For months, the big "progressive" bloggers closed their eyes and ears to reality. The mainstreamers told us that the tea party movement was a loose coalition of kooks who could never have any lasting impact on the national conversation. They told us that only a few cranks would ever believe the oft-repeated lie that Barack Obama is a socialist. They told us that the public's attitude had changed, that Milton Friedman was out and Keynes was in.
Now, after the GOP has won big in this off-year election, Charles Krauthammer is crowing:
"You will remember after the 2008 election people talked ... about a new era, about the Republicans becoming a rump party of the south, even losing parts of the south, how this was the death of conservatism. ... Here we are a year later and we can see how ephemeral and one-shot 2008 was..."Much as I hate to admit it, Krauthammer is right. A year after the election, Barack Obama now fully owns the recession -- and the Republicans own the rebellion. Sure, that situation is unfair, but it is what it is. The right-wingers have cast off the W legacy of thievery, knavery and failure. They are now considered the party of ideas.
Everyone is talking about two classic far-right cranks -- Ayn Rand and W. Cleon Skousen. Those two quasi-psycho footnote figures are now considered profound thinkers. And Barack Obama, the man who gave us Summers and Geithner, is considered a bolshie.
I cannot freakin' buh-LIEVE this situation!
I'll repeat the main point of the post below: Obama had only about six months to lay on some old-school FDR-style liberalism. He blew it. Now one or both houses of Congress will go Republican next year. Watch it happen.
Obama's failure may be the most important, most distressing failure in the history of the Democratic party.
NO MORE GOLDMAN SACHS DEMOCRATS!
Obots? Are any of you reading this?
We warned you. We anti-Obama liberals spent an entire year warning you that the guy was about as fake as Pam Anderson's claim of all-natural cleavage -- and you bots responded by putting your hands over your ears while screaming "Racist racist racist!" Now look where you are. Your hero has given you the kind of deep-drill piledriver rogering that leaves you covered with bleeding anal fissures. Whaddaya think now?
We were right all along. When will you Obots admit it? Just say it. When will you smug bots finally take your humility pills? When will you apologize?
19 comments:
They are shameless-never.
Rather than waiting for a bunch of foul-mouthed Philistines to apologize to us, I advise going round and telling the O-holes to shut the f*ck up--or explain why we should listen to a single thing they have to say about politics.
The progs are more or less aware Obama is a catastrophe, but unable to perceive they're the cause. You can cut the cognitive dissonance at HuffPo with a knife. I imagine it's the same at Democratic Underground, Buzzflash, and the other watering holes for bad progressives.
When the little pr*cks start blaming the Clintons for their failures, we must metaphorically smack them upside the head. Makes you wish we were drafting their asses.
Apologize? hahaha. They're too busy whining that Zerobama is "screwing over" the "people who elected him." As if Zero didn't broadcast exactly what he was going to do in between the "hope" and "change" sloganeering. The best whiner is John Aravosis over at Americablog, crying that Zero didn't lift a finger to help save gay marriage in Maine. What part of campaigning with multiple homophobes did he not get? The worst whiners are the women...worst as in not a peep from them as abortion access is thrown under the bus. Alll that screeching about Palin and yet nary a word as Zero and Stupak decide that prolifers can stick their noses in other citizens' crotches and determine which legal medical procedures they'll deign to fund. And as Digby noted, after it's all over, the rightwingers will get to screech about the evil "liberal" health plan. Nope, throughout the entire 2008 campaign we couldn't sell, lend or giveaway a clue.
Perhaps you are right, but there is nothing in these election results to support it.
I agree that the NY-23 district win for the Democrats means little as for Democrats (although it may mean a lot for the GOP if their crazies reject the GOP candidates, split their votes, and lose a seat held by them since before Reconstruction days).
But likewise, the losses of the two statehouses means little as to the Obama/national party situation, given that Deeds ran away from Obama and was crushed anyway, and Corzine had many prior campaign promises utterly unfulfilled and started from some point in the 30s in the polls.
And, of course, had Obama done some New Deal/FDR-style policies, THOSE would be caricatured as Marxism, just as they were in FDR's day, and in the case of JFK.
Any Democrat pursuing Democratic policy planks will be so accused. It is not unique to Obama, and a President Hillary would have been equally subjected to the charge, imo.
XI
If Mr. Hopity-Changity doesn't get rid of his entire financial team by New Year day, he'll be another one termer in the mold of Carter & Daddy Bush.
And the fooking kossacks will blame it all on the racists.
"Goldman Sachs Democrat"--awesome description, Joe.
grayslady
By all means, let's ignore the exit polls in VA and NJ showing that Obama had little or nothing to do with the election.
Like the Tea Party loons, the O-bots have their own version of reality and will stick to it.
Too bad they didn't bother to vote this time around else the results may have been different.
That's the problem, the T-Pers were motivated by Faux Spews and went to the polls, the kossholes stayed in their basements eating their cheese puffs and typing Palin bashing screeds.
A comment about your previous post, there is a new world order only it isn't some secret society, they are listed on the NYSE and they are the proud owners of the Obama Wing of my former party.
Nehvah, Ehvah. Kos,Digby,DU,DuncanBlack, etc...nevah.
Nope. Nah gonna happen.
XI
I agree that any dem president who dared pursue a real democratic agenda would have been accused of being too socialist, but what democrats are upset about is that we got a president with that label and no agenda to show for it.
The fact that VA elected a Repub Gov or NJ kicked out a very unpopular Gov is not the news, the real news is that dems didn't show up to vote.
In a few years it will be a great mystery how Obama got elected because no one will admit having supported him.
The Obots will deny being Obots, but they will never apologize.
By all means, let's ignore the exit polls in VA and NJ showing that Obama had little or nothing to do with the election.
That's sad - it's only been a year and nobody cares about Obama anymore?
Much of the discussion is entirely ahistorical and almost weak-minded.
Democrats always turn out less than the GOP does-- always-- in off-year elections, mid-term elections for sure, and total off-years like this, even more so.
Some largish percentage of the '08 Obama vote were young people, and they turn out worse than anybody historically at all times. They're turned off? No, they're irregular and unlikely voters.
The out-of-power party always is more energized, and bad economic times are always tough on incumbents.
So all these things occur as is to be entirely expected, and vast conclusions are drawn uniquely about Obama? Even though the net result was two more seats in the House of Representatives for Democrats, the only electoral result that effects Washington?
I don't find any evidence that Obama much contributed to these results in any way, nor much of an analysis as to how he could have done something to have changed anything that occurred.
By this time in their respective terms, Clinton and Reagan had passed their own signature initiatives strongly desired by their partisans (Reagan his tax cuts, Clinton his tax increases), and both were still at or below Obama's levels (Clinton, well below, in the low 40s %s), as they both struggled in their bad economic circumstances. And indeed, although they eventually cruised to re-election, both men continued to look bad for another two years from the equivalent points in their presidencies.
Oh, if only Obama were more like Clinton? So he could be 10 points lower in the polls now? Openly 'triangulate' by attacking Democratic ideas?
XI
The polls showed that the economy was the number-one factor. If you want to believe that's "not about Obama" (who OWNS the economy he lied, cheated, and stole to be in charge of), well then, you must be an Obot.
"In a few years it will be a great mystery how Obama got elected because no one will admit having supported him."
Just like Bush. It's very difficult to find anyone who admits to having voted for Dubya, except for the loony far-righters who are actually proud of the fact. Obama voters will end up the same way: The shamefaced ones mumbling something about "but I hoped..." and the ragged loony fringe dead-enders who keep wandering around in dazed circles muttering that he hasn't had enough time and Hillary or McCain would have been worse.
No one cares about Obama personaly. Everyone cares about what Obama does bcz he is our President. He campaigned in NJ and not VA and both lost. Make of it what you want.
Last comment was for myiq
Disagree that Obama 'owns' the recession. (He will, eventually, I suppose, but doesn't yet.)
Why do I say that? Because the polling shows about 58% of the people still blame W for the economy. The number blaming Obama at this time is sizable and probably growing, but that number is less than half the number who still blame W (it's in the mid-20%s).
XI
it won't make a bit of difference Joe. These so-called "Progressives" have their head so far up Obama's ass, nothing can remove the stink!
Post a Comment