Invite us to dream a little. You don’t build an enduring coalition out of who Americans are. You do it out of what we can be.Isn't that what Obama tried to do?
November 17, 2014
"For years now, it’s been an article of faith among Democrats that the future belongs to them, thanks to the country’s changing demographic mix."
Kevin Baker diagnoses the "Delusions of the Democrats" in a NYT op-ed. I thought the diagnosis was excellent — detailed and particularized — but the proposed cure — the last 2 paragraphs — felt thin and hopeless. The Democrats have all these things wrong. Check. But what would be right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
83 comments:
"Isn't that what Obama tried to do?"
No. Delivering a speech does not equal trying something of substance. Anyone can read a speech. Just empty rhetoric.
I would think that Democrats would be the angriest at the lies and deceptions they accepted on face value merely because of people they thought were smart and had their best interests at heart.
After the anger comes the self-loathing.
it's important in life to develop the ability and skill to know when you are being conned. Democrats have proven to be the most gullible and under-educated faction in the country. Democrats are coming to understand the concept and cost of the free lunch.
Another case of Obama and gang trying to pull the wool over our eyes re: the Obamacare webpage! How long will democrats be lemmings taking the country over the cliff?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/16/obamacare-facebook-page-comments-mostly-from-small/
"Isn't that what Obama tried to do?"
"I won."
"...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country,..."
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
"I need you to grab Cousin Pookie to vote; I need you to grab Ray Ray to vote,..."
As we pod people know, Repubicans can't be elected because they're too extreme.
"We are God's Anointed" is what the Progressive attitude boils down to.
Perhaps their God has competition.
Ugh! A bunch of photogenic kids and teens singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me". I'll pass, thank you very much.
As we pod people know, Repubicans can't be elected because they're too extreme.
This is true. Their extremeness is really extreme.
Isn't that what Obama tried to do?
Yeah but he fell flat like a lead balloon once he got to the WH. They are looking for a better executor.
No - Obama's vision was to measure and weigh everyone's pie and re-distribute our pies as he saw fit.
That is not an appetizing nor grand vision of the future. It is more like looking backwards to re-jigger our lives and wipe out the good and the bad each of us has done so we are nothing but faceless, helpless subjects of the king.
From the article:
Electrifying large swaths of the South and West changed how people lived and worked every day, how their cities grew and their farms survived.
This is vital point. Some of the most compelling passages in Robert Caro's The Path to Power, the first volume in his The Years of Lyndon Johnson, concern the importance of rural electrification in the Texas hill country. Caro's description that changed how I regarded the FDR administration and the sometimes-flailing forces of economic populism. Quote:
When, in 1937, at the age of twenty-eight, Johnson became their Congressman, Hill Country farmers were still plowing their fields with mules because they could not afford tractors. Because they had no electricity, they were still doing every chore by hand, while trying to scratch a living from soil from which the fertility had been drained decades before. They were still watching their wives made stooped and old before their time by a life of terrible drudgery, a life that seemed, as one Hill Country woman put it, "out of the Middle Ages."
The current Democratic party, particularly its coastal elite, is directly opposed to the industrial realities that bring prosperity to the poor.
It is indicative that Kevin Baker misses his own citation, effortlessly sliding to its opposite: "[The Democratic Party] needs to take on hard fights, even against powerful forces, like ... energy companies that would tell us what the world’s climate can endure."
In this pivot toward irrelevance, electrification is wrapped in a historical bow and working people no longer have any need for affordable power and fuel. Look into the mirror, Mr. Baker, the delusion is yours.
Perhaps the problem is in thinking the traits that they use to measure demographics really represent the thinking of the people who are born with those traits.
The problem with Democrats is they have a populist rhetoric but they pursue it to maximize their own incomes.
Howard Dean and Pelosi have destroyed the Democrat trustworthiness much as Trent Lott and Tom Delay did when they sold out Republicans to K street.
Democrats can recover but it will take purging their current leadership and finding people who are truly interested in using government to help others, rather than helping themselves by means government.
That's precisely why Occupy stumbled. They had an initial fight this direction but simply couldn't deploy it against the corruption in the Democratic party. Democrats have mastered both corruption and deflecting blame towards their version of the Other. So, rage goes to Palin rather than Hillary, Fox rather than the broader media, etc. and so on.
Republicans aren't inherently better, but they have different issues and a much more active critical base.
Obama had no vision, no goal beyond increasing the size of government.
The current Democratic party, particularly its coastal elite, is directly opposed to the industrial realities that bring prosperity to the poor.
I really don't think the coastal elites can be vilified enough. You take away the disdain that coastal elites express towards the hinterlands and you have a stronger Democratic party.
I have long maintained that the second and third generation of Mexican immigrants, with their strong work ethic and family values, will be a natural constituency of the Republican party. They have been taken for granted by Democrats, but that will change of necessity.
I agree, his diagnosis was pretty good. He punctures conventional wisdom admirably. Unfortunately, his proposed cure is exactly the same thing that got them in trouble in the first place, with one, sort-of, exception. He is right that the Democrats should focus on making things better for working men and women, especially that group of people just below that level we describe as "middle class". But the way he proposes to go about it, wage controls, more laws on healthcare (ironic that he complains of companies deciding "the limits of our healthcare" as if they weren't the ones expanding those limits every year, without thought to the fact that government also limits our healthcare, with no indication that those horizons will be expanded in future), environmentalism, are the things that hurt wage earners to begin with.
He complains of Republican's tarring Democrats as "wild-eyed socialists" and a few sentences later complains that Democratic solutions have been monolithic top down solutions. That's what socialism is. The big things the Democrats did in the past were actual big things the Colorado Dam, the TVA, the federal highway system, the space program. None of his proposed solutions offer anything this tangible and concrete. It's all just more nebulous crap designed to make life marginally easier for the bobo's on the Upper West Side. He didn't actually propose anything for working people.
Yeah, it's all the big drug companies and energy companies keeping us down, man.
The last 2 paragraphs were right out of the late 60's. Blech!
Democratic constituencies are being aspirated out of existence. Plus, old people vote Republican, and the median age keeps rising.
I have long maintained that the second and third generation of Mexican immigrants, with their strong work ethic and family values, will be a natural constituency of the Republican party. They have been taken for granted by Democrats, but that will change of necessity.
We were watching something yesterday, and I commented that the next Bush President was more likely another George than his father JEB. Mexican mother. Telenovela level good looking. Fluent in Spanish. Roman Catholic. And just won his first state wide election earlier this month.
But also, notably, both Hispanic governors and 2 of 3 Senators are Republican. All four are young and dynamic. Where are the Democrats?
Second and third generation Mexican immigrants are just Americans.
That's the whole thing about birthright demographics. If it is about skin color you just aren't going to keep people seeing things the way their parents did.
The one thing that would really help working people in this country, especially minorities, is a tight labor market. And the best way to achieve a tight labor market is a faster growing economy. The second best way is to reduce immigration and the influx of new workers entering the US. Both of these things are opposed by Democrats. Dem's say they want a faster growing economy, but it's facially a lower priority for them than tighter environmental regulations, and a higher minimum wage.
I think O won with the a dream of the future strategy and it just didn't work out so good. He reminded me of Reagan a lot, except for that last part.
Second and third generation Mexican immigrants do not have the same work ethic or family values as their immigrant forefathers.
Democrats don’t realize how different Latinos can be. I grew up in the Northeast with lots of Haitians, Dominicans and Puerto Ricans. I now live in overwhelmingly Hispanic South Texas. Both groups speak Spanish, but that’s where the similarity ends. Mexicans are intensely Catholic and conservative. They vote democrat for the patronage and political power. Generational welfare is viewed with great shame. Free citizenship to Central American, not so much. GLBT agenda, definitely a no.
What Baker left out is that the Democrats' strategy is two-pronged: demographics and dependency.
And not just dependency of new immigrants or even the poor, but a core of government dependents at every level of income.
Looked at in this light, that hostility "to the industrial realities that bring prosperity to the poor" that Henry talked about (above) is a feature, not a bug, to establishment Democrats.
"Isn't that what Obama tried to do?"
That's what he tried to fake.
My favorite part of the editorial was this: "It needs to take on hard fights, even against powerful forces, like pharmaceutical and insurance companies that presume to tell us the limits of what our health care can be or energy companies that would tell us what the world’s climate can endure. "
Are these not fights the Democrat party have been engaging upon?
How about instead taking on hard fights such as the fact that the environmental movement has made no progress and appears to advocate for luddite changes, unenforcable worldwide, instead of something like a new Apollo program?
How about taking on hard fights against K-12 and higher education that has has enormous growth in funding over the past 50 years for worse returns in education results nationwide, yet resists changing course in any meaningful way and simply asks for more money?
How about taking on hard fights against the democrat policy platform which has transformed into a big business, big government, liberty-seizing enterprise and is no longer the democrat party of the 1920s-1960s.
New Mexico is 47.3% Latino, 10.4% American Indian, 39.4% non-Latino white — and just elected its first Republican state House of Representatives in six decades to go along with re-electing a Republican governor.
"If the voters refused your offer of ham and eggs, it was because they wanted double ham and double eggs." --David Frum
"Isn't that what Obama tried to do?"
No, saying it and trying to do it aren't the same thing, Professor Althouse.
He's not just incompetent. He's a liar. He's always been a liar, always will be a liar. That's his defining characteristic.
What the democrats really need is a TEA Party of their own. Something that puts the interests of their voters above the interests of their elite.
But in the end the democrats have an ace in the hole. It is the Republican establishment that will put them back in power. Have no fear. If we get republicans in full control of Washington again the best we can hope for is a slower rate of growth. Or they might pass medicare part F because that is what the establishment really wants: more entitlements.
If they get elected I guarantee you wont hear the words "balanced budget amendment." It might poll 70% out here amongst the prols but in DC you wont get 1 in 10 to support it.
The idea that the "southern racists" became Republicans has always been a convenient story for Democrats to write off the question of why they can't seem to win in the region. It's much better for the conscience to say "well, they're racist, that's why they left us" than "maybe we alienate them for other reasons".
The only prominent officeholder in the South to switch parties immediately after the 1964 Act was Strom Thurmond--other segregationists like Ross Barnett, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, John Stennis, James Eastland and Richard Russell stayed with the Democrats, most for the rest of their careers. As the author notes, the much bigger switches didn't come about for decades after, which suggests other reasons--the South being more publicly religious at a time when the Democrats seemed less friendly to Christianity (whether true or not, that's the image they project), southerners tending to be more hawkish and favoring more defense spending, while the Democrats became known as the "dove" party for a couple decades after Vietnam. This shift was natural, and had much to do with the shifting of the power centers of the Democrats away from the southern Democrats (e.g., the way Congress was run post-1974, giving less power to high-seniority southern committee chairmen, or no longer requiring two thirds of delegates at conventions to pick nominees, losing the southern veto) and the GOP absorbing the Christian Coalition. Now, maybe the Democrats don't want those conservative voters, which is fine--after all they'd be a different party if they had a more conservative makeup--but at least acknowledge it for what it really is.
And, Beldar, it was painfully obvious in 2008 that he was a liar. To anyone who cared to look, just a little bit, into his background.
Fundamentally, the Democrat's pitch seems to be, "the future belongs to us, because poor people are our constituency, and the America of the future is going to be solidly and forever majority-poor," isn't it?
While the article is generally correct, it is still the GOP that has the most immediate challenge--growing demographics that seem to be strongly for the Democrats, and the "blue wall" in the electoral college that will make 2016 and future elections an uphill battle. They'll have to find a way to address those problems soon.
He still is less of a liar than the Clintons.
What motivates Obama now?
He's rich already and has won two elections.
What makes him run?
Inadequacy?
Legacy? That shouldn't matter unless he believes in an afterlife, and that's unlikely.
Power? Does he wanna be Pope, or SCOTUS Chief Justice?
Thrills? Can't he just go skate-boarding?
What motivates this guy?
What the democrats really need is a TEA Party of their own.
Kind of what Scott Rasmussen & Douglas Schoen say in their book "Mad As Hell - How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking the Two-Party System"
From the Back Cover
The riotous tea parties and angry town hall meetings of the past few years have thrown American politics into turmoil. Americans should have seen this revolt coming: populist movements have always arisen in times of economic hardship and uncertainty. In Mad As Hell, pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen use extensive and original research to explore the mind and heart of this populist uprising and explain how it is reshaping American politics—whether politicians and elite journalists like it or not.
The Tea Party movement is an authentic grassroots movement of concerned American citizens demanding to be heard by an out-of-touch political establishment. Their concerns are real and their issues are legitimate, the authors maintain; moreover, the new populism is here to stay, and it has already changed our politics for the better.
In Mad As Hell, Rasmussen and Schoen have produced an authoritative guide to the new populism, featuring a combination of proprietary polling data, political analysis, results from online focus groups, and interviews with on-the-ground players. This updated edition includes a new afterword, featuring data and analysis from the November 2010 midterm elections and what we should look for in the 2012 elections. It is a must-read for anyone interested in American electoral politics.
Elizabeth Warren is the Democrat's version of a "populist" - notice that she is being put "out there" by the Democratic leadership - a preemptive move to prevent the Democratic Party being upended by their own version of the Tea Party.
The south as he defines it includes the upcountry appalaichian culture that spread from southern Ohio and western Pennsylvania down to northern South Carolina and Georgia and over to Texas, Arizona and southern California.
That was nct a slave owning area, but it was a proud area that supported wars.
In the 1960s the Dems went peacenik on all issues and forever lost that area.The Dems favorite racial Punch and Judy shows cannot hide that basic problem any longer.
The demographic for democratic control isn't black/brown v. White, it's success v. government teet. To gain control, the democrats have to destroy success, not just fill the country with brown/black people. Btw, racism is the lowest form of collectivism.
Salamandyr said...
The big things the Democrats did in the past were actual big things the Colorado Dam, the TVA, the federal highway system, the space program.
Colorado Dam: designed by Hoover (R), signed into law by Coolidge (R), started 1931 Hoover (R)
TVA: Championed by Senator Norris (R), signed into law by FDR (D)
Federal Highways Eisenhower (R) all the way
NASA, Eisenhower (R)
PS: the opinion author is clearly a Warren Dem
paminwi @ 9:01:
Good article - I hyperlinked it:
Obamacare Facebook page comments mostly from small group of supporters
Cindi Huynh, an Obamacare supporter in California, posted on average 59 times a day on the site in 60 days, making her the No. 1 poster in that period. She posted only during work hours — as is the trend of the top 25 posters on the site — and never on weekends.
I think Inga works the evening & weekend shifts at that site - explains why we don't hear from her anymore - no stupid people at Althouse for her to convince how awesome Obamacare is.
It's not what the American people "can be", it's what the left wants us to be. Any and all means will be used to force us to be what they want us to be because immoral arrogant a-holes like Gruber and he master think they know better. It's the route taken by all utopians.
I think Baker is trying to tell Democrats that when the dream turns into nightmare the only thing to do is to boldly retreat into the dream-within-a-dream.
Tyrone Slothrop: I have long maintained that the second and third generation of Mexican immigrants, with their strong work ethic and family values, will be a natural constituency of the Republican party. They have been taken for granted by Democrats, but that will change of necessity.
It'd be nice if everybody finally got so fed up with Dem incompetence that they stopped voting for 'em (one can always hope), but second and third (and fourth) generation Mexican-Americans already exist, and they don't vote Republican.
Hard working? You bet. But I know plenty of really hard-working people of all ethnicities who yet reliably vote Dem. And Hispanics in general (including Mexicans) have worse metrics on illegitimacy, divorce, abortion, use of social services, etc. than any group but blacks, so I've never understood what "family values" are being invoked, unless it's "maintaining a high TFR on the public dime", which is not the sort of "family value" I think we should be encouraging.
Could those voting patterns change? Could be, but they won't be changed by people who pay less attention to statistics than to anecdotes based on wishful thinking (and Dem concern trolls).
Things are only going to go from bad to worse for Democrats.
As soon as Obama passes and then tries to implement his executive amnesty, you'll see the Tea Party protests after Obamacare look like child's play.
The Democrats have no plan for economic growth, and indeed, they usually sneer at any such plans as "trickle down economics." The result is what we have now: 2% growth, probably closer to 0% after inflation, and that is just not enough to create jobs for the millions who have dropped out of the work force, or for all the kids who graduated and are living at home doing unpaid internships, or to produce any kind of income growth for those who do have jobs. That's the problem that Baker refused to address.
This woman senator was an early cheerleader for Obama. Watch what she is saying starting @3:00.
If you are argument is what we can be and you say what we are is in fact evil the youre not going to get that many people to side with your cause. Because it's not really an appeal to our better nature but an indictment of our current one made by people who assume they are better.
Inviting us to have a fever dream of self delusion? Haven't we already done that--twice!
alan markus quoting from paminwi's source:
"She posted only during work hours — as is the trend of the top 25 posters on the site — and never on weekends."
To be fair, most posts on the internet probably fit that pattern.
For Democrats it's all about faith. Not in God or any recognized religion, but that mere obeisance to liberalism will lead to utopia.
To be fair, most posts on the internet probably fit that pattern.
I don't think that is the case here. This post went up Saturday noon and by work hours this morning it had generated 355 comments. Occasionally Althouse posts generate 200+ comments, but this seems be one of the bigger ones.
I think what the article was implying was that the prolific posted at Obamacare Facebook page is probably a paid "faux" astroturfer.
Did Feminists Make Comet Landing All About Clothes?
The problem with Democrats is that they build their coalition through a deferred reconciliation of diametrically conflicted interests. This begins, but does not end, with selective exclusion, devaluing capital and labor, denigrating individual dignity, and devaluing human life.
Many, perhaps most, people will not accept beads and baubles as compensation for progressive violations of civil and human rights, and creation of moral hazards. Many, perhaps most, people will not voluntarily consume the opiate that promises visions of dissociation of risk.
And Hispanics in general (including Mexicans) have worse metrics on illegitimacy, divorce, abortion, use of social services, etc. than any group but blacks, so I've never understood what "family values" are being invoked, unless it's "maintaining a high TFR on the public dime"....
This is typical of just about any migrant population in history anywhere in the world. It is not typical of the resident "Hispanic" populations, but many of them still traditionally vote Democrat in protest against the depredations by the territorial regimes imposed by Washington in "the Republican era," 1860 to 1930.
I agree the last two paragraphs are thin. However, the second to last starts with a very good insight in speaking of current Democratic policy making "with its finely calibrated, top-down fixes." Unfortunately, the rest of it seems to lapse into nostalgia for big TVA type programs to make us all feel good about rallying round the grand NRA blue eagle once again.
It almost made me laugh and think of the scene at the end of "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou," when Ulysses Everett McGill, flapping around in the newly created TVA lake shouts out: "they're flooding this valley so they can hydroelectric up the whole durn state. Yes, sir, the South is gonna change. Everything's gonna be put on electricity and run on a paying basis. Out with the old spiritual mumbo jumbo, the superstitions, and the backward ways. We're gonna see a brave new world where they run everybody a wire and hook us all up to a grid. Yes, sir, a veritable age of reason. Like the one they had in France."
Those days are not coming back. The Democrats, if they want to rebuild any kind of social democratic vision are going to have to figure out new ways of doing it, more individualized far less top-down regulated, geared much more to information technologies than massive bureaucracies.
Democrats are all about dividing up the pie we have.
The GOP wants a bigger pie.
The ultimate reason the Dems are having trouble growing is visible in that analogy. Their current voting blocks don't want to wait for the promised piece, and it's obvious to all but the dumbest existing claimants that adding another victim group to the pie claimants is gonna mean somebody already at the table loses...
Everyone knows that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
PB:
The left places their faith in mortal gods. Not in each other, but the leaders who offer them the opiate that promises visions of dissociation of risk. Note that this is a potent drug that is faith-agnostic. Although, in principle, theists, especially of the Judeo-Christian line, should be less susceptible to its lure. Unfortunately, in practice, the outcome is unpredictable, highly individual, and contextual.
Tax the rich until there are no rich anymore.
Is that the plan?
Eventually he will figure out that the ideas are bad or impossible to implement.
The future belongs to the Dems and we the people are left with their history of failure. No wonder the Dems have so much contempt for the voters.
Hagar: This is typical of just about any migrant population in history anywhere in the world.
No, it isn't. It isn't true of first generation East Asians or South Asians in the contemporary U.S. (who have lower rates of these pathologies than the native-born), and it is not typical of "any" migrant population elsewhere, or historically.
It is not typical of the resident "Hispanic" populations...
Yes, it is - if by "typical", you mean "statistically", and by "resident" you mean, "not first generation".
gerry:
My interest in the rich is to the extent that their monopolization of capital and control creates inviable conditions (e.g. market distortions) for everyone else. The problem with left-wing ideology, is that it creates monopolies of capital and control by design (i.e. proactive), not chance. The problem with right-wing ideology, is that it is reactive (i.e. delayed), to formation of monopolies or monopolistic behaviors. Ideally, people with greater material success will voluntarily redistribute their wealth through investment and charity, and not seek to hoard it ad infinitum. The limit of both ideologies is when they sponsor corruption. With the left, it is corruption from the top and bottom. With the right, it is principally corruption from the top.
The Democrats supported slavery before the Civil War and afterward they supported segregation. Because there was a group which was not progressive and which should be excluded from power and treated with contempt. The blacks.
After 1960 the Democrats began to run about shrieking racism at everyone who disagrees with them because the Democrats know that there is a group which is not progressive and should be excluded from power and treated with contempt. The whites.
Some of us have a dream that in the United States people will someday be treated as they deserve based on the content of their character. I always hope that that group, will be the ultimate demographic fact. History isn't the latest twitch on twitter; it's the long run, isn't it?
The problem that Democrats have is that they will spell out the grievances of whites, especially working class whites, but won't treat them as legitimate. Those opinions, no matter how strongly held, about guns, immigration, demographics, crime or anything else, are wrong on their face.
Democrats will mention these concerns only to dismiss them. That's why they fail.
You don’t build an enduring coalition out of how stupid Americans are. You do it out of what we can to fool them.
alan markus: I think what the article was implying was that the prolific posted at Obamacare Facebook page is probably a paid "faux" astroturfer.
(Says alan to Anglelyne, on a weekday during working hours.)
Noooo! Really?
(Says Anglelyne to alan, also posting on a weekday during working hours.)
Has there been a change in human biology? How can the voters become "more female"? Maybe their husbands were making them stay home.
I really don't think the coastal elites can be vilified enough. You take away the disdain that coastal elites express towards the hinterlands and you have a stronger Democratic party.
A large part of the reason these coastal elites are even in politics is their disdain for the hinterland bumpkins. It really grinds their gears that these knuckle-draggers think they should have their share of power and exercise it (and live their lives) as they see fit. Take away the disdain and the Democratic Party would be weaker as those mountains of hypocritical super-rich liberal elite money wouldn't be flowing into the DNC, DSCC, liberal PACs, etc. They'd be spending it on MDMA parties and private jets even more than they do now.
Wanna bet alot of those Mexicans coming across value hard work and rising up by your own bootstraps?
You know rags to riches.
And that ain't the Democrat party.
Now wouldn't it be a gas if the Mexicans lean more to the Republican view and the blacks are left out, way out, in the cold.
The best politician the Democrats have produced in the past 60 years, Bill Clinton (not the most moral mind you, but still the most "natural" politician) said in his 1996 SotU address "The era of big government is over".
He was right then, and in the decentralized, network-connected world, of the 21st century, he's even more right. The core problem of the Democrats is that they want government to come up with the answers & implement the solutions, but no one has the patience for it anymore. It's a just-in-time, lean & mean world, and there's no kind of organization less nimble than government.
Paul: Wanna bet alot of those Mexicans coming across value hard work and rising up by your own bootstraps?
You know rags to riches.
And that ain't the Democrat party.
Wanna bet that a lot of those Mexicans coming across value hard work? No - who doesn't know that Mexicans are hard workers?
Wanna bet that a lot of those Mexicans coming across in the last several decades aren't heavily incentivized by access to somebody else's "bootstraps" aka the U.S. welfare state? Well, that would be a dumb bet, but I could easily find some soft-headed Republican to take it.
Wanna bet that those Mexicans coming across are no more likely to vote against the welfare state than the Mexicans who came across yesterday? Hey, where'd that soft-headed Republican go, I'm not finished with him yet!
Now wouldn't it be a gas if the Mexicans lean more to the Republican view and the blacks are left out, way out, in the cold.
Yeah, a real laff riot. Welcome to the ethnic spoils Thunderdome!
Playing "elect a new people" is all fun and games 'til you find yourself in the cross-hairs.
Gahrie said...
"Obama had no vision, no goal beyond increasing the size of government."
And no matter how many "catastrophic" electoral defeats the Democrats suffer, that agenda moves forward in an unbroken string of triumphs. The Democrats may have lost the last election, but Obama and the permanent bureaucracy are still tightening their stranglehold on every aspect of American life.
Isn't that what Obama tried to do?
You know, George Mallory tried to climb Mt. Everest in 1924 and both he and his climbing partner died in the attempt, their frozen bodies not being found for another 75 years.
This proves that no one will ever be able to climb Everest, and the reports suggesting people have must all be made up.
n.n. said,
"Ideally, people with greater material success will voluntarily redistribute their wealth through investment and charity, and not seek to hoard it ad infinitum."
What--do you think the rich hide their cash under a mattress? Leaving it in the bank is investing it; leaving it in the bank allows the bank to lend it out to others at interest.
"They argue that voters favored Democratic positions in state referendums, from a higher minimum wage to abortion rights and legal marijuana."
And a law that gave drivers' licenses to illegals was reversed by initiative in deep blue Oregon by 2 to 1.
Hello ? Hello ? Is anybody out there ?
DavidD:
My suggestion is not accusatory.
Extrapolating demographic trends straight-line is a losers' bet.
Post a Comment