PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues WWdD?


patteeu
11-07-2012, 09:59 PM
If democrats had just been defeated soundly by an incumbent President and failed to take control of the Senate, what would they do? Would they talk about abandoning identity politics of race, gender, and sexual preference? Would they give up on class warfare? How about throwing the peace-at-all-costs guys out of the party? No, as a matter of fact, when this happened to them in 2004 they did something completely different. Indeed, their loss was even more substantial because they were left without a majority in either house of Congress.

No, they didn't look for ways to work with the majority party. Instead, they chose to demonize GWBush's efforts to reform social security and to undermine our troops in Iraq in order to stick the president with a lost war. Two years later, they took over both houses of Congress just in time to ride our economy into the ground.

L.A. Chieffan
11-07-2012, 10:00 PM
John Kerry was a joke. Republicans won (barely) because Democrats put up a weak candidate. A mistake that the GOP has now copied to success.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:03 PM
John Kerry was a joke. Republicans won (barely) because Democrats put up a weak candidate. A mistake that the GOP has now copied to success.

OK. Now the GOP should copy the post-Kerry Congressional democrats.

Dick Bull
11-07-2012, 10:04 PM
Lol

I sense the anger. Give in to the hate.

Dick Bull
11-07-2012, 10:06 PM
OK. Now the GOP should copy the post-Kerry Congressional democrats.

Problem is that the majority of the country seeing them as doing that already.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:10 PM
If democrats had just been defeated soundly by an incumbent President and failed to take control of the Senate, what would they do? Would they talk about abandoning identity politics of race, gender, and sexual preference? Would they give up on class warfare? How about throwing the peace-at-all-costs guys out of the party? No, as a matter of fact, when this happened to them in 2004 they did something completely different. Indeed, their loss was even more substantial because they were left without a majority in either house of Congress.

No, they didn't look for ways to work with the majority party. Instead, they chose to demonize GWBush's efforts to reform social security and to undermine our troops in Iraq in order to stick the president with a lost war. Two years later, they took over both houses of Congress just in time to ride our economy into the ground.

The Ds didn't need a big change like the Rs do. The Ds demographics aren't shrinking, they are growing. Wedge issues like gay marriage used successfully by the Rs are becoming more accepted, or people just don't care as much. And, in W's case, you had a war people finally became fed up with and an economy that tanked. Ds didn't need to change, the Rs were destroying themselves.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 10:12 PM
I'll have one of those on the right with the nuts on top. Nuts are good for you.

Taco John
11-07-2012, 10:12 PM
John Kerry was a joke.


Let's not get carried away bashing one of the heir apparents of the Democrat mantle.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:13 PM
If democrats had just been defeated soundly by an incumbent President and failed to take control of the Senate, what would they do? Would they talk about abandoning identity politics of race, gender, and sexual preference? Would they give up on class warfare? How about throwing the peace-at-all-costs guys out of the party? No, as a matter of fact, when this happened to them in 2004 they did something completely different. Indeed, their loss was even more substantial because they were left without a majority in either house of Congress.

No, they didn't look for ways to work with the majority party. Instead, they chose to demonize GWBush's efforts to reform social security and to undermine our troops in Iraq in order to stick the president with a lost war. Two years later, they took over both houses of Congress just in time to ride our economy into the ground.

Congrats, you've now argued on this board that (a.) George W. Bush was regularly able to cobble together bipartisan support for his legislative priorities, and now (b.) that Democrats refused to work with him.

Care to explain how both of these things can be true?

Or are you just pushing immense piles of bullshit that fit whatever narrative you've decided to embrace at any particular moment.

CaliforniaChief
11-07-2012, 10:13 PM
I'm more in favor of the Clinton strategy of co-opting a couple of good Democratic ideas like immigration reform and claiming all the credit for it.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:21 PM
The Ds didn't need a big change like the Rs do. The Ds demographics aren't shrinking, they are growing. Wedge issues like gay marriage used successfully by the Rs are becoming more accepted, or people just don't care as much. And, in W's case, you had a war people finally became fed up with and an economy that tanked. Ds didn't need to change, the Rs were destroying themselves.

I don't think Republicans have to ignore demographic changes to follow this path. They can get started with some personal demonization over the Benghazi fiasco. It will defy all odds if they can't find some stench of scandal (if not Benghazi, then something else) to employ against Obama's second term team.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:23 PM
Congrats, you've now argued on this board that (a.) George W. Bush was regularly able to cobble together bipartisan support for his legislative priorities, and now (b.) that Democrats refused to work with him.

Care to explain how both of these things can be true?

Or are you just pushing immense piles of bullshit that fit whatever narrative you've decided to embrace at any particular moment.

I think you're imagining things. GWB made monumental efforts to work with democrats, especially in his first term and he was always gracious to them. He was rarely successful though, particularly in term 2.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:24 PM
Congrats, you've now argued on this board that (a.) George W. Bush was regularly able to cobble together bipartisan support for his legislative priorities, and now (b.) that Democrats refused to work with him.

Care to explain how both of these things can be true?

Or are you just pushing immense piles of bullshit that fit whatever narrative you've decided to embrace at any particular moment.

Busted, pat.

Dick Bull
11-07-2012, 10:24 PM
I'll have one of those on the right with the nuts on top. Nuts are good for you.

CANNIBAL!!!!

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:25 PM
Busted, pat.

Incorrect.

Dick Bull
11-07-2012, 10:27 PM
I think you're imagining things. GWB made monumental efforts to work with democrats, especially in his first term and he was always gracious to them. He was rarely successful though, particularly in term 2.

Don't confuse Dems bowing to his wishes post 9-11 as monumental efforts to work with them.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:27 PM
Don't confuse Dems bowing to his wishes post 9-11 as monumental efforts to work with them.

I'm not.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:30 PM
I think you're imagining things. GWB made monumental efforts to work with democrats, especially in his first term and he was always gracious to them. He was rarely successful though, particularly in term 2.

Bush was able to get Democratic cooperation for all of his major achievements.

Bush tax cuts volumes 1 and 2, Medicare Part D, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, No Child Left Behind, Roberts and Alito.

Big ticket items that Bush faced zero Democratic help: Iraq surge, social security privatization, Harrier Miers.

Dick Bull
11-07-2012, 10:31 PM
I'm not.

You made the claim, do you have a basis for that claim?

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:34 PM
Bush was able to get Democratic cooperation for all of his major achievements.

Medicare Part D, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, No Child Left Behind, Roberts and Alito.

Big ticket items that Bush faced zero Democratic help: Iraq surge, social security privatization, Harrier Miers.

Allow me to contrast this with all the major achievements Obama was able to accomplish with Republican help:

Sotomayor.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:35 PM
I don't think Republicans have to ignore demographic changes to follow this path. They can get started with some personal demonization over the Benghazi fiasco. It will defy all odds if they can't find some stench of scandal (if not Benghazi, then something else) to employ against Obama's second term team.

Hey, great plan. Good luck with that.

After 4 years, you've had exactly two cracks at a big scandal--Fast & Furious (big swing and a miss) and Benghazi (in which you're going for impeachment and claiming he is complicit in murder). :facepalm:

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:37 PM
I think you're imagining things. GWB made monumental efforts to work with democrats, especially in his first term and he was always gracious to them. He was rarely successful though, particularly in term 2.

Wow. And I thought Dick Morris was full of crap.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:38 PM
Always gracious, cosmo. Always.

It's as if the 2007 State of the Union address never happened.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:40 PM
Bush was able to get Democratic cooperation for all of his major achievements.

Bush tax cuts volumes 1 and 2, Medicare Part D, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, No Child Left Behind, Roberts and Alito.

Big ticket items that Bush faced zero Democratic help: Iraq surge, social security privatization, Harrier Miers.

Which of those legislative accomplishments came in the 2nd term?

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:41 PM
John Kerry was a joke. Republicans won (barely) because Democrats put up a weak candidate. A mistake that the GOP has now copied to success.

I think the Romney-Kerry comparisons are valid. In fact, in their own ways, Bush-Obama comparisons are equally valid. Lame ass Presidential candidates that won two elections because their opponents were weak and they pandered to their bases.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:42 PM
Hey, great plan. Good luck with that.

After 4 years, you've had exactly two cracks at a big scandal--Fast & Furious (big swing and a miss) and Benghazi (in which you're going for impeachment and claiming he is complicit in murder). :facepalm:

I don't think impeachment is likely. A lot of bad press for the administration is though.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:43 PM
Which of those legislative accomplishments came in the 2nd term?

Roberts and to a lesser extent Alito. That's about it.

When your second term consists of attempting to privatize social security (Democrats, bitterly opposed), Harriet Miers (god in heaven), Hurricane Katrina, a domestic wiretapping scandal and surging troops in a vastly unpopular war, you're not exactly making it easy.

Edit: Oh yeah, and a complete cratering of the economy. Shit. What a terrible Presidency.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:44 PM
I don't think impeachment is likely. A lot of bad press for the administration is though.

As certain as a Romney victory!

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:48 PM
You made the claim, do you have a basis for that claim?

Yes. See Direckshun's post. He worked with dems when drafting both NCLB and Medicare Part D which were his two main legislative accomplishments of the first term. They ended up complaining that more money should have been spent on both of them though.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:50 PM
Roberts and to a lesser extent Alito. That's about it.

When your second term consists of attempting to privatize social security (Democrats, bitterly opposed), Harriet Miers (god in heaven), Hurricane Katrina, a domestic wiretapping scandal and surging troops in a vastly unpopular war, you're not exactly making it easy.

So the only things you can think of are his 2nd and 3rd choices for the SCOTUS? I rest my case.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:51 PM
Yes. See Direckshun's post. He worked with dems when drafting both NCLB and Medicare Part D which were his two main legislative accomplishments of the first term. They ended up complaining that more money should have been spent on both of them though.

You forgot two wars that Democrats helped authorize.

But you know. Other than that... Democrats totally resisted Bush during his time in office. Right?

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:51 PM
As certain as a Romney victory!

Nate Silver certain.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:52 PM
So the only things you can think of are his 2nd and 3rd choices for the SCOTUS? I rest my case.

To be fair, we are talking about a tremendously shitty Presidency, there.

His 2nd term will go down as one of the most atrocious in American history (as will his whole Presidency), and it sure wasn't because Democrats were being stubborn.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 10:53 PM
Nate Silver certain.

Patteeu certain.

The very best kind of certain.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:54 PM
You forgot two wars that Democrats helped authorize.

But you know. Other than that... Democrats totally resisted Bush during his time in office. Right?

I didn't forget them, it's just that they weren't very helpful, but if you want to count them as cases of Bush working across the aisle that's fine. You're still stuck in the first term though.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:56 PM
I don't think impeachment is likely. A lot of bad press for the administration is though.

That story is far from being told.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:56 PM
To be fair, we are talking about a tremendously shitty Presidency, there.

His 2nd term will go down as one of the most atrocious in American history (as will his whole Presidency), and it sure wasn't because Democrats were being stubborn.

I'm not here to rehash the Bush presidency yet again. This is really about copying a democrat strategy of obstruction and demonization.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 10:57 PM
I'm not here to rehash the Bush presidency yet again. This is really about copying a democrat strategy of obstruction and demonization.

W was pretty easy to demonize.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:57 PM
Patteeu certain.

The very best kind of certain.

Want to bet $100 casino cash?

lostcause
11-07-2012, 10:58 PM
I almost thought the op was making a post that had a semblance of rational sense, where he was actually discussing with coherence and possibly without tremendous bias thoughts on the direction the Republican party should now take.

Then the post took a 135 degree right turn back into lalala hate mongering land. Well, at least there's 4 more years of being able to blame every wrong in the world on Obama for him.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 10:58 PM
W was pretty easy to demonize.

Have you looked around at the Obama economy? And don't get me started on the tatters our foreign policy is currently in.

MGRS13
11-07-2012, 10:59 PM
If democrats had just been defeated soundly by an incumbent President and failed to take control of the Senate, what would they do? Would they talk about abandoning identity politics of race, gender, and sexual preference? Would they give up on class warfare? How about throwing the peace-at-all-costs guys out of the party? No, as a matter of fact, when this happened to them in 2004 they did something completely different. Indeed, their loss was even more substantial because they were left without a majority in either house of Congress.

No, they didn't look for ways to work with the majority party. Instead, they chose to demonize GWBush's efforts to reform social security and to undermine our troops in Iraq in order to stick the president with a lost war. Two years later, they took over both houses of Congress just in time to ride our economy into the ground.

Nope the GOP should just double down. That way they will continue to lose seats in the house never regain the senate and My son will never see a republican pres. The "white guy" party is over. Never again will the GOP be able to run a president and try to win just by getting the white male vote.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 11:01 PM
I'm not here to rehash the Bush presidency yet again. This is really about copying a democrat strategy of obstruction and demonization.

Obstruction of what, exactly?

Bush's attempt at immigration reform was killed by Republicans, not Democrats.

Privatization of social security was never going to happen with Democrats, any more than single-payer is going to happen with Republicans.

The two credible SCOTUS judges were approved. Even the tremendously partisan one. Don't even mention Miers -- conservatives killed that one as much as Democrats did.

The Surge was vastly politically unpopular, but that's really the only one I'll give you because I'm feeling generous.

What else am I missing?

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 11:02 PM
Nope the GOP should just double down. That way they will continue to lose seats in the house never regain the senate and My son will never see a republican pres. The "white guy" party is over. Never again will the GOP be able to run a president and try to win just by getting the white male vote.

Yup.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 11:02 PM
Have you looked around at the Obama economy? And don't get me started on the tatters our foreign policy is currently in.

Yup. I have. W and Obama are flip sides of the same coin.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 11:02 PM
I almost thought the op was making a post that had a semblance of rational sense, where he was actually discussing with coherence and possibly without tremendous bias thoughts on the direction the Republican party should now take.

Then the post took a 135 degree right turn back into lalala hate mongering land. Well, at least there's 4 more years of being able to blame every wrong in the world on Obama for him.

Obama has to start taking responsibility at some point. It can't be Bush's fault forever.

listopencil
11-07-2012, 11:04 PM
Obama has to start taking responsibility at some point. It can't be Bush's fault forever.


He can't do that. He was elected as "I'm Not Bush." It's one of those "Satan has to exist for God to exist" things.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 11:06 PM
Want to bet $100 casino cash?

LMAO

lostcause
11-07-2012, 11:06 PM
Obama has to start taking responsibility at some point. It can't be Bush's fault forever.

I agree absolutely. I also think that allowing Obama 4 additional years to implement ideas and policy will create a time frame where a president can be far more effective - for better or worse. W can be put to rest, Obama does own things from here on out.

patteeu
11-07-2012, 11:07 PM
Obstruction of what, exactly?

Bush's attempt at immigration reform was killed by Republicans, not Democrats.

Privatization of social security was never going to happen with Democrats, any more than single-payer is going to happen with Republicans.

The two credible SCOTUS judges were approved. Even the tremendously partisan one. Don't even mention Miers -- conservatives killed that one as much as Democrats did.

The Surge was vastly politically unpopular, but that's really the only one I'll give you because I'm feeling generous.

What else am I missing?

The first major attempt to reform SS (the so-called 3rd rail of politics) in 20 years and a bold war strategy on which victory or defeat hinged are some pretty huge initiatives.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 11:09 PM
Yup. I have. W and Obama are flip sides of the same coin.

Huge difference here that any reasonable person should be able to recognize and admit--W started and handed over two shit wars and a shit economy that was still in free-fall. Call it "blame W" if you want (go ahead, do it), but it is not irrelevant.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 11:09 PM
The first major attempt to reform SS (the so-called 3rd rail of politics) in 20 years and a bold war strategy on which victory or defeat hinged are some pretty huge initiatives.

That's it?

That's your golden goose to buttress your argument that Democrats refused to work with Bush?

Be honest -- are you Dick Morris?

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 11:10 PM
Huge difference here that any reasonable person should be able to recognize and admit--W started and handed over two shit wars and a shit economy that was still in free-fall. Call it "blame W" if you want (go ahead, do it), but it is not irrelevant.

Blame W
/listo

penchief
11-07-2012, 11:17 PM
I think you're imagining things. GWB made monumental efforts to work with democrats, especially in his first term and he was always gracious to them. He was rarely successful though, particularly in term 2.

Total bullshit. Your revisionist history used to be amusing but now it is just pathetic...

Anyone who didn't go along with the Bush agenda was derided or treated with contempt. His administration made questioning one's patriotism or loyalty standard operating procedure...

listopencil
11-07-2012, 11:27 PM
Blame W
/listo


...and four years from now it will be:

Blame Obama/listo

...because that's what the R's are going to do. Don't confuse my remarks about how the parties will spin things with my remarks about what actually happened in previous administrations.

htismaqe
11-08-2012, 07:19 AM
Huge difference here that any reasonable person should be able to recognize and admit--W started and handed over two shit wars and a shit economy that was still in free-fall. Call it "blame W" if you want (go ahead, do it), but it is not irrelevant.

Obama's first 4 years of absolute failure MAKE it irrelevant.

He's had 4 years to fix this shit sandwich and instead he worked on ruining our healthcare system.

I knew it was impossible to expect you guys to be gracious winners and work across the aisle.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 07:28 AM
I don't think impeachment is likely. A lot of bad press for the administration is though.

Try to get the left leaning media to give him bad press pat. That's where most get their news.
This will be in the right wing media outlets—the mainstream ones.

Mr. Kotter
11-08-2012, 07:42 AM
If democrats had just been defeated soundly by an incumbent President and failed to take control of the Senate, what would they do? Would they talk about abandoning identity politics of race, gender, and sexual preference? Would they give up on class warfare? How about throwing the peace-at-all-costs guys out of the party? No, as a matter of fact, when this happened to them in 2004 they did something completely different. Indeed, their loss was even more substantial because they were left without a majority in either house of Congress.

No, they didn't look for ways to work with the majority party. Instead, they chose to demonize GWBush's efforts to reform social security and to undermine our troops in Iraq in order to stick the president with a lost war. Two years later, they took over both houses of Congress just in time to ride our economy into the ground.

The Dems were stupid, petulent, and wrong to react that way. However, don't pretend that our economic issues didn't have anything to do with the GOP--there is plenty of blame to go around, to both parties for that. Except ideologues refuse to admit that, because they refuse to look in the mirror.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:22 AM
Try to get the left leaning media to give him bad press pat. That's where most get their news.
This will be in the right wing media outlets—the mainstream ones.

I think that with the election over, there will be reporters in the left leaning media that will start digging into the Benghazi situation a little more aggressively. They may have to be pushed into it by Republicans in the House or by members of the more right wing media outlets, but I think it will happen. Where it will lead, I don't know, but it's hard to imagine it getting to the level of impeachment.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:26 AM
The Dems were stupid, petulent, and wrong to react that way. However, don't pretend that our economic issues didn't have anything to do with the GOP--there is plenty of blame to go around, to both parties for that. Except ideologues refuse to admit that, because they refuse to look in the mirror.

There's no shortage of finger-pointing at Bush and Republicans. What we don't see so often is the kind of post you made here in response to those posts. I didn't say anything about the GOP being blameless.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 08:26 AM
I think that with the election over, there will be reporters in the left leaning media that will start digging into the Benghazi situation a little more aggressively. They may have to be pushed into it by Republicans in the House or by members of the more right wing media outlets, but I think it will happen. Where it will lead, I don't know, but it's hard to imagine it getting to the level of impeachment.

Impeachment is the right thing for something like that but politically a bad move.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:28 AM
Impeachment is the right thing for something like that but politically a bad move.

I'll reserve judgment on the appropriateness of impeachment until I hear more about what happened, but I agree that even if it's the right thing, politics will almost certainly prevent it from happening.

Mr. Kotter
11-08-2012, 08:30 AM
There's no shortage of finger-pointing at Bush and Republicans. What we don't see so often is the kind of post you made here in response to those posts. I didn't say anything about the GOP being blameless.

Go into the acrchives--I called moonbats on their crap a lot, especially posters like jAZ and pennchief. I chastised the Left for their excessive zeal in blaming Bush while he was President. I don't see too much of that sort of even-handed criticism of the right from you though.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:48 AM
Go into the acrchives--I called moonbats on their crap a lot, especially posters like jAZ and pennchief. I chastised the Left for their excessive zeal in blaming Bush while he was President. I don't see too much of that sort of even-handed criticism of the right from you though.

You didn't address my criticism. When was the last time you criticized Obama or one of his supporters for blaming Bush for the shitty economy we still live in four years into the Obama era?

Mr. Kotter
11-08-2012, 08:51 AM
You didn't address my criticism. When was the last time you criticized Obama or one of his supporters for blaming Bush for the shitty economy we still live in four years into the Obama era?

Why would I criticize something with which I agree?

Hell, the GOP blamed Clinton for the entire 8 yrs of W's administration.

Garcia Bronco
11-08-2012, 08:55 AM
John Kerry was a joke. Republicans won (barely) because Democrats put up a weak candidate. A mistake that the GOP has now copied to success.

John Kerry was an awful candidate and Romney wasn't much better.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 08:59 AM
Why would I criticize something with which I agree?

Hell, the GOP blamed Clinton for the entire 8 yrs of W's administration.

See what I mean.