|Pillager - 2012-01-23 |
Don't ever change, turd blossom.
|SteamPoweredKleenex - 2012-01-23 |
I hope Karl Rove has a kind of Lee Atwater "what the fuck have I done?" moment before he croaks, but I doubt it. Rove is too much of a sociopath to have that kind of introspection.
|Xenocide - 2012-01-23 |
Notice how Karl is already seeing the excuses for the nominee's eventual defeat. Last time, it was "Obama talks pretty, and everyone is too stupid to look beyond that." This time, it's "Obama has lots of money, so he's going to win by outspending our poor, helpless, pauper candidate."
Anything to avoid acknowledging that someone in America might genuinely agree with the President.
|Cena_mark - 2012-01-23 |
Considering how bad the economy is the Republicans shouldn't be so desperate, but the choices presented in the primaries are a shit buffet.
Welcome to the chickens coming home to roost. The GOP couldn't win elections without the evangelicals back in the 90's, and the crazy train has been rolling along ever since. Now, because they can't get elected dog catcher without the support of people who claim they want freedom so long as it's in a Christians-only no-immigrants country that's against the Illuminati and anything that resembles science, the only nominees that can hope to win GOP primaries are pretty much raving loonies.
|Oscar Wildcat - 2012-01-23 |
Karl is jealous of Obama's wealth; if you are bitch slapped by Adam Smiths invisible hand don't come crying to us.
|pastorofmuppets - 2012-01-23 |
Why does this ad look and sound like an indie game?
Also "big labor" wtf
That one always amazes me. Union labor is about 12% of the population. Of course, presenting minority groups as threats to America is a well-worn tradition.
Rove is scum, but 12 out of the top 20 all time political donors for the last 23 years are unions. So, yeah, "big labor."
ignore that "all time" as it is inaccurate and silly.
I'd honestly never heard the term, and I thought it was supposed to sound like "big tobacco" or "big pharm." I realize now it's more like "big business," which while kind of snarky isn't as bad as I was hearing it.
|Dinanukht - 2012-01-23 |
No, Karl, it's: "Let's Git-R-Done!" (Fucking elitist).
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2012-01-23 |
Ratings and comments disabled.
|pineapplejuicer - 2012-01-23 |
NO YOURE NOT
|fatatty - 2012-01-23 |
The most important election in America since Woodrow Wilson defeated William Howard Taft.
|Binro the Heretic - 2012-01-23 |
Ladies & gentlemen, the face of pure evil.
|Corpus Delectable - 2012-01-23 |
It's the genius of Karl Rove that he makes it seem possible.
Which candidate, asshole? Huh? Which one ya gonna beat Obama with?
|Void 71 - 2012-01-23 |
I like how he didn't mention how much money Obama got from the big banks in 2008.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2012-01-23 |
Obama winning had nothing to do with John McCain being a stammering mummy and having a moron as a running mate, it was because he had MONEY.
|jangbones - 2012-01-23 |
Obama is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination
people who believe that are deluded
No, it isn't "reinforcing the system we hate". It's being an adult & realizing that we don't always get to vote for our ideal candidate, and that sometimes a vote for an imperfect candidate is necessary to prevent Dubya, Part 2: This Time, It's Personal.
Someday you'll grow up, and learn about all this.
Yes. Fear! Fear of the other corrupt guy! Definitely vote based on that.
I hope you've never complained about American democracy being a two-party system. Anyone that trots out the tired line about a vote for an independent is "throwing your vote away" is basically an enemy of democracy and in reinforcing that belief has reinforced the status quo.
Ralph Nader, in 2000, stood for something different than the two big political entities and managed to attract a substansive enough amount of the Democratic vote that the party had to do something. The obvious choice was to incorporate policies that Nader stood for to bring the votes back into the party. So they came up with another system: accuse him of helping the "we haaaaaate that guy" get elected. Everyone that participated in that narrative at any level unwittingly (wittingly?) surrendered their democracy.
OR you could exercise that attitude at a local election level, where over the long term you'd have ideal candidates working their way up to the federal level.
But having a tantrum and not voting because no candidate is perfect is the electorate version of TFL declaring that no woman is good enough for then so THEIR LOSS.
|cognitivedissonance - 2012-01-24 |
10 Our party is the only option we have.
20 We're discontent with our party.
30 GOTO 10
|Bort - 2012-01-24 |
You guys are missing the point. When Medicare was passed, there were 70 Democrats in the Senate. It's not a coincidence that more can get done when there is an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, than when there is not.
So that's really the biggest problem right now: we've let Congress fall into the hands of the GOP. Focusing on whether Obama is liberal enough is a fatal distraction in two regards: it makes people forget that Congress desperately needs to be repaired, and it makes people angry and disappointed in the President in unhelpful ways (such as not bothering to vote, and letting the GOP take over the House, plus Ohio, Wisconsin, etc).
Granted, Obama's got his problems, but problems or not, he still can't sign anything into law that didn't pass both chambers of Congress. And since the GOP has a majority in the House, plus can filibuster anything they want in the Senate, guess what? They have the legal right to block any legislation that doesn't please them. You want to strip the GOP of their legal right to block legislation that doesn't serve their purposes? Knock more of them out of Congress. That's how the system is set up to work: the real battles are on Election Day, and it's us, not our representatives, who win or lose the battles.
b-b-but surely if I boycott imperfect candidates the Democratic party will wake up and send a helicopter to my house delivering my shining knight!
Nrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, not really.
The last 30 years have been a wholesale and coordinated effort, stemming from the Southern Strategy, to essentially not only gerrymander a permanent Republican presence but to brainwash an entire segment of the American populace, the official kickoff point being the Nixon administration. It started with the realization that the Republican party will never receive more than 10% of the minority vote, and so the decision was to make sure that the minority vote is disenfranchised and minimized at every turn. Focusing entirely on the white vote, by means of fearmongering and the cult-like love bombing and isolation of the talk radio circuit, they were able to create a mentality whereby being challenged on an opinion is an immediate belief in your own correctness. They did this not only with talk radio and punditry, but by actively involving themselves in the churches themselves. This lead to the phenomenon of the mega church, which could isolate the white conservative even more by essentially filtering entire sermon programs to the ministers from the party line. Those who were too poor/invalid to attend these upper middle class enclaves were indoctrinated by the television preachers like Robertson and Falwell. At all costs, the mentality is "if you are questioned, you must be right". This is the mantra and the method of destruction of the conservative mind.
By the Reagan administration, everything was in play to start the Christian Coalition manipulation of the low end of the political scale... school boards, city councils, etc. The intellectual and spiritual gerrymandering began in earnest. By framing the debate of "us vs. the Liberal Elite," they were able to discount entirely the notion that their political opposition were people too, they began taking the books and teaching methods out of the schools. This is still in process, but the entire goal is to literally prevent diversion from their orthodoxy impossible. Now, the problem is that we have an entire generation since the Reagan Administration to whom the Republican plan is a spiritual solution, and the kicker is that they don't even have the intellectual tools to realize they're in a cult. We're in terminal phase now. There's no leaving, they've got the rest of the world, too.
I'm less pessimistic than you for these reasons:
1) The wealthy have been known to overreach before, and what usually happens is the common folk start waking up and supporting better government. Ohio and Wisconsin, for example.
2) The GOP is currently in such a state of disarray that they can't find anyone for their support base to get enthusiastic about. They are still trouble, but they are also vulnerable.
3) The generation that's starting to die off is hardcore Republican. The generation that's just turned old enough to vote is hardcore Democrat.
4) As you pointed out, minorities.
5) The notion of the 1% vs. the 99% is part of our political vocabulary now, in ways it never has been in my lifetime. That's a damn promising sign. Didja notice how Mitt and Newt are having to apologize for having a lot of money? That's an unlikely spectacle in a Republican primary.
So yeah, the GOP is playing all their cards right now, but they're anything but unbeatable. The biggest threat to progress is "Progressives" and how they are in love with disappointment: they'd rather take their ball and go home than occasionally utter sentences like "Yeah I strongly disagree with the Democrats about _____ but I'm still going to support them".
| Register or login To Post a Comment|