Who cited Fox News?
Here’s something I’ve always wondered: why always Carter for this meme? Why not George Bush Sr., as the most recent one-termer? Do people ever make the comparison with one or the other for specific reasons, or do they just default to Carter?
ETA: Anyway, I’m very leery of declaring anyone a definite loser in a Presidential election so early, even if the economy goes nowhere. I mean, the Republicans could end up nominating someone who’ll dance around nude while assassinating five nuns on national TV. Who the heck knows?
And if she’s dead, she not really a nun anymore…
True, anything can happen. I’m not seriously predicting an Obama loss three years out. Anyone that makes a serious pronouncement without considering the facts at hand is predicting with their heart instead of their head. I was attempting to use brevity to convey sarcastic humor and dismissal of Obama’s political philosophy.
Why compare him to Carter instead of Bush 1? Well, both spout the same tired liberal nonsense, first of all. “Corporations are evil! Tax the rich!”
Follow that up with class warfare…I’ll fight for you! I’ll buy your vote with social spending!"
Which leads to a frustration over liberal economic theory in general. Trying to legislate the economy doesn’t work. Printing money like mad brings inflation…but golly, gee we have to be fair to everyone don’t we? Carters interest and inflation rates were a disaster and I’m concerned Obama’s wild defecit spending will have the same effect.
Overall, liberal philosophy is based on the idea of how things “should be” based on theory that sounds great on paper but won’t work in reality. But they keep turning back to them time after time because they think that the last group that tried just wasn’t smart enough to pull it off…and they are, of course.
Carter and Obama are the furthest left President’s we’ve had in 40 years. I had to go back that far, of course, because america is usually smart enough to keep them out of the White House. After Clinton got his leash yanked in 1994, he figured out that he was President of a center-right country and acted accordingly.
Obama will do the same. But in 2012, voters will be reminded that he behaved in 2009 like a teenager being allowed to drive the car after promising to behave and then going nuts. In late 2009 and now in 2010, the voters are dad taking back the keys.
So, we’re doomed? Again, we’re doomed? How many times we gonna get doomed? I thought we were supposed to be finished when Bush swept the popular vote by minus half a million? Boy, talk about a mandate! I mean, what can you do against almost a majority?
Still, he did rescue America from the horror of a Gore presidency, which might well have been as much a total failure as Carter’s! Lucky us.
ALL ideology is based on feelings about how things should be. That’s why it’s called ideology.
Luci, do you recall the poll cited in the partisanship thread that said that 40 percent of those surveyed self-identified as conservative and 20 percent as liberal? Using those numbers, if one independent in three votes Republican, that’s 52 percent.
Flail your arms as you might, but independents have gotten a look at Obama and a democrat controlled congress spending tax dollars like a drunken sailor over the past year and they are running away. I’m sure people who believe Obama is doing the right thing are very passionate…but they are a numerical minority.
The Brown victory and the elections in Virginia and New Jersey are a clear indication of independent flight away from Obama and his message. If a liberal had been elected in Utah after a liberal governor won in Oklahoma, you’d be crowing like a testosterone-addled rooster about the national implications.
As I said, the democrats got the keys to the car and ran wild…now voters are taking the keys. I believe the divided government model works best. If one party has control, then the favors, earmarks and arrogance continue until they are brought up short. The Republicans paid in 2006 and 2008 and the Democrats are paying now.
Absolutely true, Dio. Ideology is also the prism through which all is viewed. I think Maureen Dowd is full of crap, for example, so I can’t take anything she says seriously. All of us have similar lines drawn.
I have been in the media business for nearly 30 years. I’m one of the people that decides which content people will see and read. That’s why I find myself examining the ideology and agenda of every piece of submitted information that crosses my desk. Nurses are underpaid? Why look, the survey was paid for by a nurses union. Imagine that.
That’s why when I find out that someone is speaking from the far left, I find it hard to take them seriously. The further left they are, the more of a cartoon they are to me. An amusing distraction for a moment, but nothing particularly relevant.
And in case you are preparing an accusation of media bias, I don’t play that way. I’m the editor, so I can do pretty much what I want. However, I don’t endorse candidates for office. I don’t put opinion in news stories. I quote accurately. Because to my readers, I am the only source of local news they have. I can’t and won’t alienate some of them because my opinions are different than theirs.
Brown is a liberal, pro-choice, pro-government health care Republican who publicly disavowed the teabagger movement during his campaign. I think some people are getting way too excited about what his win indicates about where the ideological winds are blowing.
But by all means, I would storongly encourage and hope for the GOP to nominate the baggiest bagger they can find in 2012. Palin as the nominee would be a dream for Obama. Palin/Bachman would be a wet dream.
Specifically, what legislation passed by the Democrats without Republican support and signed by Obama constitute “running wild”? I was under the impression many conservatives are critical of Obama because he hasn’t done much in his first year. Which is it, “running wild” or ineffective?
I grew up with a parent who was a political reporter. I know as well as anyone what a crock of shit accusations of media bias are (except for the obvious editorial formats like talk radio and Fox News).
What’s interesting about your post is that you say you don’t take anyone of the “far left” seriously, yet you don’t say the same about the far right. Aside from the fact that the US does not have a party or significant presence which could be accurately characterized as “far left” (and if you think Obama is even left of center, much less far left of center, then you dont really comprehend what the “left/right” spectrum actually encompasses. The US has a conservative party and a moderate conservative party – no liberal party), the American “far right” (relatively speaking for US politics) is far more insane lately than anything on the left.
Do you take Michelle Bachman seriously when she says that FEMA is goinbg to set up concentration camps? Do you take “death panels” seriously? Birthers?
Who on the right should be taken seriously at the moment? Whatever you think of Obama, can you name a single prominent conservative who should be taken more seriously than Obama, or who has any sort of comparable credibility or acumen?
Some of both. There is a certain segment of the population that Obama can never please, just like there was for Bush. The ideological purists, if you will. You know how they are going to vote.
The perception of “running wild” can be traced to the cap and trade bill in the house, the health care bill, and other left-wing goals. Independents are seeing Obama with a congress that is quite willing to do whatever it can to achieve these goals and it makes them nervous.
The other day, a caller called me “Nancy” as in Nancy Pelosi because I wasn’t openly critical of a 1/4 cent sales tax increase at the county level. I was amused.
I don’t take them seriously either. I’m a social libertarian, so I don’t want someone trying to impose their views on me about what I can’t read on the internet and see on TV. I don’t give a shit about “stopping gay marraige” or “returning prayer to school”. The abortion genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back. However, my fiscal and national security views are to the right. So in the lesser of two evils world, the Republicans win.
When compared to Europe, perhaps. By american political standards, Obama is the furthest left a president has been since Carter.
No, those are red meat for the base, just like all the leftist bugaboos about “evil corporations” and “the rich”. Take a listen to Keith Olbermann before he goes off the deep end for good for more examples.
Hard question three years out. Obama’s “credibility and acumen” are partially based on the fact that he has a nice voice and can give a good speech. His skin color also made it “cool” to vote for him for people who are not otherwise engaged in the political process. His actual resume was quite thin when he ran for President.
Palin to me is pleasant enough, but I don’t know she will appeal to independents after the frantic effort of discredit her ala Dan Quayle. Bill Clinton was a charming ex-governor as well. It all depends on which side you are on.
Huckabee? His religion is a little too close to the surface for me.
Romney? A hint of Clintonesque slickness. Like he’ll say what he must to get elected.
Someone will resonate with Republicans and rise to the top. Then the battle will begin anew.
You’re blaming Obama for mostly Bush spending here. What are the big increases to the deficit this year? The bailout? Bush policy. Medicare Part D? Bush Policy. Iraq/Afghanistan? Bush policy. Stimulus? I need to look at the timeline here, but wasn’t Bush enthusiastic about getting the legislation done but was out of office before it was signed?
I was glancing at fox news (it was on a monitor somewhere I was at) and the message along the side of the screen was “Deficit has increased 1.7 trillion since Obama took office”… Bush & Co. have created most of this spending, and then blame the democrats, and for some reason the democrats are just content to let this bullshit be said. Medicare Part D is especially egregious, since the Republicans basically passed it, spent for it, and made it so that the bill would have to be paid starting 2009 when they knew the Republicans would be out of office. They created an irresponsible spending time bomb, and then when they handed the ticking bomb off to the next guy the said “see! look how irresponsible he is!”.
What fraction of the new deficit this year isn’t the result of the spending policies of the new administration? 10%? 20%?
Its the same here! All of the wards on this floor have cable TV!
Due to a sudden onset of cerebral density, I don’t quite get what this sentence means.
I mean to say - yes, we have a massive spike in the deficit this year - but how much of it is a leftover result of Bushian policies, and the continuation of Bushian policies like Iraq/Afghanistan? How much of this new 1.7 trillion debt that’s blamed on the democrats was actually passed under Obama’s watch?
Are you sure they were talking about the annual budget deficit and not the National Debt? It could have also been a projected cumulative deficit over a period of multiple years. Fox is sneaky that way.
Bush inherits a surplus and solid employment. When he is done the economy is in shambles. But someone thinks Obama caused the debt. How dumb is that?
You forgot about the whole dot com bust and recession thingy, ehe? Not surprising, seeing how it’s you, Gonzo.
-XT
Dio, this thread wasn’t started as a political debate, it was started to bust your balls for your smug pronouncements. Which were wrong. Your balls got busted.
The job has been done.
Many people are laughing at you.
You are just too much of a chickenshit asshole to admit it. I love it!
Look forward to more of your bullshit during the midterms.