1) They cut to the Right of Center.
2) Liberals have largely abandoned them. (Just take a look at the primary turn out rates!)
3) The Right is poised to take back most, or all, of the Democrats majorities
and (most depressingly of all)
4) The press will characterize the Democrat's defeat as being a backlash against their Liberal Policies!
Again...
WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICES?!?!
NAME ONE!!!
And yet most people still think the press leans Liberal!!!
The press leans STUPID, first and foremost. But stupidity has a Conservative bias, so...
I can't even talk about it anymore. It just too depressing.
Because ClassicLiberal was right, in the Pseudo-Conservatives post:
The left in the U.S., to be sure, is a glutton for punishment. It takes a beating over and over again and replies with "thank you sir, may I have another?" But everyone has their breaking point, and those at the White House are smoking crack if they think [fill in anything they've done] going to do anything but hurt them.
He was referring specifically to Press Sec. Gibbs' absurdly ignorant comments about the "professional Left," but I think it applies to practically everything, from Health Care, to Financial Reform, to Elena Kagan, to... Christ, just about everything.
And do you know what REALLY sad part is? I'm still gung-ho to support the Democrats! I'm STILL saying "thank you sir, may I have another," because if I/we DON'T then we'll not only be looking at a Tea Party majority in Congress, and President Palin in 2012 - and all the policies, and Court appointees that will result from it - but we'll have to listen to the press say that the Dem's lost because they were too Liberal.
The Dem's will only LOSE if the Liberals STAY HOME. Which is pretty much exactly what's happening! And as much as I'd love to "send a message" to the Democrats, that message will never get sent, because the mainstream press simply will not carry that narrative! To them, it will be: the Right won, the Left lost, so we must just be a conservative country. I'm sorry. I can't deal with two years of that insanity leading up to November, 2012. (And the aftermath for this country that will likely, inevitably result.)
But that was the story in 1980, and it was the story in 1994. It's ALWAYS the story... except when the Democrats make gains. And then, even when there an unpopular Republican in the White House, the story is that it's because they were political moderates, willing to work with the Right. Blue-Dogs, so to speak. DINO's, if you will.
(But DINO 's who will suddenly be painted as flaming liberals come the next election cycle!)
So despite everything that's happened (and everything that hasn't) the thought of the alternative is just too depressing.
Even more so than the current reality... which is just too depressing.
It's all too depressing.
I wish these gutless, spineless Democrats would wake the fuck up. But that ain't going to happen, and the press would actively work against them if they DID.
I'll be on med's by November.
Trust me, if the Dems lose their majorities, the things that will inevitably follow (us ACTUALLY becoming a Christian nation, run by fucking imbeciles like Palin, etc.) will probably put me on meds as well.
ReplyDeleteI won't bother making the empty threat everyone makes of "If they win, I'm moving to Europe!!" (which, actually, would probably be better for me since I tend to think as a Socialist), but goddamn will I hate this country if it goes where we both think it might.
I just really wish there was a way to get through to all these people being fed garbage by Newscorp. Just plant a little seed of doubt and a little motivation to do their own goddamn research a little bit. The most frustrating part of it all is that when they get one-upped (or two-upped, three-upped, etc xD) in a debate with a "liberal" (moderate) or a "socialist, communist, fascist Nazi" (actual liberal), they don't even sit down to examine their views. They just get angry and remain as steadfast as ever.
It really all seems hopeless. Maybe we're both wrong, and the liberals aren't sitting down; they're just sick of trying to argue with people who won't lend an ear. I know I am.
Me? I'm sitting in my room, hoping to everything I hold dear that Glenn Beck's rally on Saturday is a complete flop. I do not want my kids and grandkids coming home from school and telling me about the amazing patriot who's on the $10 million bill (GOP/tea-party will probably make our currency worthless) named Glenn Beck, and his historic rally.
If this country turns into the kind of country that looks back on the days of Glenn Beck as a positive time... well, maybe I just might move.
Anyway great post as usual. I agree with you. (also as usual, haha)
"that they heard about in history class."***
ReplyDelete^ appendix to the 5th paragraph there :P
MetalMatt,
ReplyDeleteMy wife often jokes that "some day we be hiding homosexuals in our basement." To which I can only respond: We can't, because that's where I'LL be hiding DEAD FACSISTS.
Thanks for you comment.
I cling to one hope, based on the enormous success of Clinton's 1993 budget. That was nearly the only big "liberal" thing he did, and it was good times all around.
ReplyDeleteIn order to repeat Clinton's success, this presidency and congress has to do what they're extremely good at -- nothing. These past two years of deficits and sluggishness have been under a terrible tax structure (which has been proven to be terrible at job creation for a full ten years). Its repeal might be enough liberalism to bring smashing success.
I'm hoping that no matter what happens in 2010, 2012 can still be the end of the republican party. To anyone who is upset at our democrats, I maintain that the only solution is to first make them the only viable national party, then assault them from the left. This country doesn't do three parties. We must eliminate one party to make room for the one we want.
Steeve,
ReplyDeleteInteresting points, but remember: Clinton was "rewarded" with Republican majorities in both houses of congress. And there is a slim, but still very real possibility that Obama could be looking at the same thing come November.
And would Republican majorities let the Tax cuts expire without a fight? Or an effort to reinstate them? And if they DID, would Obama have the spine to veto it? I haven't seen any evidence of that YET. He hasn't had the stones to put a Republican MINORITY in its place. If the past two years are any indication, he'd be the Black Ronald Reagan if he ever had to face a Republican Majority, at least for a liberal's POV. (To the idiots on the Right he'll keep on being the Black Karl Marx.)
As for "eliminat[ing] one party to make room for the one we want"? Again, interesting point. And I agree with you. But personally, I think The Tea Party can very be what destroys the Republicans. (Because it sure won't be the Democrats!) And seeing where the Democrats are now, taking in more potentially ousted and exiled and disillusioned Republicans can only move them farther to the Right. At which point we're still doing what we're doing NOW - attacking from the Left, as if we were a third party force. (Instead of a FOURTH if the civil war on the Right doesn't get resolved.)
Don't get me wrong: I DON'T want to repeat [what I'm holding out hope will be] the Tea party's mistake: splitting the vote and/or alienating moderates. Do that on the LEFT? And it will be the end of the Left. The opposition forces facing us are simply to strong, and would OVERWHILM that kind of power vacuum. That's why I'm STILL saying (albeit bitterly) as ClassicLiberal described in the Pseudo Post: "THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?!"
A separate "Liberal" or "Progressive" party would never work, mainly because we can't even get the press to be honest or objective about the Democrats. To them the Dem's are LIBERAL, even as they cave in to big business interests, lower taxes even beyond what Bush did, pass legislation previously proposed by Republicans, abuse the "professional left," etc... The press simply refuses to tell any other story.
So we'd have to be 10x as obnoxious as the Tea Party has been to not only get the necessary attention, but also 10x as aggressive to force the story to be told accurately. (And neither is generally in the Liberal’s Character, am I wrong?) More realistically, I fear (as I think you do) that it would amount to little more than a liberal, yet pale, imitation of the Teabaggers.
Only this time, the group WOULD be dismissed as kooks, as the Teabaggers SHOULD HAVE been.
Thanks for your comment.
My vision was that even with republican majorities in 2010, a recovering economy would sweep them out with a huge broom in 2012. And that choosing not to sign a bad republican budget would be the easiest thing in the world to do, as an override would be miles away.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I forgot the possibility of a Gingrich-style government shutdown threat. That too is very easy to combat, but it takes an ounce of desire. Obama might not have that ounce.
As far as destroying the republicans before going after the democrats, I wasn't suggesting trying to win republican converts. I was suggesting that existing democrats must keep voting for democrats and not just say "screw it, they aren't much better". Demographics are removing the white male geezer republican power base. We don't need a bigger base; we just have to keep it from shrinking.
Politics being what it is, in most elections one is faced with two choices: Certain disgust or likely disappointment. I'll take the latter every damn time.
ReplyDeleteArtie,
ReplyDeleteI hear you, 100%. Amazing (or depressing) that we can't do any better, huh?
Thanks for your comment.