is it nixonian? a petty grievance? justified? or more importantly is it a smart move? does that Anita Dunn woman know what she's doing? because it seems blatantly retarded to declare war on the station of glenn beck and then days later quote and praise mao, so blatant that i'm wondering if this is some kind of ingenious trolling.

it just seems so dumb. while i do believe Fox is actively campaigning against the white house to the point of near-treason, denying them access plays right into the fascist/black helicopter angle. i would think the white house's communications directors are smarter than fhat

its good PR for fox news so yeah i think the White Houses war on FOX news is ill advised

Criticism of it is fine as long as they dont take it to some petty level. Barring them from talking to that pay czar was taking it there. Just be content to play favorites like everyone else does. I thought that Mao thing was proven to be bs though.

...campaigning against the white house to the point of near-treason...

if you wanna talk about treason, look no further than the man in office. he swore an oath to uphold our consitution and almost from the beginning of his presidency has been dismantling it piece by piece. thanks to the executive orders signed by bush, obama just may succede. people aren't calling him a facist just because it's a hip thing to do.

you do realize that by him declaring this swine flu pandemic a state of emergency yesterday morning, that he only has to make one call to declare martial law and suspend the constitution? that means we lose all of our rights as citizens of a free republic and that gives obama the power to do whatever he wants with us.

this man does not serve the people of this country, he serves corporate and foreign interests. he has violated article 1, section 9 of our constitution by heading the u.n. security council, which, correct me if i'm wrong, is treason! his whole campaign was based on lies. he says one thing and then just turns around and does the complete opposite.

i'm embarassed to say it, but it seems like all that shit the conspiracy theorists said about the 'new world order' is coming to fruition before our very eyes.

so i'm actually glad that one media network seems to understand what is truly going on with this guy.

it's only fitting these days that someone would get heat for telling the damn truth.

Article 1, Secton 9!!!! ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9!!!!!! WAKE UP PPL!!!!

you're right, mewl. i never thought about it that way

if you wanna talk about treason, look no further than the man in office. he swore an oath to uphold our consitution and almost from the beginning of his presidency has been dismantling it piece by piece. thanks to the executive orders signed by bush, obama just may succede. people aren't calling him a facist just because it's a hip thing to do.

you do realize that by him declaring this swine flu pandemic a state of emergency yesterday morning, that he only has to make one call to declare martial law and suspend the constitution? that means we lose all of our rights as citizens of a free republic and that gives obama the power to do whatever he wants with us.

this man does not serve the people of this country, he serves corporate and foreign interests. he has violated article 1, section 9 of our constitution by heading the u.n. security council, which, correct me if i'm wrong, is treason! his whole campaign was based on lies. he says one thing and then just turns around and does the complete opposite.

i'm embarassed to say it, but it seems like all that shit the conspiracy theorists said about the 'new world order' is coming to fruition before our very eyes.

so i'm actually glad that one media network seems to understand what is truly going on with this guy.

it's only fitting these days that someone would get heat for telling the damn truth.

where the fuck do you people come from

we're americans. and we come from the greatest nation in the world

in america you can do whatever you want, it's all up to the individual. if you have the will to succeed you can do it as long as the government doesn't interfere

I really don't think fox will do much if the white house doesn't back down, they value access too much. The white house benefits from a good relationship with the press, but the press benefits more. And on a personal level, I could not care less if the political reporting branches of ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox all had a childish standoff with the White House and collapsed entirely.

Pretty good precedent of the Bush administration during EVERY SINGLE PRESS CONFERENCE to bitch about, by name, NYT, CNN, MSNBC.

so you're saying Fox is going to give up guaranteed ratings in favor of playing nice with the Admin and maybe getting more access, which they weren't getting before? Its like MSNBC and Bush in reverse.

msnbc is a different animal. people say it's bizzaro Fox and libs who criticize Fox are hypocrits but that's not entirely true. for reasons i'll explain when i can type on a proper keyboard.

as for access. it is important but Fox can get by fine w/ out it. but i guess that's the white house's way of strongholding them out of being a 'credible media outlet'

shit everybody should just watch PBS from now on

Im not saying its to the same level as Fox. What Im saying is, its success didnt come from playing nice with Bush.

yeah i know i just wanted to preempt the inevitable "but msnbc is just as bad" argument. my bad

Im not saying its to the same level as Fox. What Im saying is, its success didnt come from playing nice with Bush.

i dont think they even get a third of the ratings FNC does, so i'm not sure what success there is if any. msnbc doesn't goes as far as acting as a communications arm for the dems or engage in political activism the way FNC does

if you wanna talk about treason, look no further than the man in office. he swore an oath to uphold our consitution and almost from the beginning of his presidency has been dismantling it piece by piece. thanks to the executive orders signed by bush, obama just may succede. people aren't calling him a facist just because it's a hip thing to do.

you do realize that by him declaring this swine flu pandemic a state of emergency yesterday morning, that he only has to make one call to declare martial law and suspend the constitution? that means we lose all of our rights as citizens of a free republic and that gives obama the power to do whatever he wants with us.

this man does not serve the people of this country, he serves corporate and foreign interests. he has violated article 1, section 9 of our constitution by heading the u.n. security council, which, correct me if i'm wrong, is treason! his whole campaign was based on lies. he says one thing and then just turns around and does the complete opposite.

i'm embarassed to say it, but it seems like all that shit the conspiracy theorists said about the 'new world order' is coming to fruition before our very eyes.

so i'm actually glad that one media network seems to understand what is truly going on with this guy.

it's only fitting these days that someone would get heat for telling the damn truth.

boy you got fucking retarded huh

well i guess you always were but i thought coming out of the closet would make you like less fucking stupid but apparently you went completely backwards and out the other side into crazy town obama wants to impose martial law nutbag idiotville

seriously the guy is a pretty average ineffectual crappy president so far with way too much on his plate but people act like he's some kind of goddamn antichrist. am i wrong for thinking this kind of overreaction is due to the fact that he's a black guy named barak obama and not a stupid white guy named Tim Robertson or something?

"his whole campaign is based on nothing but lies"

YOU REALIZE THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE IN POLITICS IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN DEMOCRACY RIGHT YOU FUCKING MORON

FDR PRETENDED HE COULD FUCKING STAND

req: pics of mewl

i do recall mewl being slightly stupid and a tad racist now that i think about it.

Here's all you need to know about this topic:

The other networks got together and stood up in unison against the White House. That's right, CBS, ABC, even NBC had an emergency meeting and told the White House that if Fox News wasn't able to interview the Pay Czar, then none of them would be participating. The White House relented and allowed Fox to be part of the process.

The other networks understand that if this precedent were to be set, they could very well be next.

Also, Mayfuck, Trots, once again you lower the bar of your intellect by not addressing what Mewl mentioned and instead shoot the messenger while ignoring the message. Bush acted like a dictator in many ways, many Liberals and Progressive were right to point that out and I don't think it was because he was white.

For anyone to assert that to disagree with Obama means you're a racist illustrates one thing to me: it's those people that would use the race card in this instance that are not ready for a black president, not the other way around.


Obama is not upholding the oath he took (since JFK at least, I'm not sure if any of them really has). The declaration of emergency for Swine Flu does make Martial Law that much closer to a reality. That's not a debate, it's fact. You can debate that it may happen or not, but Obama just took one serious step towards it just Friday.


mewl says he's embarrassed to say Conspiracy Theorist may be right...lol. You know, all Alex Jones has ever done is read what the government says it's doing. In the aggregate, he's been right because he reports on official documentation, not rumour, innuendo and conjecture.

You may not agree with his analysis, but you can't deny his reporting since he merely throws out there what FEMA, CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have published. Don't forget the Freedom of Information act and all the back stories of Eugenics now out in the open for public consumption.


As the saying goes, if you want to expose a dictator for what he is, just make him act like one. I think Dubya was just a little too tired to be the guy for it, but he definitely greased the skids for the next guy and that's Obama and he's gonna take it as far as they'll let him.

LOL.

I think that was one of his most sane(mainstream) posts.

Here's all you need to know about this topic:

The other networks got together and stood up in unison against the White House. That's right, CBS, ABC, even NBC had an emergency meeting and told the White House that if Fox News wasn't able to interview the Pay Czar, then none of them would be participating. The White House relented and allowed Fox to be part of the process.

The other networks understand that if this precedent were to be set, they could very well be next.

Also, Mayfuck, Trots, once again you lower the bar of your intellect by not addressing what Mewl mentioned and instead shoot the messenger while ignoring the message. Bush acted like a dictator in many ways, many Liberals and Progressive were right to point that out and I don't think it was because he was white.

For anyone to assert that to disagree with Obama means you're a racist illustrates one thing to me: it's those people that would use the race card in this instance that are not ready for a black president, not the other way around.


Obama is not upholding the oath he took (since JFK at least, I'm not sure if any of them really has). The declaration of emergency for Swine Flu does make Martial Law that much closer to a reality. That's not a debate, it's fact. You can debate that it may happen or not, but Obama just took one serious step towards it just Friday.


mewl says he's embarrassed to say Conspiracy Theorist may be right...lol. You know, all Alex Jones has ever done is read what the government says it's doing. In the aggregate, he's been right because he reports on official documentation, not rumour, innuendo and conjecture.

You may not agree with his analysis, but you can't deny his reporting since he merely throws out there what FEMA, CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have published. Don't forget the Freedom of Information act and all the back stories of Eugenics now out in the open for public consumption.


As the saying goes, if you want to expose a dictator for what he is, just make him act like one. I think Dubya was just a little too tired to be the guy for it, but he definitely greased the skids for the next guy and that's Obama and he's gonna take it as far as they'll let him.

Why don't you explain to us how declaring Swine Flu a national emergency has brought the country closer to dictatorship?

You can say what you want about "shooting the messenger" (your application of the phrase is incorrect by the way) but when someone posts something as factually warped and ungrounded as what mewl said, it does not really deserve an intelligent response and giving one would only serve to facilitate more of the some idiocy out of him. I don't think anyone here is really interested in arguing with someone who clearly does not have the mental capacity to embrace reality.

What really puzzles me is that we never get any "normative" conservatives here. Instead we get all you fucking nut jobs who think Obama is going to declare martial law and adopt the Communist Manifesto in place of the Constitution. Are you really that disenfranchised of reality or do you just think that arguing like an 8 year old is a good tactic?

What really puzzles me is that we never get any "normative" conservatives here. Instead we get all you fucking nut jobs who think Obama is going to declare martial law and adopt the Communist Manifesto in place of the Constitution.

Hey now. I'm still here. Don't lump me in with this psycho conspiracy bullshit.

Hey now. I'm still here. Don't lump me in with this psycho conspiracy bullshit.

I did actually consider mentioning you as an exception. I can't think of any other conservatives on here that seem like normal people though.

The declaration of emergency for Swine Flu does make Martial Law that much closer to a reality. That's not a debate, it's fact. You can debate that it may happen or not, but Obama just took one serious step towards it just Friday.





Every time Obama takes a step facing east, he takes one step closer to defecting to either Kenya or the UAE. One step closer to reality people!!!

i do recall mewl being slightly stupid and a tad racist now that i think about it.

didn't he shit his pants or something?

I did actually consider mentioning you as an exception. I can't think of any other conservatives on here that seem like normal people though.

I think Nimrod, jczeroman, and corganist are 'normal' people.

That's about it for the right/libertarians.

Anyone one remember Cup O Mercury?!:rofl:

I think Nimrod, jczeroman, and corganist are 'normal' people.

That's about it for the right/libertarians.

Anyone one remember Cup O Mercury?!:rofl:

Nimrod has no political affiliations. He just wants to watch the world burn.

Nimrod has no political affiliations. He just wants to watch the world burn.

as long as no one 'forces' him to put out the fire.

green chair fucked a cow

O I thought mewl was joking

Here's all you need to know about this topic:

The other networks got together and stood up in unison against the White House. That's right, CBS, ABC, even NBC had an emergency meeting and told the White House that if Fox News wasn't able to interview the Pay Czar, then none of them would be participating. The White House relented and allowed Fox to be part of the process.

The other networks understand that if this precedent were to be set, they could very well be next.

Also, Mayfuck, Trots, once again you lower the bar of your intellect by not addressing what Mewl mentioned and instead shoot the messenger while ignoring the message. Bush acted like a dictator in many ways, many Liberals and Progressive were right to point that out and I don't think it was because he was white.

For anyone to assert that to disagree with Obama means you're a racist illustrates one thing to me: it's those people that would use the race card in this instance that are not ready for a black president, not the other way around.


Obama is not upholding the oath he took (since JFK at least, I'm not sure if any of them really has). The declaration of emergency for Swine Flu does make Martial Law that much closer to a reality. That's not a debate, it's fact. You can debate that it may happen or not, but Obama just took one serious step towards it just Friday.


mewl says he's embarrassed to say Conspiracy Theorist may be right...lol. You know, all Alex Jones has ever done is read what the government says it's doing. In the aggregate, he's been right because he reports on official documentation, not rumour, innuendo and conjecture.

You may not agree with his analysis, but you can't deny his reporting since he merely throws out there what FEMA, CIA, FBI, NSA and Homeland Security have published. Don't forget the Freedom of Information act and all the back stories of Eugenics now out in the open for public consumption.


As the saying goes, if you want to expose a dictator for what he is, just make him act like one. I think Dubya was just a little too tired to be the guy for it, but he definitely greased the skids for the next guy and that's Obama and he's gonna take it as far as they'll let him.

Do you base all your theories on the plots of the Metal Gear Solid video games?

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/metalgear/images/d/d3/ThePatriots.JPG

I want to come back here like 5 years from now and just be a total fucking nutcase.

I think Nimrod, jczeroman, and corganist are 'normal' people.

JC isn't a conservative. There's absolutely nothing about his personal philosophy that is conservative. He has the most radical political manifesto on this board. I wouldn't call him normal but he is intelligent and he doesn't fall prey to these kind of absurd conspiracy theories. It's probably because most of the time he uses a current issue to expound how things would work better in his theoretical anarcho-capitalist world and generally never actually proposes any kind of practical, real world, right now solutions or positions.

Nimrod is mostly a troll. Regardless of how much he fellates libertarians i really think he's just doing lip service for the philosophy because he wants to appear to be a renegade independent when he's really a fiscal conservative and nothing more. I think he claims to be libertarian because he just doesn't want to pay taxes. His social politics are murky, he makes racist and misogynistic comments often but claims he's "only kidding" or something. I actually don't believe he really gives a shit what other people do, but that doesn't mean he not ready to pass judgment on them from some kind of capitalist moral high ground. He's fairly normal other than the fact that he's said Obama was a fascist a few times. I think he backed off from that after his personal savior jczeroman put it more accurately that Obama is using "elements of fascist economic policy" which is a point of view that's far more rational than "HE'S A FASCIST!!!!"

Corganist is classic conservative, and to his credit unerringly argues against conspiracy theories because he correctly recognizes that it's nearly impossible to have that kind of collusion on capitol hill because it's such a shark frenzy. It's probably because he's a lawyer and knows how other lawyers act, they are not going to have the kind of cooperation together to actively conspire against everyone. There will invariably be a leak, because someone is going to think their self-interests are being served by doing so (or it would just be a revenge thing).

As the saying goes, if you want to expose a dictator for what he is, just make him act like one. I think Dubya was just a little too tired to be the guy for it, but he definitely greased the skids for the next guy and that's Obama and he's gonna take it as far as they'll let him.

yeah right the guy is a classic jimmy carter one termer

malaise forever

i mean what fantasy land do you live in where obama has the kind of support that this kind of takeover would happen, dude? I really wish you'd sit down and rationally look at something instead of jumping to these ridiculous conclusions.

His mere existance pisses off conservatives.
The honeymoon with liberals and independents is over, especially with liberals since he's reneged on doing absolutely anything significant about health care, gitmo, or gay rights. You know if he just once had some kind of uplifting speech "YES WE CAN" about anything since his campaign I could possibly concede the remote possibility that he's some kind of demagogue but he hasn't, he's fucking Carter Redux. The smartest thing Nimrod has said on this board is that Obama "hasn't led." He hasn't, he's been completely sitting on his haunches and playing rubick's cube or something.
I don't think he has any kind of ulterior motive, i think he's completely overwhelmed and just kind of hiding under his desk in the oval office most of the time praying that the economy recovers and unemployment drops so he won't be booted out of office in 2012.

more than anything i think this administration and congress is going to really completely destroy the democratic party and we're just going to be a one party state in the near future. I was talking to someone the other day about how the Republicans usually get things done, awful stupid horrible things but they get them done and the Dems just run around in circles with their thumb up their ass going "HYE GUYS WHAT DO U THINK?"

wow. this has absolutely nothing to do with me. way to make me feel important, guys! thanks!

i'm only telling you what's going on from my perspective. i'm not saying what is or what isn't going to happen. i'm just trying to put the pieces together, that's all. if that makes me crazy, then, great! i've never been happier or more enthralled with life. if you're cool with the possibility of your country going down the shitter, that's great too! but i for one would rather be armed with knowledge rather than ignorance if the shit should somehow hit the fan.

it really saddens me that after so long you people haven't changed one bit, 'cause life is about growth and change. if you voted for obama you should know that.

peace.

Mewl I know you are just kidding

but i'm not!

who were you once upon a time?

But you told me so on aim. C'mon you don't have to do this

Anyone one remember Cup O Mercury?!:rofl:

stuff

</>

But you told me so on aim. C'mon you don't have to do this

whoa, kid. i don't have aim.

i stand by what i've written.

you really shouldn't.

faking it gets us nowhere, brendan.

what's funny about this "government takeover" thing is HE'S AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. there's no need to "take over" anything because he's ALREADY the most powerful man in the world. the government ALREADY controls your lives. it ALWAYS has. jesus.

yeah right the guy is a classic jimmy carter one termer

malaise forever

i mean what fantasy land do you live in where obama has the kind of support that this kind of takeover would happen, dude? I really wish you'd sit down and rationally look at something instead of jumping to these ridiculous conclusions.

His mere existance pisses off conservatives.
The honeymoon with liberals and independents is over, especially with liberals since he's reneged on doing absolutely anything significant about health care, gitmo, or gay rights. You know if he just once had some kind of uplifting speech "YES WE CAN" about anything since his campaign I could possibly concede the remote possibility that he's some kind of demagogue but he hasn't, he's fucking Carter Redux. The smartest thing Nimrod has said on this board is that Obama "hasn't led." He hasn't, he's been completely sitting on his haunches and playing rubick's cube or something.
I don't think he has any kind of ulterior motive, i think he's completely overwhelmed and just kind of hiding under his desk in the oval office most of the time praying that the economy recovers and unemployment drops so he won't be booted out of office in 2012.

more than anything i think this administration and congress is going to really completely destroy the democratic party and we're just going to be a one party state in the near future. I was talking to someone the other day about how the Republicans usually get things done, awful stupid horrible things but they get them done and the Dems just run around in circles with their thumb up their ass going "HYE GUYS WHAT DO U THINK?"

sigh... please be trolling. some of the biggest legislation in history will be passed by year's end. it never ceases to amaze me how narrow a perspective people have. the man's been president for five minutes how the fuck can ANYBODY really cast a verdict unless he did something egregious. we really are a nation of whiners.

and the democratic party is in relatively fantastic shape. they'll lose some seats in 2010 but that's because we're coming off another wave election, so it's natural, and staying in the majority will by no means be a cakewalk. but it's hardly a grim outlook for them. ask any competent pollster

some of the biggest legislation in history will be passed by year's end.

you mean this shitsmear of an attempt at health care "reform"?

you're really being an optimist.

I did actually consider mentioning you as an exception. I can't think of any other conservatives on here that seem like normal people though.

I am, I generally don't say much tho.

I thought you and the HUckster both wanted HIV positive people quarantined. I could be thinking of someone else in both cases though.

Unless I've completely forgotten something, I think that may be someone else... :erm:

I don't think Obama is communist, I just disagree with his way of doing things. I don't think he's an evil person, I think he's doing what he thinks is best for America, he's just wrong on some things.

Oh wait, I think I remember that conversation now... I didn't think they should be quarantined, I was playing Devil's Advocate, because I didn't think he was completely malicious in what he said, just stupid.

you mean this shitsmear of an attempt at health care "reform"?

you're really being an optimist.

actually if the opt-out plan goes through that will be pretty good. far from ideal but good considering the hurdles the insurance industry has set up

plus there's cap and trade - a legit attempt to address climate change. much needed.

and the stimulus - which i wouldn't exactly call an "accomplishment" it was unfortunate we had to have one but it's arguable we dodged a depression

i just don't see how anybody can go "pffft obama hasn't done anything!!11" all this is a big deal historically

edit: to be fair cap and trade prolly won't make it by year's end (?) but it did pass the house

Unless I've completely forgotten something, I think that may be someone else... :erm:

I don't think Obama is communist, I just disagree with his way of doing things. I don't think he's an evil person, I think he's doing what he thinks is best for America, he's just wrong on some things.

how is he a communist

neo-mccarthyism wooo

how is he a communist

I said I *don't* think he is Communist. Learn to read.

you dont have to be a bitch about lol

actually if the opt-out plan goes through that will be pretty good. far from ideal but good considering the hurdles the insurance industry has set up

plus there's cap and trade - a legit attempt to address climate change. much needed.

and the stimulus - which i wouldn't exactly call an "accomplishment" it was unfortunate we had to have one but it's arguable we dodged a depression

i just don't see how anybody can go "pffft obama hasn't done anything!!11" all this is a big deal historically

edit: to be fair cap and trade prolly won't make it by year's end (?) but it did pass the house

Everything you posted about is pretty much watered down to the point that better than nothing is the selling point. Yay, lets focus on the historic aspect, cause there isnt a whole lot left. I didnt follow cap and trade much but if memory serves it didnt do a lot, and did it badly.

Honestly if the best we could do with a "transformational" president and control of Congress is mandated not so shitty insurance (a few years down the line, with the not so shitty part not open to everyone) then it just might be time the Dems pack it up.

Just think, we have "entitlement reform" and "tort reform" left to look forward to next year. Big flagship dem causes.

Everything you posted about is pretty much watered down to the point that better than nothing is the selling point. Yay, lets focus on the historic aspect, cause there isnt a whole lot left. I didnt follow cap and trade much but if memory serves it didnt do a lot, and did it badly.

Honestly if the best we could do with a "transformational" president and control of Congress is mandated not so shitty insurance (a few years down the line, with the not so shitty part not open to everyone) then it just might be time the Dems pack it up.

Just think, we have "entitlement reform" and "tort reform" left to look forward to next year. Big flagship dem causes.

my point though is that nobody can tell one way or another how effective any of this will be. like the stimulus for example people are whining about how ineffective it is when only like 10% is spent. is it ineffective? could very well be. but how can you say for sure.

now true a lot of it is watered down, that's a vwlid point, but again we don't know if it'll make a difference. nobody's psychic. sure you can criticize in the meantime but you can't make an intellectually honest argument that obama's presidency is ineffective at this point in time

I agree on the stimulus, to an extent. Well yeah I guess he could turn it around at some point. But if he sees healthcare as his legacy (which I believe he does) and lets this happen to it, I dont have much faith in him turning it around. So that leaves us with Reid and Pelosi. Bang up job so far. Pelosi's been better than Reid on healthcare though.

Pelosi is the only Democrat with any power that I have any faith in.

There I said it.

i'm partial to mike gravel myself

Pelosi is the only Democrat with any power that I have any faith in.

There I said it.

...

Pelosi is the only Democrat with any power that I have any faith in.

There I said it.

That's pretty sad...

why does everybody shit on reid and pelosi so much. i understand congress doesn't exactly have a glowing approval rating, but damn

why does everybody shit on reid and pelosi so much. i understand congress doesn't exactly have a glowing approval rating, but damn

They are both absolutely terrible. I especially hate Pelosi.

but why exactly. like name some specific things

*gets ready to link to snopes articles

They are both absolutely terrible. I especially hate Pelosi.

well then you are a fucking idiot. as if we didn't know that before. she is the only liberal democrat who has any power. and she has her fucking house in order. tell me why you don't like her, redbreegull. please. you can't, because you are incredibly fucking stupid.

That's pretty sad...

and of course you hate pelosi. because she is an intelligent democrat.

ugh.

They basically lead like moderate dems, despite their own personal views. Play into all the stupid "Oh if we vote this way we're weak on terror/misc." bullshit. Pelosi's gained some respect with healthcare, I'll give her that, not a hell of a lot though.

futureboy, what's your issue with her?

still waiting for redbreegull's reply

futureboy, what's your issue with her?

I think I just gave it.

Why's she so great? What have they accomplished since taking over in '06? I've even excused them doing nothing about Iraq from 06-08, but even still, did they even try? I guess you can say they've only gone as far as they could with the bluedogs and conservadems. I dont.

I'd put her and Reid on even footing, so where's your defense of him? How has she been substantially different from him?

well then you are a fucking idiot. as if we didn't know that before. she is the only liberal democrat who has any power. and she has her fucking house in order. tell me why you don't like her, redbreegull. please. you can't, because you are incredibly fucking stupid.

She cares about power and who her husband has invested in. Great choice bro.

and of course you hate pelosi. because she is an intelligent democrat.

ugh.

The whole crying episode really bugged me. She's incredibly disingenuous, the Dems have both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and they can't get their policies passed. Not that I like Democratic policies, but an untrained monkey should be able to get something passed in that situation, and they've failed.

Oh, and then there's that business with waterboarding... first she knew about it and approved it (after Sept 11), then she didn't when it wasn't a popular decision. I'm surprised she's gotten away with that. (Source: Aide told Pelosi waterboarding had been used - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html))

what have they failed to pass? except for the DADT issue everything is more or less on track to get done before they lose seats next year

plus there's cap and trade - a legit attempt to address climate change. much needed.


i dunno why you're so happy with them addressing things instead of actually solving them

also how come no child left behind and doma are still in full effect

it's been nearly a year and this dogshit is still around

i dunno why you're so happy with them addressing things instead of actually solving them

how could congress possibly 'solve' climate change? c'mon man you're smarter than that

The whole crying episode really bugged me. She's incredibly disingenuous, the Dems have both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and they can't get their policies passed. Not that I like Democratic policies, but an untrained monkey should be able to get something passed in that situation, and they've failed.

Oh, and then there's that business with waterboarding... first she knew about it and approved it (after Sept 11), then she didn't when it wasn't a popular decision. I'm surprised she's gotten away with that. (Source: Aide told Pelosi waterboarding had been used - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/pelosi.waterboarding/index.html))

uhhh i think you missed the development of the waterboarding story. she ended up being proven right.

also, the house is ready to pass a good health care bill. the senate and the president are the ones fucking everything up.

everyone says "oh she's disingenuous, she's a bitch, she's power hungry blahblah" and no one would be saying that shit if she were a man.

uhhh i think you missed the development of the waterboarding story. she ended up being proven right.

also, the house is ready to pass a good health care bill. the senate and the president are the ones fucking everything up.

everyone says "oh she's disingenuous, she's a bitch, she's power hungry blahblah" and no one would be saying that shit if she were a man.

Nah, I think Harry Reid is just as much of a disingenuous cock-bag.

Also, you may be right about the waterboarding story, the media isn't exactly great at following up on stories like that, and I may have missed it among the other garbage.

how could congress possibly 'solve' climate change? c'mon man you're smarter than that

i'd like to see dems draw a line in the sand rather than these weak ass "compromises"

if anyone sincerely believes that female politicians are not at a distinct disadvantage in this country, you're kidding yourself.

Pelosi is the only Democrat with any power that I have any faith in.

There I said it.

Why make this effort to legitimize or defend what you clearly know is an unpopular opinion even amongst liberals if you are then going to respond like this...

well then you are a fucking idiot. as if we didn't know that before. she is the only liberal democrat who has any power. and she has her fucking house in order. tell me why you don't like her, redbreegull. please. you can't, because you are incredibly fucking stupid.

...like you are personally upset and surprised? Did I hurt your feelings?

I think Pelosi is ineffective and insincere. Although I agree with most of her stances, she has not been a good leader in my opinion.

It's no different than the rest of you idiots going on and on about Obama being a do nothing President with a great platform. I guess you either just believe she has done all she could do or you don't, and I do not.

Also, pray tell how Obama is "fucking up" healthcare? I don't see what else he could do to get it passed.

by not constantly hedging and running around in circles for olympia motherfucking snowe? have you been paying any attention at all??

Oh praise gracious Olympia! With her vote TO GET A BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE THAT HAD BEEN WATERED DOWN TO SHIT JUST SO SHE COULD VOTE FOR IT we can throw out some buzzwords about bipartisanship!! yyyaaaaaayyyy!

i mean you can argue about how much obama can be held responsible for that disaster. but his public statements and those of his staff didn't do much to help. it's becoming clear that he just wants to sign something.

pelosi gets a hate crimes bill out and a cap and trade bill out and has the votes for actual health care, but she's the ineffective one. right, ok.

OMG MARTIAL LAW


shut the fuck up

Batshit Insane List

1. The Omega Concern
2. <strike>Red Scarlet</strike> troll
3. this fucking mewl moron

obama himself has little to do with the healthcare bill at this point. how he's "failing to lead on healthcare" is a media narrative. not to say the whitehouse isn't sending signals but from day one they purposely tried to be vauge or else it'd probably suffer the same fate as clinton's attempt.

this thread reminds me of the movie Idocracy when Not Sure wasn't able to save the world in like two weeks and all the retarded people sentenced to have him killed

watch out future boy will neg rep you

pelosi gets a hate crimes bill out

you know i'm a huge believer in equal rights and junk but hate crimes legislation is fucking retarded to the ultra max

why are we wasting time on making hate crimes punishment more severe as if it's some kind of deterrent (or even as if it won't be applied to anyone who might happen to assault someone who's black/gay/whatever regardless of the motive) when DOMA is still hanging around like a creepy guy at a party.

i agree with eulogy, i just hate his posting style.

pelosi is an easy target for conservative pundits not because she's a bad politican but because she's a woman. its just easier to go after her for that reason. women cant legislate, just like they cant drive.

why are we wasting time on making hate crimes punishment more severe as if it's some kind of deterrent (or even as if it won't be applied to anyone who might happen to assault someone who's black/gay/whatever regardless of the motive) when DOMA is still hanging around like a creepy guy at a party.

i dont think hate crimes are really meant to be a deterrent anymore than any punishment for any crime serves as a deterrent to those particular crimes. the nature of a hate crime is more heinous than if race/gender/sex orientation wasn't involved. i dont mind hate crime legislation cause it reminds me we live in a republic that frowns heavily upon homophobia/racism/sexism. and motives are a tricky thing to prove in court. i dont believe its anyhwere near as easy as you're putting it. those white teenagers who beat that illegal immigrant to death in shenandoah, PA got off the hook for hate crime charges.

That's about it for the right/libertarians.


I just want to make a note on this. It'll probably get lost in this thread, as it is a side issue here, but is a much bigger issue in the grand scheme.

That being said, it is only in America that (philosophical) libertarianism is viewed very closely with "the right." Part of this comes from the fact that libertarians have traditionally used the American right to try to steal a base (which has generally succeeded). But also, a lot of it is because of the extreme narrow-minded "us versus t**** of the American political spectrum. Many Americans cannot see political shades of grey in the spectrum - there are "Democrat/liberal/left/green/anti-war/SOCIALISTS!/homosexuals" and "Republican/conservative/right/libertarian/neo-con/capitalist pig/Christians" when in reality there is a lot of crossover within these groups.

In Europe, for example, I am seen as a leftist - a radical leftist. The libertarian party in the UK attempts to get its base from the Liberal Democrats (a left, left-centre party). My Christianity is generally seen as sympathetic to left wing causes - because many Christians here are into charity, welfare, peace and material aid to the poor.

obama himself has little to do with the healthcare bill at this point.

His wish to claim anything as a win contributed greatly to it being watered down. Maybe it is out of his hands now, but it wasnt always. Someone with no influence on it doesnt call together congress and speechify over it.

watch out future boy will neg rep you

He hasnt thrown a tantrum only to contradicted himself later, so why would I. He's optimistic, nothing wrong with that.

Hey Eulogy,


Why's she so great?

I'd put her and Reid on even footing, so where's your defense of him? How has she been substantially different from him?

I dont even think he's had a chance to get to the hate crimes bill, but lets say he has. What else?

if anyone sincerely believes that female politicians are not at a distinct disadvantage in this country, you're kidding yourself.
Right on this though.

you know i'm a huge believer in equal rights and junk but hate crimes legislation is fucking retarded to the ultra max

why are we wasting time on making hate crimes punishment more severe

um, that's not what the legislation did at all?

Hey Eulogy,



I dont even think he's had a chance to get to the hate crimes bill, but lets say he has. What else?


Right on this though.

well maybe i'm a little overzealous in trying to point out differences between the two. but bottom line, the house is doing its part, isn't it? the senate is a disaster, and he has a 60-seat majority. it's not all on him, but some of it has to be, right?

i don't think it's sexism behind pelosi hate but a confluence of things. lots of it is because congress always has piss poor approval. but lots of it has virtually nothing to do with policy, just who she is. she's fine for SF but has no mainstream appeal in the rest of america. so it's just the status quo to shake your head when her name is mentioned

like with hillary clinton her supporters accused everybody of mysogeny during the primary but that probably wasn't it. americans are just stupid and can only go by media narratives. so you have the old awkward fat lady running against the young good looking JFK type - both of which have virtually identical positions - but one gets unrelentingly pummeled. it's just out of status quo.

i mean i dunno maybe somewhere in there gender matters but i doin't think it's a primary factor

Dems: CIA may have misled Congress five times since 2001 - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65027-pelosi-claim-that-cia-lied-validated-by-intel-panel)

just read the fucking comments there for an example.

you people all have horse blinders on. seriously.

to even suggest that our society isn't fundamentally patriarchal and therefore predicts that female politicians are at a distinct disadvantage is outrageously shortsighted. i'm not some unreasonable, raging feminist. this is just how it is.

yeah women are at a disadvantage. but so are black folk, and yet we've got a black president. i don't dispute the disadvantage is there, but how much of one is it in 2009? rhetorical question

like with palin i'm probably her biggest hater here but if she was a dude i don't think my criticism of her would be any less ascerbic

well i'll ask you this then: are you at all surprised we have a black man president before a woman president? i'll bet you're not.

i feel like woman and black people, for one comparative example, have different disadvantages to overcome.

but i don't feel like thinking about it right now. bleh. maybe i'm wrong. i just think that in certain fields that deal with people wielding substantial power over others (especially politics), people have knee-jerk reactions against woman being in the top positions. i think this is true of many women actually as well.

blahblah i dunno

i honestly have tried to wrap my head around this, especially during the last dem primary, but i just can't come to agree sexism is the driving factor. a factor, yes. but not too big of one

but hey i'm a white guy, what do i know. but i just think we're past a lot of that. hell i live in fucking backwards ass texas and we elected a woman governer who was well regarded. she got a lot of sexist guff from republicans but that's completely expected b/c TX republicans are fucking cavemen

I think the other things you mentioned are at play too, but when I see Joe Schmo criticize Pelosi it's usually for something to do with her manner or personality, like JokeyLoki was bringing up. even if there is raised an actual criticism of her leadership or viewpoints, the rancor she inspires is really suspect. it's typical for people to respond negatively to women who are "masculine" (decisive, aggressive, in-control, stoic, cerebral) but it's expected that politicians embody those same traits.

Did Obama start the New World Order yet? Is there a form or a sign-up sheet?

You just swear allegiance to him in a youtube vid.

He hasnt thrown a tantrum only to contradicted himself later, so why would I. He's optimistic, nothing wrong with that.

you still don't seem to have a firm grip on the concept that while you can make an uplifting speech to the people of the country that it still won't do anything to move the 2009 democratic party because they can't be led because they aren't all on the same page like the republicans tend to be

i dunno how you fail to understand this, it's very remarkable actually.

And yet you recently said
The smartest thing Nimrod has said on this board is that Obama "hasn't led." He hasn't, he's been completely sitting on his haunches and playing rubick's cube or something.

Which was the second or third time you said something similar after your fit saying they couldnt be led. So you're holding it against him that he hasn't led a group of people...that cant be led? Either they can or they cant, and if you really think they cant then it's stupid to hold it against him.

I guess you mean he should be out there leading the republicans.

i'm talking about the public dude, he needs to at least attempt to lead the public like he did during his campaign

i mean what happened to the YES WE CAN stuff that worked so well. all we're getting now is LEMME TELL YA SOMETHIN or whatever the shit his catchprase is now i forgot what it is...something like that.

you seem to be under the impression that it's his ultimate responsibility to lead the democratic party and I think it's too much of a coalition of varying platforms to be possibly focused in a single unified front. I dunno how you still think that it's somehow possible. they can all agree that we need to fine people for not having health care but can't agree that we should have a public option? I thought these fucks were leftist.

I mean think about when the GOP took power of congress and they had their contract on america and all that stuff and when GW became president he had like seventy different horrible ideas that went through. what has this administration and congress done to that effect? fucking nothing because the party isn't all on the same wavelength but I'd still like to see Obama do addresses to the public taking a stand on something.

You were better off going with the republicans. The public was ahead of all of them, on healthcare especially.

He needs to lead the public? Really? I doubt thats what Nimrod meant.

The public? ahahahahaha

I guess I sort of see it. Instead of mobilizing them in favor of something worthy hes trying to sell them a shit sandwich. Still he hasnt failed to lead, people just arent buying what he's selling.


you seem to be under the impression that it's his ultimate responsibility to lead the democratic party and I think it's too much of a coalition of varying platforms to be possibly focused in a single unified front. I dunno how you still think that it's somehow possible. they can all agree that we need to fine people for not having health care but can't agree that we should have a public option? I thought these fucks were leftist.


I'm not really up for rehashing this with you again. Him and his handpicked DNC control the operation. He had no problem using that to threaten people if they didnt fall in line on other things. He let the bluedogs think they could call shots on the stimulus, and it carried over into healthcare. A strong message/threat to congress on what he wanted would go farther than any speech to the public. His joint session of congress was for the public, and it didnt do shit. His numbers went up for about a week.

alright already you know everything/are the smartest boy in the world

i am giggling at the idea that he "let" the bluedogs call the shots. why do you think that might be?

it's typical for people to respond negatively to women who are "masculine" (decisive, aggressive, in-control, stoic, cerebral) but it's expected that politicians embody those same traits.

this is basically what i'm trying to say

the reason why the republicans met little resistance in the early bush years is simply because of 9/11. it made dissent unpatriotic, it didn't have much to do with an ability to "lead" he just had a more or less bipartisan coalition behind him. remember bush had like a 90% approval rating at one time

that isn't totally to defend obama, i think he overpromised during his campaign and gave the impression that once he got into the office rainbows would shoot from the sky and jesus would descend and give everybody a handjob. i think that point is eventually going to come but it's not going to be some overnight thing. much of the country is still largely conservative and we're only a year from the bush era. the blue dogs are retarded but we need them to get seats that'd otherwise be republican.

i said it a hundred times but i'll say it again. there's not an awful lot obama can do in this regard. he can make calls and twist arms but that's really about it. we can't just simply take the country in a leftist direction and expect the old guard to simply let go without any resistance

i am giggling at the idea that he "let" the bluedogs call the shots. why do you think that might be?

He thought it was the best way to bipartisan utopia.

Duh.

You were better off going with the republicans. The public was ahead of all of them, on healthcare especially.

He needs to lead the public? Really? I doubt thats what Nimrod meant.


I was talking about him leading Congress, taking the forefront on a issue and making sure everyone followed along with his plans.

We elected someone who seemed at least to be a leader of people, but all he's done is taken the lead on things like the Olympic city - he hasn't said once "this is the plan I want for X (healthcare for example) now let's get it done." He's just sort of sat back and made speeches that say very little in specifics and let Congress inefficiently attempt to push through legislation that they wrote and that seems to be unsuccessful and - had he been behind any of it - might pass a whole lot easier.

I'm not sure if he's afraid to take the hit on the chin if some legislation fails and have it seem "Obama failed" or if he's just afraid to get into the foray because of his lack of experience.

Also I think Harry Reid would be getting just as much shit as Pelosi were he the Speaker. Gingrich got killed by the left.

I was talking about him leading Congress, taking the forefront on a issue and making sure everyone followed along with his plans.

We elected someone who seemed at least to be a leader of people, but all he's done is taken the lead on things like the Olympic city - he hasn't said once "this is the plan I want for X (healthcare for example) now let's get it done." He's just sort of sat back and made speeches that say very little in specifics and let Congress inefficiently attempt to push through legislation that they wrote and that seems to be unsuccessful and - had he been behind any of it - might pass a whole lot easier.

I'm not sure if he's afraid to take the hit on the chin if some legislation fails and have it seem "Obama failed" or if he's just afraid to get into the foray because of his lack of experience.

i thought the whole thing was that he was avoiding that approach because of clinton's failure.

i thought the whole thing was that he was avoiding that approach because of clinton's failure.
That could be a part of it, but Clinton didn't have a super majority of his own party.

the argument is that if obama specified exactly what he wanted on HC then he'd be making the same mistake as clinton. so this is obama being historically aware rather than being wishy washy with congress. but i'm not a policy wonk so i dunno

edit: beaten

That could be a part of it, but Clinton didn't have a super majority of his own party.

yes that is a good point.

ut all he's done is taken the lead on things like the Olympic city - he hasn't said once "this is the plan I want for X (healthcare for example) now let's get it done." He's just sort of sat back and made speeches that say very little in specifics and let Congress inefficiently attempt to push through legislation that they wrote and that seems to be unsuccessful and - had he been behind any of it - might pass a whole lot easier.

Too right. For a politician whose greatest strength is is ability to endorse ideas (albeit, generally awful ones) he sure hasn't done this at all.

the argument is that if obama specified exactly what he wanted on HC then he'd be making the same mistake as clinton. so this is obama being historically aware rather than being wishy washy with congress. but i'm not a policy wonk so i dunno

edit: beaten

The climate isnt the same, what Nim said + public support (even after all the socialism shit public option has clear majority support). But allowing him that, that would excuse him not providing a framework to start. We're far from the start, and he's never thrown his support completely behind the public option. Look at how much effort was wasted trying to earn Snowe's support, while doing nothing to support a public option behind the scenes. Sorry, but the whole "trying to avoid Clintons mistakes" is just bad cover at this point. The thing was attacked anyway, and the drug companies held out because of their deal capping things at 80 billion and not negotiating drug prices, not because it wasnt his plan.

this stuff is sort of byzantine to me, but i think the snowe vote was mandatory to get it out of the finance commitee, they weren't really courting her to vote for the final bill.

Im pretty sure it had votes to spare.

this stuff is sort of byzantine to me, but i think the snowe vote was mandatory to get it out of the finance commitee, they weren't really courting her to vote for the final bill.

it passed 13-9

they didn't need shit.

but it needed 13 votes to pass

not really i made that up

relevent

Toward a General Theory of Democratic Disgruntlement, Part I
by Tom Schaller @ 11:16 AM
Share This Content

How come Democrats don't like a Democratically-controlled Congress as much as Republicans do when they control Congress? I hadn't realized this was even a phenomenon, nor whether it matters. But then, while doing some other research, I stumbled upon this little graph of results from Gallup:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/Sujgmi4No6I/AAAAAAAAALQ/5c-lMsi3xjk/s400/congr+approval.PNG

If you look at the trend lines, the Congress was more popular when the Republicans were the majority in the first six years of this decade. That might seem surprising enough. But if you look closer, it's clear that Republican support prior to 2007 was higher than Democratic support after the takeover. What's going on here? To wit, a few possible theories to consider:

1. It's the economy, stupid. It could just be that the state of the economy and Americans' anxieties about their economic situation is dragging down the Democratic numbers. But that explanation fails to account for two things. First, the Republicans historically tend to receive lower approval numbers in the "whom do you trust to handle the economy?" polling questions. A year into control of Congress, with George Bush still president, Democrats were more trusted to handle the economy, according to Gallup. But now, at least according to Rasmussen, and since this past summer, Republicans are. And second, and relatedly, it would be one thing if Congressional numbers tanked post-black September (2008), but the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress didn't have much better numbers prior to that.

2. It's the pan-ideological populist revolt. You know, if the social issue divide between working-class conservatives and working-class liberals in this country is ever healed, the business and political elites had better watch out. The anger and disappointment that greeted the Bush Administration's bailout, followed by the Obama Administration's giant stimulus package, is palpable. And because both those decisions were approved, respectively, by the 111th and 112th Democratic Congresses, Democrats are suffering accordingly.

3. Democrats didn't get the Congress they thought they voted for. I checked in with several pollsters to solicit their explanations for this phenomenon. Republican pollster Neil Newhouse's answer seems plausible enough: "It's clear that since Democrats took back Congress a few years ago, their partisans have been anxious for their newfound majority to flex its muscles and exert their will. But, reality has set in. And, that's clearly frustrated the Democratic rank-and-file across the country. Current data showing strong disapproval of the Democratic-led Congress by rank-and-file Democrats could be given voice as follows: I realize that when Democrats first took control of Congress, Bush was still President, and Congress, even though dominated by Democratic partisans, had their hands tied. But now, with Obama as president and increased majorities in Congress, you're still not getting stuff done that I care about? And, when are you guys (expletive deleted) gonna focus on what we need most—jobs! You wanted complete control, and that's what you finally have. And this is what we get?!

Democratic pollster Karl Agne echoed this sentiment. "During the first years of the GOP Congress, Republicans were primarily motivated by opposition to Clinton, which the GOP Congress delivered consistently. Then, during the (almost uninterrupted) six years of a Bush White House and GOP Congress, you could count on one hand the instances of dissonance between them. The GOP Congress marched in lockstep and gave Bush (and the GOP base) pretty much everything asked of them. It was DeLay's classic 'majority of the majority' approach, executed very efficiently," he wrote to me by email. "Democrats, on the other hand, have yet to see much of the change they voted for in '06 and '08. Opposition to Bush got Democratic support up some, but the complete sense of paralysis in '07 and '08 and attitudes about the direction of the country limited how high their support would go."

The Newhouse-Agne take is a solid situational explanation for the asymmetry in partisan support by Republicans and Democrats for their respective majorities over the past decade or so. But is there something more systematic at work here?

i think it's pretty clear that the democratic party has more broadly ranging opinions within it. it makes for discontent.

actually seems that it's not very clear at all to the baby geniuses

Broad range of opinions makes things harder, not impossible. I would think it pretty clear that ultimately pols are in it for themselves. Not very clear to all I guess.

Good thing we have the public there to get things done.

i think it's pretty clear that the democratic party has more broadly ranging opinions within it. it makes for discontent.

This is probably true. There are a lot more "values" that fall under the Democratic umbrella than the Republican one.

i'm starting to think that the brilliant "50 state strategy" may have fucked us and was only good for immediate gratification.

now we have "Democrats" in red states who are Dems in name only. i say we primary the fuck out of these assholes. and even if we lose in general elections, it will be better in the long run. this majority is essentially useless. so far. i hope i'm proven wrong in the next year but i doubt it.

Good thing we have the public there to get things done.

again you're missing the point entirely because you're too smug to actually function normally

I think being the conservative party is inherently easier because at a base level you only have to cater to people who don't want change. It's a lot easier to combat change then to promote all the different kinds of change the limitless variety of liberals want.

Id say its easier because people think they're going to be a self made millionaire and will never need "charity" so the guvment better keep their hands outta my pocket.


again you're missing the point entirely because you're too smug to actually function normally

Compared with your shitty reasoning half the time I guess it would seem like I know everything. Im open to differing opinions, they just need to be somewhat reasonable. "the public isnt being led" and "republicans should work with the dems...<i>OR ELSE!</i>" with a side of "repubs will own a failed stimulus", well, that stuff's just silly.

I think being the conservative party is inherently easier because at a base level you only have to cater to people who don't want change. It's a lot easier to combat change then to promote all the different kinds of change the limitless variety of liberals want.
didn't we just discuss how the republicans are able to get more done when they're in power? seems like more change to me

didn't we just discuss how the republicans are able to get more done when they're in power? seems like more change to me

I think maybe you don't understand what a conservative is.

Actually I think it's the Republicans who don't

part deux

Toward a General Theory of Democratic Disgruntlement, Part 2
by Tom Schaller @ 8:19 AM


Yesterday, I raised the question of why Democrats approve of the current Democratic-controlled Congress at lower rates than Republicans did when they controlled the Congress. This asymmetry, particularly in the short term, could merely be the byproduct of disappointment with a perceived disconnect between what Democratic voters thought they were voting for in 2006 and 2008, and what they are getting.

Taking a larger view, that asymmetry is quite possibly the function of a broader and even more enduring asymmetry, one rooted in the very foundational ideas that Democrats and Republicans take toward government--and compounded by the demographic differences between the two coalitions.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/SurWtSqKgoI/AAAAAAAAALY/hYSittd0-jI/s400/congr+approval2.PNG


Pollster Celinda Lake spoke to first, and perhaps most crucial point in her email reply to me. "It’s easier to unify Republicans because mostly they want to stop things. It’s harder to unify people when you want to do things." (emphasis added) Therein lies the broader asymmetry: Doing nothing is a single thing, whereas doing something implies many options. And it is easier to build consensus around a “nothing” menu of 1 than it is for a more variegated menu of limitless options of “something.”

This is, I grant, not a particularly profound observation. Indeed, the idea that the status quo ante enjoys an advantaged position is a core assumption in social choice theories--especially as they apply to American politics, what with its separation of powers and supermajority rules and other constitutional and extra-constitutional rules and strictures designed to slow progress. That reality remains true regardless of the prevailing distribution of political attitudes, their intensity, and so on: It is an ineluctable fact in American politics it’s hard to do something, but even harder to reverse or undo or change course once it’s done. (Need I provide historical evidence on this point as the nation discusses a major policy initiative that has been churning through the public policy hopper for the better part of six decades now?)

Uniquely compounding this problem for Democrats is the nature of their coalition, which is of course more heterogeneous in demographic terms. Pollster Karl Agne: "The other dynamic here, of course, is the relative diversity of Democrats (age, race, region, ideology) and the relatively monolithic nature of the Republican base, as covered in our focus group report*. I think it's a factor as well, but impossible to quantify." (*That report is "The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans," which I recommend reading.)

OK, so Democrats are tougher to please because they hold more complex and varied designs on the government, compounded by the fact that they are a more heterogeneous coalition. But what does this mean for our understanding of contemporary politics?

Well, for one thing, we ought to be careful not to overstate Democratic disgruntlement and its significance. Given the expectation that the more activist and change-oriented, as well as more demographically heterogeneous party, is therefore more difficult to keep together, it does not necessarily follow that Democrats are therefore enamored with their opponents' ideas about doing nothing. Both parties are trying to herd cats, and the Democratic herd is more prickly. But they remain two different breeds, and moving from one herd to the other is not the logical consequence of the refusal to be easily herded with your own.

And if this is true it means that core disgruntlement among Democrats, because it is artifactually higher, should not be overestimated. It should not be inferred that Democrats are headed for a colossal collapse in a way that the Republicans would if their approval of a Republican-controlled Congress were at the same levels.

Finally, Democratic support may also rebound. "I would fully expect to see Democratic approval rise again once health care reform passes and then, perhaps even more importantly, Congress begins to tackle other aspects of the Obama agenda," Agne predicts. Indeed, if you look at the more current Gallup poll numbers from 2009, as depicted above, sure enough, Democrats' support for their Democratic-controlled Congress seemed to have bounced back to around 50 percent and stabilized for most of this year--until a big dip this month. (Not sure why that drop is so sudden, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ought to proceed with caution.) In any case, support has never risen to the 60-to-70 percent levels we saw for Republicans in the middle of this decade. But given the asymmetric nature of the two parties' coalitions and their demands and expectations for government action, the Democrats' cat-bounce (terrible pun, I know) since 2007-08 is not too bad. There's More...

Compared with your shitty reasoning half the time I guess it would seem like I know everything. Im open to differing opinions, they just need to be somewhat reasonable. "the public isnt being led" and "republicans should work with the dems...<i>OR ELSE!</i>" with a side of "repubs will own a failed stimulus", well, that stuff's just silly.

no you just dislike me so you misinterpret everything i say so it fits snugly into your personal vendetta

i never said any of that

You just said in this thread the public isnt being led. The rest of that was in the stimulus thread, which I'd bump but if you're that much in denial there's no point. I wouldnt label me replying when you say something stupid at me as a vendetta.

all you're doing is trolling me continuously and giving me petty neg reps constantly

I wouldnt label me replying when you say something stupid at me as a vendetta.
Let me spell it out for you then,
D-O-N-T
R-E-P-L-Y
W-I-T-H
T-E-H
S-T-U-P-I-D
A-N-D
I
W-O-N-T
P-O-I-N-T
I-T
O-U-T

I normally try ignoring you because in the end you dont seem to stand for anything.

well try to more often

eh, even then you bitch, like the state secrets stuff. How bout you just stay off a forum you claim to hate.

Better yet, just pay Pak to ban you from it.

the state secrets thing is never going away. i'm surprised it took them this long to enact it, i guess nixon didn't know he could do that.

i think it's more of a systemic failure than a personal one.

Seriously