office for not spending enough taxpayer money on this-that-or-the-other.
Well? It didn’t happen when Bush was POTUS (apart from the “9-11 Truther” fringe, which existed on both left and right), and we had biggummint and massive deficit spending then. (Bush was probably the only national leader in modern times to cut taxes at the start of a war.)
They’re (quite understandably) complaining/worrying about the economy, not the deficit – and about the Dems only because they’re not getting us out of the recession fast enough. That does not translate to “hate the direction the Democrats are taking the country.”
Funny how it wasn’t happening when Budget-Busting Bush, the Record Deficit Spender was in office. And promoting small-government initiatives like massive wiretapping.
What you choose not to see or focus on.
Nah, I’ve already chased enough of your bum links. Quote it or forget it. Besides, I doubt that Gallup did a poll about Obama internment-camp theories, anyway, so it wouldn’t be germane.
Maybe it would be, if there had been similar levels of significant and vehement opposition to the level of spending and government expansion by other recent Presidents.
But given that there hasn’t, and given that the whole making-shit-up bit seems to have only incidental connection to the things you say, and more to do with throwing shit at the White House and seeing how much of it sticks, the more obvious explanation is that of partisanship gone rabid.
But you are welcome to keep on not wanting to see what you don’t want to see.
Of course I do. But you were talking about, your words, “true conservatives”. You haven’t told us yet what that constitutes, nor given any examples.
Sam, if you seriously think the Merkin Pipple are eager to go back to the policies and the party that they know got us into this mess, then your powers of fantasy are far stronger than I had imagined.
Your powers of fantasy too, amigo. The ones that led both of you to be gloatingly sure about Iraq’s WMD’s, facts be damned there too.
Please produce evidence for this ridiculous assertion. Given the 2004 turnout numbers, one would have to assume that both parties did a great job of turning out their respective bases. If GWB in 2004 had only gotten his 2000 support + his share of the growth of the electorate, Kerry would have kicked his ass.