Skip to main content

View Diary: Will Kos Support Obama? Am I Concern-trolling NOW? (172 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  where did you say such a thing? (0+ / 0-)

    in some comment in some thread somewhere?
    how about a link?

    and btw, when you write stuff like this:

    The fact that Obama is behind now is not cause for handwringing, it's a defeat.

    please cite the data to substantiate this claim.

    _______________

    it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

    -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

    by dadanation on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 08:23:03 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  i WROTE IT HERE. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dadanation

      by LongTom on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:39:27 PM PDT
      • Don't let the numbers fool you... (6+ / 0-)
      into a false sense of optimism. Bush won't be around in 2008. The Republicans have already shown every sign of running as far way from him as possible. It's up to the Democrats to hang Bush around their necks like a flaming tire.
      The default vote in this country is still Republican, and will remain so if the Dems don't tell people why it shouldn't be. Not the newspapers. Not the blogoshere. THE DEMOCRATS have to mount a sustained assault against the criminal enterprise that vomited up Bush at us and is gearing to vomit another right wing asshole in a new suit to take his place.

      In the early polling, the Republican leaders are absurdly close to the Democrats, even after 7 years of the worst, most venal, corrupt, and immoral government in our history. The 2008 election may well be the end of one of our major parties, and it's not the Republicans. If the Dems don't win in 2008, it's hard to imagine ANY circumstances in which they could win. Right now, the Repubs have to be feeling pretty good.

      by LongTom on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 11:21:37 PM PDT

      In 1994, Gingrich and his wingnut cohorts swept the Dems from the House by riding--anybody remember?--the Congressional Post Office "scandal!"
      Handed a grotesque child sex scandal, on top of endless corruption, lies about the war, blatant fear-mongering, and the incremental pauperization of the middle class (to benefit the rich), what will the Dems gain? Sorry, but I'm not optimistic. I wonder why that is.
      "I don't think the news media is going to wait around ten days for the Republicans to investigate themselves. I don't think they're going to wait one."
      Optimism, thy name is Kos. The media are in the grip of these right wing swine. The media do what Arlen Specter does--pretend to make a fuss, then act mollified by some empty gesture or idea. In this case, they'll emphasize--again--how the corruption is bipartisan and the pederasty is "just one sick guy"--ignoring all the other criminals, liars, and perverts in the so-called moral-issues party.
      What's interesting is the parallel between Foley's "leadership" on protecting children and Bush's "leadership" on protecting the US from terrorists. Foley seduced and exploited kids sexually while pretending to protect them; Bush hands terrorists victory after victory while pretending to protect us.
      Think we'll hear this from Dems? Hah. I haven't yet heard from them that the reason to sweep the Republicans from office is not just because the Iraq war was a fiasco, but because THEY MADE IT A FIASCO AND WILL DO SO WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. That the war disaster is just one example of their stupidity, cowardice, and complete lack of common sense. "If you liked Iraq, you'll love Social Security (or public education, or Medicare, or port security, or energy policy, or the Constitution, or etc.)--once Bush does for it what he did for Iraq."
      When will we hear that, hmmmm? Once again, Rove has suckered the Dems into a risk-averse posture in which they are just trying to protect what they think will be a modest win in November. So they are just trying to ride it out. It's a stupid way to run a campaign. They should be sweeping to power in both houses. In the public mind, voting Republican should by now be the act of a moron or an act of treason. That it's not is purely the fault of the Democratic leadership.

      by LongTom on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 03:17:36 PM PDT
      • Another Republican president is a safe prediction (3+ / 0-)
      based on past Dem performances. Though you're right that the Dems won Congress in 2006, they actually only performed at the midpoint of the range of predicted outcomes. Only a few thousand votes in a few districts and states prevented a major disappointment.
      And even when the Dems used to hold large Congressional majorities, they routinely lost the presidency, mainly by nominating political zeroes like Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore, who had no clue as to how to respond to Republican attacks.
      WinSmith is right to be skeptical about next year. No matter how ridiculous the Republican nominee will be (and he WILL be), the media will treat him with undue respect and consideration, while savaging the Democrat. That, plus the usual Rovian barrage of misdirection, vote-stealing, and swift-boating, will in all lilihood catch the Dems clueless. It's like they have no short-term memory at all. The Republicans keep kicking them in the nuts and they keep waiting for the referee to stop the fight and award them the victory...only there's no referee!

      Who said "no matter what Dems do they will likely lose?" I said based on past performance, a Republican president is a safe bet. It's not even arguable.

      What seems to be happening is that the national Democrats are already feeling like this is their election to lose and are trying to play it safe, like Kerry's campaign did in 2004. It's a recipe for disaster. The default vote in this country is still Republican. People DO want change, and they're going to get it, because Bush won't be running in 2008. A lousy 7 or 10 point lead in the polls means nothing now. Given the catastrophe the Republicans have visited upon this country, they should be finished as a political party, not 3 to 7 points behind the Dem front runner.

      One hopes against hope that competent politicians will rise to lead the Democrats, but if they have it isn't obvious yet. The defeatists are the Democrats who do what you accuse me of doing, the ones who are so fucking afraid of what the Republicans will accuse them of--soft on terror, "against the troops", and so on--that they refuse to speak out, the ones who say , "Oh, no, Obama shouldn't say he'll meet with Castro and Kim Jong Il, because that gives the Republicans ammunition!"

      All the Democrats have to do is look at what Rove did to them and do it back: Never apologize. Embrace what's perceived as your weakness and attack the other guy's strength; dumb down your message to three words or less. Use ridicule, insult, and scare tactics to make voters feel like voting for the other guy is just too stupid, uncool, or risky.

      Will they do it? I hope so. But excuse me if I'm a little gun shy about it. Gore lost an unloseable election in 2000 against a draft-dodging nepotistic imbecile. Kerry failed to defeat a widely disliked and cowardly sitting president--he couldn't even get out of the campaign with his record of personal heroism intact!

      •  so why in the hell (0+ / 0-)

        didn't you link to these other examples of hyperbole and panic?

        i would note that three comments -- not even diaries, just comments -- across the span of two years do not a pundit or prophet make.

        _______________

        it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

        -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

        by dadanation on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hyperbole and panic? (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe I AM panicked. It panics me that my party might just lose an election to the progenitors of the worst 8 year administration in at least a hundred years if not 2 hundred. How could it even be close?

          I've watched them commit the stupidest political moves imaginable over the past 28 years, blowing winnable elections and turning what should be landslides into losses. Mondale ending his campaign with his acceptance speech by telling Americans that he was going to raise their taxes; Dukakis refusing to fight back against Willie Horton ads, Gore stumble-bumming month after month after month, blowing an election after 8 years of the greatest peacetime prosperity we ever had. Kerry failing to fight back against the flip-flopper bullshit; the Dems getting suckered by Rove into not attacking Bush at their own convenbtion in 2004. They are just too stupid for words!

          The Dems refusing to hang Abramoff, Craig, Foley, Rumsfeld, and all the other criminals around the Republican Party's. I haven't heard Abramoff's name yet in this campaign, nor Delay's, nor any of the legion of grafters and perverts and criminals that formed the backbone of the Republican Party for the past 8  years!

          The Dems are just flat terrible at this.

          •  i've read your mischaracterizations (0+ / 0-)

            of both gore and the gore campaign in 2000 so excuse me if i don't take your "sky is falling...  nope the sky fell" panic with that much gravity.

            _______________

            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

            by dadanation on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:14:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No one will be happier than me if I'm wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              However, please don't tell me I'm "mischaracterizing" Gore's 2000 campaign. He had huge advantages going in. He had EIGHT YEARS to prepare. He was completely artless at deflecting the Lewinsky scandal (which was Clinton's, after all, not his). Gas prices were never lower, and the peacetime economy never better than when Gore ran for president. He should have been a shoo-in.

              Except for picking Lieberman, which if I recall correctly, gave him a crucial boost in the polls, and except for his too little, too late populist charge at the end, Gore's campaign was painful to watch from beginning to end.

              •  as if (0+ / 0-)

                let me know when you want to continue this conversation based on the facts and not your (continual) regurgitation of old, false and frankly insipid talking points from the right and the media.

                gore won.

                but why let that pesky little fact bother you?

                oh that's right, you acknowledge that the SCOTUS stole the election from us.

                'nuff said.

                this exchange is over.

                _______________

                it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                by dadanation on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:34:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "gore won" ? Funny. You might want to tell (0+ / 0-)

                  the Secret Service they've been guarding the wrong man for 8 years.

                  The winner is the guy who gets the office. No other definition makes sense. Sure, Bush stole it, just like LBJ stole his first Senate seat and Daley stole the presidency for JFK in Chicago. So what?

                  Nothing I said is non-factual, yet you just claim, insipidly, that "Gore won." It's patently absurd.

                  •  i haven't the patience for this (0+ / 0-)

                    are you seriously telling me that you are unaware of the votes in 2000?

                    bush one the one election that he needed to win to become the president, and that was the SCOTUS votes.  otherwise, gore did win.  and you know this.

                    i have had my fill of your contrarian and concern commentary.

                    good day.

                    _______________

                    it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                    -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                    by dadanation on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 04:40:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  but to be very honest (0+ / 0-)

        i do want to thank you for having the decency to honor my request for you to please cite or show the comments that you had made.

        i really genuinely appreciate the effort and the response.

        this is not snark either; i am being very sincere (hence why i uprated your comment here).

        _______________

        it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

        -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

        by dadanation on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:14:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site