[Psudo]

Voyager wrote:

I'm trying to picture the level of incompetence required to manage this with a near complete control over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, combined. I would sooner expect one to forget how to breath, then manage to blow this one.

61 seats in the Senate, 2/3rds of the House, and a brand new President all from the same Democratic Party. Four years later, Reagan was elected with 489 electoral votes. The precedent for national survival is there.

Sure, you can argue that Carter did his damage in his time, but his is not remembered as a powerful, influential Administration whose policies lasted long into the future. He's remembered as a nice guy and (by those who can't bring themselves to give any credit to Reagan) as the reason Reagan won.

-----
On another note, here's why I love Ann Coulter. The day after the election, she's saying almost exactly what I was saying the week before: that is, that McCain lost, not because of some failure of personality or tactics that offended moderates, but by pushing an agenda that Republicans can't stand. She likes Sarah Palin more than I do, and her call for conservatives to treat Obama the way liberals have treated Bush the past eight years is unnecessarily malicious, but while she's bashing McCain I can't find it in myself to complain much.

(For the record, I voted for Libertarian Bob Barr.)

[simjanes2k]

I think Ann may be right on this one. Why not treat Obama like the spawn of Satan right off the bat? Mainstream America and most of the world that doesn't understand the USA hates Bush without really knowing why, other than smart-sounding people told them they should.

Since it's clear that real issues with facts and evidence have been tossed out the proverbial window in the last few decades, and this election has shown that emotional motivations can outweigh logical ones, we should go for broke and give what we get. Huzzah for fighting stupidity with even more intense intentional stupidity!

[Psudo]

We don't remain the moral choice if we sink to their level. Place blame rationally, argue politely, and never back down when you're right. Otherwise, we're all just Republicrats and Demicons.

[simjanes2k]

Being the moral choice is great for peace of mind when I sleep at night, but it likely won't move the country in a direction that rewards honest hard-working citizens. If a seven-year bashing of a president can decide an election, I say we get started now. We just saw it work, after all.

[Zipperfish]

The Republicans are not the moral choice. They lost the election. Frankly, I prefer Democarts, so I truly hope that you do choose to ignore this message and take the party even further to the right even farther inot socialist conservatism. That way we can have mocre Democarts in power who are much more conducive to peace adn prosperity, at least in recent history.

The attack politics didn't work for John McCain--they backfires, so let's not pretend Coulter's method is something new. Indeed, she has never shown herself to be capable of anyting else.

And as far as popular opinion go, Bush's will get worse for some time before it gets better, history shows.

[Psudo]

Bush was undermined more by what Zipperfish calls "socialist conservatism" than by the Bush-as-Hitler fallacies. The left-wing socialism we've come to expect from he Democrats will likely have a similar effect. Hopefully by 2012 we'll follow the Carter precedent and be looking at a non-socialist (or, dare I dream?, an anti-socialist) conservative administration.

[simjanes2k]

Zipperfish wrote:

The Republicans are not the moral choice. They lost the election. Frankly, I prefer Democarts, so I truly hope that you do choose to ignore this message and take the party even further to the right even farther inot socialist conservatism. That way we can have mocre Democarts in power who are much more conducive to peace adn prosperity, at least in recent history.

The attack politics didn't work for John McCain--they backfires, so let's not pretend Coulter's method is something new. Indeed, she has never shown herself to be capable of anyting else.

And as far as popular opinion go, Bush's will get worse for some time before it gets better, history shows.

Republicans losing a presidential election does not reflect their morals or lack thereof.

Socialist conservatism is really bad, mk?

You're right, attack politics by McCain were a HORRIBLE idea. Until rather late in the election, Obama was running so many negative ads that even mainstream media was having to recognize that McCain was playing nice and Obama was mud-slinging.

Then for some reason, McCain began to run a few, which allowed everyone to point at how negative and petty McCain was, while Obama ran a clean campaign. Total load of horsecrap the way it was portrayed, but McCain's camp should have known better. No one is surprised at the fact that a republican going from the high road to the standard in a given election will be viewed as basically the devil.

[Firekite]

Zipperfish wrote:

In the end he couldn't rise above the politics of Fear and Smear, and I'm convinced that, in teh final analysis, Americans picked hope over fear.

If you'll avoid copying and pasting Howard Dean's more insidious talking points, it'd be great.

Quote:

Still it was certainly no landslide, but now Obama, a left Democrat, can steer the nation back from its lunge to the right and the destruction it caused.

There was no lunge to the right. Spending has spun entirely out of control. Then again, the whole concept of right and left has been distorted so much that it's hard to talk about this to True Believers such as yourself. It's for that same reason that attempting to conduct an intelligent, unemotional discussion about the various actual causes and contributors to the current economic issues is damn near impossible, because any answer is "Bush did it."

simjanes2k wrote:

In 50 years we'll see who the best president from the Clinton-Bush-Obama series was.

WTF is this "series" talk about?

Voyager wrote:

but now that that is over, he is going to have to make choices. You can't be all things to all people all of the time.

Are you too young to remember the Clinton presidency?

Psudo wrote:

I'm trying to picture the level of incompetence required to manage this with a near complete control over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, combined. I would sooner expect one to forget how to breath, then manage to blow this one.

Historically this has always been a disaster. Why do you think Nancy Pelosi is suddenly doing an about-face and after a constant stream of invective and hate from the far left since her ascension she's calling for a moderate approach, nearly wearing out the word "bipartisan" and insisting Obama must govern from the center? If someone as hardcore as she is will make such a massive change of direction, you know it's serious.

[simjanes2k]

Firekite wrote:

WTF is this "series" talk about?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/series

First definition in the list.

Specifically, my statement referred to the fact that Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barrack Obama have all so far inspired extremely powerful love and hate from the American public, more than is normally seen. The standard opinion at the time is that Clinton was generally good, a lovable goof. Slick Willy.

GW is basically seen as Satan's big brother, the REALLY bad one.

Obama is a rock star who can do no wrong and can fix the world.

I believe that these three common opinions will be very different given enough time to observe the long-term consequences of all their actions.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Bush was undermined more by what Zipperfish calls "socialist conservatism" than by the Bush-as-Hitler fallacies. The left-wing socialism we've come to expect from he Democrats will likely have a similar effect. Hopefully by 2012 we'll follow the Carter precedent and be looking at a non-socialist (or, dare I dream?, an anti-socialist) conservative administration.

Look at the bright side. Obama will present a common "enemy" around which the Republicans can unify the way they could never rally against Bush (becuase he waas one of their own). Perhaps the same way Carter wrought Reagan.

[Zipperfish]

Firekite wrote:

If you'll avoid copying and pasting Howard Dean's more insidious talking points, it'd be great.

It may or may not be Howard Dean's talking point; I don't know. However, it is still true. If anyone had reason to run a campaign of Fear it would have been Obama, given Bush's eight years of disaster adn turmoil. But he didn't. On the other hand, Palin accused McCain of "palling aruod with terrorists" a ridiculous notion that was thankfully rejected by Americans for the manure that it was.

Even now listen to some conservatives on this site . "Just wait. You just wait. It's going to be horrible. You;'re all going to lose your jobs adn flying teh Cuban flag. There'll be cats sleeping with dogs." Fear. The good people of America are sick of it.

Quote:

There was no lunge to the right. Spending has spun entirely out of control. Then again, the whole concept of right and left has been distorted so much that it's hard to talk about this to True Believers such as yourself. It's for that same reason that attempting to conduct an intelligent, unemotional discussion about the various actual causes and contributors to the current economic issues is damn near impossible, because any answer is "Bush did it."

Oh, I don't know. You're the one who is sounding a little emotional here. You're not making much sense. I surmise that you don't think Bush had anything to do with spending going out of control. Maybe it just went that way all by itself, hmm?

[Psudo]

Firekite wrote:

Psudo wrote:

I'm trying to picture the level of incompetence required to manage this with a near complete control over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, combined. I would sooner expect one to forget how to breath, then manage to blow this one.

Correction: Voyager said this, not me.

Zipperfish wrote:

Palin accused McCain of "palling aruod with terrorists" a ridiculous notion that was thankfully rejected by Americans for the manure that it was.

Another correction: Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists".

Zipperfish wrote:

Firekite wrote:

There was no lunge to the right. Spending has spun entirely out of control. Then again, the whole concept of right and left has been distorted so much that it's hard to talk about this to True Believers such as yourself. It's for that same reason that attempting to conduct an intelligent, unemotional discussion about the various actual causes and contributors to the current economic issues is damn near impossible, because any answer is "Bush did it."

Oh, I don't know. You're the one who is sounding a little emotional here. You're not making much sense. I surmise that you don't think Bush had anything to do with spending going out of control. Maybe it just went that way all by itself, hmm?

Firekite's point is that discussing politics in pure left-vs-right terms is always a little dishonest because political ideology is more diverse than that. He calls you a "True Believer" because you associate Reagan, Bush, and McCain to the same "right-wing" despite any variations in their ideologies because they're all Republicans and, thus, right-wing -- and, thus, discredited for their association with Bush. I reject -- as does Firekite, it seems -- the idea that Republicans universally share the same, ideology and, as such, these men represent significantly (perhaps dramatically) distinct types of "right-wing".

So while it's fun to vilify Bush and universally associate Republicans with him to discredit the party, it's not rational to equate preferring Bush to Kerry with sharing Bush's ideology. While it's not uncommon for a party -- or in the past, even a nation -- to stick with a war-time President during the hard times despite less pressing disagreements with him. When conservatives of the non-socialist variety support Bush until the the '08 election then abandon him in pursuit of a better match it is consistent, pragmatic support for their ideology. It is not hypocrisy.

On the other hand, I'm ashamed of any such conservative who actually believed that McCain was a better match; Bush matched non-socialist conservative ideology on tax cuts, abortion, arguably religion, and the war, whereas McCain only matches on abortion, arguably religion, and the war. (Religion is always arguable; just because people generally agree on an ideology doesn't mean they have any common ground religiously.)

I don't agree with Firekite's view that your lumping all Republicans under the same ideological tent has impeded "intelligent, unemotional discussion", but I do agree with him that it's inaccurate.

[Psudo]

A commenter on ComingAnarchy.com had an interesting point: part of Obama's success can be attributed to Iraq falling away as the primary election issue (as it was in '04) and being replaced by the economy as the top election issue. Iraq fell away from relevance because things were going well. Thus, finally making some progress in Iraq contributed to Republicans' election failure. Ironic, eh?

The guy specifically claimed that McCain lost the election because Bush adopted McCain's surge idea. That's not precisely true; McCain's view was that there should have been more troops to better enforce order, but he proposed no alternate strategic plan. The Surge was also a change in strategy along with an increase of troop levels. Thus, it wasn't McCain's plan being adopted, but a plan being adopted that had something in common with McCain's proposal. McCain didn't thwart McCain in that sense, but Republicans still thwarted Republicans.

[Murray_Smith]

simjanes2k wrote:

I think Ann may be right on this one. Why not treat Obama like the spawn of Satan right off the bat?

Maybe you should have a reason besides, "I don't agree with his viewpoints." Hell, I don't "hate" Bush, but I disagree with many of his beliefs, and I think he's done a very poor job as President.

Quote:

Mainstream America and most of the world that doesn't understand the USA hates Bush without really knowing why, other than smart-sounding people told them they should.

Mainstream America doesn't believe he's done a good job as President. And who are these "smart-sounding people"? After all, some people sound smart because they actually are smart.

Quote:

Since it's clear that real issues with facts and evidence have been tossed out the proverbial window in the last few decades, and this election has shown that emotional motivations can outweigh logical ones, we should go for broke and give what we get. Huzzah for fighting stupidity with even more intense intentional stupidity!

You do realize I could use the exact same words in that exact same order to lament the gay marriage ban that passed in my state.

simjanes2k wrote:

Being the moral choice is great for peace of mind when I sleep at night, but it likely won't move the country in a direction that rewards honest hard-working citizens.

Did you just imply that the rewarding of honest hard-working citizens is not the result of a moral choice?

Quote:

If a seven-year bashing of a president can decide an election, I say we get started now. We just saw it work, after all.

You can start with demanding a recount.

[RafaelShinji]

People keep complaining about a campaign that is already over.

McCain could have run a better campaign and he should have either prepped Palin better or chosen a more seasoned running mate. It does not matter though because Obama is now the new President-elect.

I recall one of the strips from this site which showed how the economy seems to alternate along with the President from ups and downs regardless of political leaning (from waaaay back a long time ago and I'm too lazy to look up at the moment); however, I'm very interested at how long Obama's 'honeymoon' will last once he takes over the presidency.

Looking at the news it may seem that his honeymoon might even end before he even takes office as the media continues to scrutinize his possible choices for cabinet and overthinking Obama's next step or policy outcome. Congress will be a hurdle because no matter what party is in control: you are still in the task of trying to gether enough support in the middle of over 400 different agendas. Then there is a fact that Obama is highly idealized as a miracle-worker whereas he will face many limitations to his presidency: after all, there are only 24 hours in a day combined with many new responsibilities that the average joe or the greatest analyst may even come up with.

Above all: I'm sold on the hope front; however, I can't go to graduate school on hope alone or pay my student loans or even get a job with only hope. Time will tell how successful Obama will be because none of us can see into the future, predict yes but no one has a crystal ball which never fails.