Rowing both directions
Posted by aogFriday, 22 October 2010 at 13:14 TrackBack Ping URL

People keep claiming that President Obama is smart, but the evidence all points the other way. Today’s bit is Obama’s claim that voters are setting up to vote for GOP candidates because they are scared and therefore not thinking straight while at the same time Obama’s speeches are mostly about fear and frightening people, which should cause them (according to Obama) to … vote for the GOP! Well played, sir, well played.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 22 October 2010 at 18:47

If voters were thinking straight, they’d be voting Libertarian, at least for this election cycle.

Robert Mitchell Jr. Saturday, 23 October 2010 at 17:03

The Libertarians have never done anything except empower the Democrats. It’s a two party system, winner take all. All the Libertarians have accomplished by leaving the Republican party is get more Democrats elected, with the predictable fallout, Democrats were able to raise taxes higher, create more regulation, and generally make this a nation of men, not Laws. Everything the Libertarians claim to be against. Just like Porkbusters increased earmarks, their reason for existing, and like Teddy Roosevelt gave us Wilson. Why would anyone thinking straight let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good, when we have these examples before us? The only successful “third party” I can think of is the Republican party, and it’s birth gave us the Civil War, which I am given to understand, the Libertarians do not approve of (not for the freeing of the slaves, but because of the huge increase in Government power).

Bret Sunday, 24 October 2010 at 00:14

Why would anyone thinking straight let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good…”

Perhaps no straight thinking person would. However, I’m perfectly willing to let Perfect be the Enemy of Unacceptable. The Republicans were governing unacceptably when they were last in power.

Robert Mitchell Jr. Sunday, 24 October 2010 at 12:33

“The Republicans were governing unacceptably”? So you were unhappy with the size of deficit because it was too small? Seriously, what have the Democrats done that you find more “acceptable” then what the Republicans were doing? It’s this sort of thoughtless tantrum that allows the Democrats to strip us of freedom. “Teaching the Republicans a lesson!” gave the Democrats the kind of majority they haven’t seen since FDR, and they used that power to much the same aims. Thanks. Instead of the “Bridge to nowhere”, which might have actually benefited people in a small way, we got “National Health Care”, a open ended budget buster that has harmed every country that tried it.

Hey Skipper Sunday, 24 October 2010 at 18:29
The Republicans were governing unacceptably when they were last in power.

Threadwinner.

Bret Sunday, 24 October 2010 at 18:35

Seriously, what have the Democrats done that you find more “acceptable” then what the Republicans were doing?

Nothing.

There’s a threshold of adequacy below which I just don’t care. My freedoms were being taken away, I don’t much care if it’s fast or slow, it ends in the same place, just at a different time. I’d personally much rather crash and burn soon rather than in 20 years when I’m likely to be too old and feeble to adapt.

Robert Mitchell Jr. Monday, 25 October 2010 at 02:25

Ah. So your desire that people vote Libertarian was knowingly giving victory to the Democrats. You want the country to become a prison, because you are too lazy or cowardly to sign yourself into prison. Well, makes sense, given your postulates. Funny, that we wouldn’t be losing our freedoms, if not for how common this sort of short sightedness. You and your would not hang together, and now you are in a rush to see us hang separately. So it goes.….

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 25 October 2010 at 02:46

I reject the assertion that it is the Democratic Party, and only the Democratic Party, which has stripped Americans of various freedoms or perceived rights, and otherwise governed in a fiscally-insane manner.

From where I’m sitting, the Dems and GOP are two wings of the same party, and as supporting evidence I offer you Obama: Bush III in terms of the wars in the ME, in terms of dealing with Wall Street and the bankers… Bush the Younger gave us the unfinanceable Medicare Part D, Obama the unfinanceable Health Care “Reform”…

Funny, that we wouldn’t be losing our freedoms, if not for how common this sort of short sightedness.

While I agree with this statement, I find that it applies to a vast swath of policies and behaviors, spread over mainstream Democratic and Republican politicians alike.

Voting Libertarian or Green would only work for one election cycle, because both parties are small and vulnerable to being co-opted by larger organizations, just as the Reform Party got hijacked by Buchanan, but if we could get a couple hundred Libs and Greens elected to the House, it would send a very powerful message to the Establishment.

Unfortunately, the electorate ain’t there yet emotionally or mentally, and probably won’t be until it’s irrelevant in terms of preventing some public assets from being looted. So it goes.

Barry Meislin Monday, 25 October 2010 at 04:35

Unacceptably is the enemy of the bad.

erp Monday, 25 October 2010 at 08:05

if we could get a couple hundred Libs and Greens elected to the House, it would send a very powerful message to the Establishment.

That statement is hilarious. Libs and Greens are the establishment.

Robert Mitchell Jr. Monday, 25 October 2010 at 14:02

And yet it is a fact that it has been the Democrats who govern in an insane fashion. And that would be because they have had the numbers to do so. You can’t point out a time in the Twentieth century where the Republicans have had the kind of majorities that FDR and Obama had. With the added bonus of the Press and Federal Bureaucracy on their side. If the Republicans and Democrats are two wings of the same party, it’s only because the party in question is the American party. We are a democracy, and the people are supposed to get what they want, even if it’s stupid. Now, the Republicans try to ameliorate the excesses, while the Democrats fuel the fire. But you and yours can’t see the difference between a kitchen fire and the furnace exploding. I’ll grant you, both are fires.….

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 25 October 2010 at 21:07

If all you do is tactical compromises, eventually you end up supporting what you originally proposed. If you have principles, at some point you have to draw a line and say “no more”. There’s also the issue that if the GOP can spend and regulate as they did in 2003-2007 time frame, how do you explain the appeal of the party to non-loyalists? “We’ll spend and regulate the nation in to ruin somewhat slower?”.

I think the Tea Party primary challenges to the GOP are the best thing to happen to that party and the nation in the post war era.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 26 October 2010 at 00:06

Libs and Greens are the establishment.

Given that there are no more than a handful of each in elective office across the nation, would you care to explain how these two minor, fairly uninfluential, wackjob-filled parties “are” the Establishment?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 26 October 2010 at 00:09

We are a democracy, and the people are supposed to get what they want, even if it’s stupid.

Given that, how can one argue against electing Dems? If that’s what “the people” want, even if it’s stupid…

[I]f the GOP can spend and regulate as they did in 2003-2007 time frame, how do you explain the appeal of the party to non-loyalists?

‘Zactly.

Robert Mitchell Jr. Tuesday, 26 October 2010 at 12:52

“If all you do is tactical compromises”. Except that isn’t even vaguely true. Republicans won the Cold War, and got a lot of grief the whole time, and no credit after. Bush went after the swamp when 9/11 happened, and took a major political hit for it. Plenty of examples of standing up for principles, even when it costs. Much as some fester over ‘Republicans spending too much”, we know it wasn’t true, or the Tenfold increase in the deficit would have given us hyperinflation. The Obama/Democrat deficits are too much, the Republicans just spent more then you were comfortable with. Big difference. Same with the regulation.

“If you have principles, at some point you have to draw a line and say “no more””. That would be lovely, but that’s not what “Bret” and “AVeryRoughRoadAhead” are doing. They, and the “Real Republicans” before them, aren’t fighting for our rights. They are trying to “Take the ball and go home”. They are playing at being WormTongue, consoling despair and surrender. “I’d personally much rather crash and burn soon rather than in 20 years when I’m likely to be too old and feeble to adapt.”. That’s not a principled position, is it?

“We’ll spend and regulate the nation in to ruin somewhat slower?”. No. “We’ll keep the spending increases under the increase in GNP.”. Educate people about what numbers mean. 10,000 “Bridges to Nowhere” is one year of Obama deficit. We didn’t get any bridges out of it, and that’s not “Somewhat slower”.

The Tea Party might be good. We have to wait and see if they implode like “Pork Busters” did. If they can control themselves until we can actually override Obama’s veto, then great. Again, numbers are important. If you want to get rid of the “Headless nails” the Democrats have burdened us with, we need the kind of numbers FDR and Obama had, maybe more, because they had the Press and the Federal Bureaucracy. The Republicans had a one vote majority in the Senate. That included Jeffords. Remember that dirtbag? That was a RINO. I think the Republicans did pretty well given their numbers.

Post a comment