Skip to main content

I started to ask myself: why are they letting all the crazies out at the same time? Santorum for President? Issa refusing to let a woman testify at a hearing regarding women's contraception? Forced intrauterine ultrasounds, for God's sake? All of these things will fail, or will be neutered in good time. At first I thought it was because they realize they've gotten as much out of us as they could and they had nowhere else to go and nothing else to achieve but pure unadulterated evil (which has always been at their core anyway.) But I think instead they are simply yanking the Overton Window yet again.

It's all about 2016. In 2012, they were facing a sitting President--heck, if George W. Bush could "win" re-election, what chance did they have against Obama, really, especially since the economy was almost inevitably going to recover enough in time for the election?--the Senate map is in their favor for the next two cycles, and they already have the media and Citizens United in their pockets. What better time to shift the dialogue farther to the right, thereby laying the groundwork for a supposedly more moderate Republican Presidential nominee the next time around?

In sports that have alternating possessions (like football and basketball), at the end of a close game, there is a strategy rarely seen (although we certainly saw it this year in the Super Bowl) where you let your opponent score so as to get the ball back with enough time to score yourself and win the game. It is usually only effective or useful if your team has a better offense than defense--in basketball, that is almost always the case among most college and all professional teams; in football only somewhat less so--and only coaches who are unafraid of bucking convention will authorize such an egregious breach of "the unwritten rules."

And who do we have in our political realm that absolutely do not care about the rules, unwritten or otherwise? You got it, the Republicans.

So now we have Jeb Bush saying that he only "used to be a conservative." Gee--what do you think he meant by that? The Bushes have always positioned themselves, rhetorically speaking, to the left of the farthest reaches of the right wing. Remember Pappy? He was all about a "kindler and gentler" nation. W? He was supposed to be a "compassionate conservative", of course. What will we get from Jeb? I don't know, but I bet we won't find out until about a year after the November Mitt slaughter. And then the machine will tune up and begin spinning furiously to sell, er tell, us how different Jeb is from W to snag the idiots who'll believe anything they're told. It will be a lot like this year, except a whole lot more professional. Mitt looks the part, but hasn't got any of the chops, of a presidential candidate. Jeb, otoh, has the whole package, as far as what the right wing wants. He can deliver the money boys and the religious right just like his brother did, and he has almost none of the drawbacks that W had that had to be diligently scrubbed and whitewashed away.

Many people believe that W tarnished the Bush name, but I don't believe that's true. He tarnished his name. Jeb will be able to distinguish himself from W quite easily for the non-aligned, and very few on the right care about the past anyway. Not only that, but people will want to forgive themselves for the crime of voting for W, and the best way of doing that would be to put the brother that was "supposed" to be President in the first place in the White House. I don't know who we will have available to run against him, but I fear we are going to have a serious fight next time around, and we'd better start prepping now for war.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, but then what about 2020? We better (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qannabbos, Deep Texan, bunsk

    REALLY start prepping for that.

    Then, oh god, then there is 2024!

  •  Otoh? (0+ / 0-)

    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

    by Smoh on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:45:31 AM PST

  •  Never mind... (0+ / 0-)

    "on the other hand" excuse me, I'm slow.

    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

    by Smoh on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:46:31 AM PST

  •  I don't know that I buy.................. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, Cedwyn

    everything you are putting forward but I do agree on two points:

    (1) Jeb has no interest in 2012 and would not run even if drafted in a brokered convention. He is smart enough to know that it would be a tough fight he would most likely lose and that it would kill any chances for 2016 because he couldn't deliver the White House for the Teahadists in 2012.

    (2) the electorate's collective memory of Chimpy would have very little negative effect on a run for POTUS by Jeb; especially, if they are given another 4 years to forget.  In 2016 he would retain the Chimpster’s most ardent supporters, the right wing loonys, get the full backing of the Rethug establishment, not be a Mormon or Catholic and attract a lot of “indy” support. Unlike the current occupants of the Clown; Car he would be a formidable candidate for POTUS.  

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 07:53:58 AM PST

  •  Maybe "we" will put up Elizabeth Warren for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, qannabbos, janmtairy

    President in 2016.

    Hope has a hole in it when Republicans come, bringing shackles and sorrow; branding their greed on the backs of the poor. - Wendy Connors

    by Wendys Wink on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 08:11:41 AM PST

  •  Not that many! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, qannabbos
    Many people believe that W tarnished the Bush name
    It was hopelessly tarnished long before that.

    Not that is matters when you have the GOP/establishment behind you . . .

  •  i wouldn't say letting us score (0+ / 0-)

    more like sitting this election out.

    Obama's re-election was pretty much a sure thing when the recession was over back in 2010.  Republicans had an easy strategy and they played it very well.  However, Obama expected their strategy and used it against them. He got them to vote against their own legislation and tax cuts.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 08:36:56 AM PST

    •  You say potato, I said "letting us score". (0+ / 0-)

      Sitting out is exactly how letting the other team score operates--the defense takes a play (or more) off.

      •  the difference is they can't score (0+ / 0-)

        and won't win.  so the best players aren't even on the field.

        the best players aren't going to risk losing political capital (injured).

        which is different and why i phrased it the way i did.

        that difference is an important distinction.  they aren't letting us win.  they will still try everything to win with the backups.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 09:19:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well the Better Potential Candidates Themselves (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    probably made the decisions not to try this time around for reasons you suggest.

    Conservatives have government completely locked up, it can't govern progressively any more, so they don't have an urgency on behalf of their interests to get back into the WH immediately.

    They just gave us the worst midterm defeat of either party since the late 1800's with a combination of us chilling our base for 2 years which is doubly devastating for a midterm as we pitched for the moderates who normally drop off for those races, as the rightwing inflamed its base even getting senior voters to increase their turnout from the 2008 general.

    I think the general expectation was for a continued low enthusiasm Democratic voter block seeing that both parties talk austerity and cuts for the people, so it would be a safe hail-Mary pass for this year to repeat the 2009-10 program of further inflaming the rightwing religious and racist base.

    I'm sure they were thinking more about the broad downticket races at federal, state and local levels, and if circumstances broke right for the WH, that'd be gravy.

    It's possible to overreach and we are seeing tentative evidence that they have badly misjudged. I hope so.

    But you're right about their long term thinking. While Democrats run you out of the room for mentioning a day or two after the immediately pending election, conservatives are tacking methodically toward positions they'll need 10 and 20 years from now. Not every conservative, not probably most of the visible reps, but the brain trust sure as hell is.

    And ours isn't.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 08:49:49 AM PST

    •  Thank you, too, for responding seriously. (0+ / 0-)

      (On a side note, why do you think the two above reacted so negatively?)

      On point, I hope you are right, but I thought I'd lay my fears out in the diary. My fears have certainly come true more than a few times since 1980 . . .

  •  Foreward thinking is good (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    For all their faults, the strength of Republicans is that they are relentless and play the long game. Those are traits that do not seem to have caught on among the Democrats to any meaningful extent, unfortunately. There are exceptions, of course. But over all, I'd like to see more Democrats that actually have some balls.

    Many Americans fear that universal health care would destroy their way of life. In that it would get them the anti-psychotic meds they need, I agree.

    by ThothXXI on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:40:39 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site