At least, that’s a right wing blogger’s take on the story. News at 10: Some employers are assholes.
Instead of telling us what you dislike about Democrats, why don’t you tell us the positive ideas Republicans have? The ones that will convince the electorate they are more than racist, xenophobic, bitter old farts?
Also in the vein of the OP–which inspiring candidates will lead your party to victory? Here in Texas, we’re hearing a lot from Ted Cruz. And Governor Rick is still threatening to try again…
Neither is there on the Democratic side except for Clinton. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a race between two candidates with low name recognition, but it could happen in 2016 if Clinton declines to run.
The linked video is from NBC. I gave credit to Powerline for posting the video. And complaining that employers are assholes is childish. The employer response to the law was entirely predictable and instead of acknowledging the tradeoff Democrats denied it and a few dead enders continue to deny it.
The ideas are fine, it’s the actual governing and a lot of the rhetoric that’s been a problem. What the Republicans need is a Presidential election win and four to eight years of good governing. That would solve all of their problems in one swoop.
Who do the Democrats have? Clinton, and… no one. Not to say they don’t have tons of promising candidates who would make fine Presidents, but you did ask about inspiring, big names, and the Democrats and Republicans alike are lacking in that regard.
Ted Cruz isn’t ready to govern. I usually don’t like Senators as Presidential candidates, and I like them even less when they don’t have a record of reaching across the aisle. I supported McCain due to his military record, which proved his leadership qualities, and because of his bipartisanship. But Cruz has no military, no business, and no governing experience. If only there were a conservative state he could run for governor of to prove his governing chops… Hmmm…
However, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and John Kasich are very capable governors. And Christie’s national profile has been rising to the point where he’d probably outshine any Democratic candidate not named Clinton.
I’m willing to bet you that by November of 2016, the majority of Americans will be able to name both the Democratic and Republican candidates for President.
And if on a morning in November one of these worthies is elected President, I live only a few hours from the border and can get across before the Canadians close it.
Of course. But stature matters, and well known candidates now tend to have more stature than the candidates the public has yet to get familiar with. Hillary Clinton is the most Presidential candidate in the field because everyone knows who she is.
Oh, there’s one other big name Republican, Jeb Bush, but the poor polling should scare him away.
And Cuccinelli seems like the “sane” one on that ticket. (Yes, I realize the Gov and Lt Gov run separately.) But man, you want to talk fruitcake, just look at E.W. Jackson.
And if I had $10 billion all of my problems would be solved in one fell swoop. The likelihood of either of these scenarios happening in the foreseeable future are basically nil. The GOP wouldn’t know “good governing” if it walked up and bit them in their collective tuchus.
Democrats got another chance after Carter. Heck, over in New York, years of Democratic failure were replaced by 20 years of Republican/independent governance and New York returned to its former glory. Now they are ready to give Democrats another chance.
The same could be said for Democrats. They’ve got one successful Presidency since the 1960s. And that was a Blue Dog. Obama is the first liberal Democrat since Kennedy and so far his only accomplishment is blaming Bush for all of our problems, which got him through two elections.
Sean Trende is doing great work lately. Here he provides evidence for what I’ve been saying, that the ideology is simply NOT the problem. In fact, it’s Democrats who are becoming increasingly out of step with this center-right nation:
Carter’s problems were never problems attributable to the entire Democratic party or liberalism in general. Carter was actually a conservative Democrat, one who today would be called a moderate. He was well to the right of the congressional Democrats of the time.
And the Democratic Party of 1980 had not worked itself into the position that the Republican Party has 2013. Democrats have always been willing to consider candidates from across the political spectrum. There was never on the Democratic side a Tea Party dictating to the rest of the party who was an acceptable candidate.
Same difference. The DLC existed to pull the party to the right, whereas the Blue Dogs are a more informal grouping.
Completely wrong. Clinton was a moderate governor, Obama had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. Clinton triangulated, Obama has chosen partisan warfare. Clinton administered the government responsibly, aside from a few errors. Obama has converted the regulatory agencies into bastions of activism. Just recently he got struck down by a court AGAIN for flouting the law. How often did that happen to Clinton?
Then how come he’s about as popular as GWB was at this point in his Presidency?
The President is the main face of the party. While it’s true that Carter was to the right of the average Democrat, he was incompetent and towards the end of his Presidency disrespected by friends and enemies alike, foreign and domestic. True, he did not discredit liberalism, liberalism was discredited already due to the Great Society and municipal breakdowns and tax revolts.
John McCain and Mitt Romney are Tea Party candidates? The last guy to be nominated who was to the right of the party mainstream at the time was Ronald Reagan. The last two nominees have been to the LEFT, which is why although I think they are wrong, it’s not unreasonable for conservatives to believe that lack of conservatism is what cost them the elections.
And Democrats have only been willing to consider moderates after a serious drubbing. Without McGovern, there would be no Carter, and without Mondale and Dukakis, there would be no Clinton.
There’s a huge fucking difference. The Blue Dogs are the most conservative faction of the Democrats. They are Democrats who often vote with Republican on a range of issues. Several of them actually became Republicans, like Billy Tauzin and Ralph Hall. The DLC and Clinton were never in that category.
You know, the more I think about this, the more clever it seems. Clinton was a Blue Dog, meaning that the most popular Democratic president in generations was really practically a conservative Republican.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Adaher turns out to be Reince Priebus or someone working for him. His doggedly on-message posts and continuous revisionism and big lie statements reflect the discipline of a professional.
Congratulations on this brilliant argument from ignorance. Executive agencies have for my entire lifetime faced continuous objections over their policies and they have often been struck down by courts. The only difference is that until recently they weren’t made into political issues.
So the only explanation for Obama’s popularity is that he’s more liberal than Clinton? Really? So the sole reasons for Bush’s popularity was that he was more liberal than Clinton?