[T]he substitute for a coherent answer is bellicosity, let's be... strong -- because I think people are tired of the complexity of the situation and they're responding to strength. And -- and that's how -- that translates into the kind of language that [Trump is using].... [I]n the general electorate, that kind of rhetoric can be crippling. But in the primary and given the sort of red hot nature of the Republican base, you know, you get the effect that you see with Trump, where people are responding. He is the anti-Obama. I always believed that the incumbent sets the terms of the debate. And people never choose the replica of what they have, particularly in the other party. They choose the remedy. And there's no one more anti -- so -- there's no more of an antithesis to Barack Obama than Donald Trump.
December 21, 2015
David Axelrod explains why Trump "the anti-Obama" — and why people are drawn to an anti-Obama.
On "Face the Nation" yesterday:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
He's right as far as Trump being the anti-Obama.
But, the whole [T]he substitute for a coherent answer is bellicosity line is crap. If Obama had provided coherent answers, there'd have been no Trump.
And the GOP voters don't tend to be the lemmings that Dem voters tend to be.
Trump is the anti-Obama in some ways but they're both jerks. Remember the "bitter clingers" remark?
Obama created the anti-Obama atmosphere. He is is own nemesis as are the liberals who push the anti-American narrative.
Because, you know, Obama has been so utterly coherent for the past 7 or so years.
And considering how low Obama's approval ratings are, being the "anti-Obama" is a very good thing.
Bullshit. Trump's followers agree with him on the issues.
The issues on which they agree have been decreed taboo and unfit for discussion by decent people by both parties, so, of course, a pathological motive for that disagreement must be invented.
Obama is coherent? Watch that last press conference and say that with a straight face.
Well, his handling of the complex Middle East with nuance and sophistication has resulted in chaos on an unprecedented scale. More refugees in Europe than there are people in Madison.
Axelrod knows that "Hope and Change" is no different than ""Make America Great Again."
If Obama wasn't historic Hillary would have won the nomination. #Diversity.
What he's saying--and I agree with him--is that many voters do not want to hear complex issues discussed in complex terms; they want complex issues boiled down to dumb talking points--something is black/white, good/bad-- and they want everything handled simplistically and aggressively.
They may be opposites in some respects, but it would be nice if we had an anti-Obama with respect to competence.
Axelrod is correct: Trump is the anti-Obama, because, frankly, Obama is a weak man. He genuinely believes it's a good thing to open the immigration flood gates, which screws working class, blue collar American men (and which surprise, surprise conveniently increases the Dem voter rolls) and he genuinely believes that Israel, not radical Islam, is the source of instability in the Middle East.
His SecState John Kerry is also a weak, privileged man, who skillfully uses his Vietnam service to blunt any such criticism. He's played his Vietnam card for decades. Thank God he lost in 2004.
These two Harvard & Yale clowns will destroy your job, hug a tree, and then get you killed.
Now, while I do think Trump has been a valuable, refreshing addition to the campaign, I don't believe he is the correct solution to the problem, because he creates too much drama, and carries too much baggage. "Sending a message" to Washington, or to the establishment or to that squish Paul Ryan, may psychologically feel good, but actual winning an election will feel even better. Conservative Trump voters should give Cruz a fair shake. Cruz has a better shot than Trump to beat Hillary, which is all that matters.
There's nothing more philosophical than a leftist explaining away incompetence.
Nice try, Axelrod, but your dime store psychology only goes so far. Trump actually has quite a lot in common with Obama:
1) Both ran for president with very little or no political or government experience.
2) Both make vague promises to fix things with the power of will.
3) Both assume their "fix it" mentality is all it takes to overcome institutional, political and legal hurdles.
4) Both have a near cult-following among their supporters based on a faith that their leader can do no wrong.
5) Both are thin skinned and arrogant in personality.
6) Both have sneering contempt for their opponents and critics.
7) Both are comfortable abusing the power of the state to achieve their ends.
8) Both have been enabled by their side's hatred for the opposing party's term-limited incumbent (Bush for Obama, Obama for Trump) and a sense that the "conventional" party candidates won't be enough to overcome all the damage done.
The "antidote" to Obama would be a Republican who had experience, an understanding of the opposition, and detailed, logical plans for what he'd do once in office. With Trump we have the personification of a primal scream, raging into the night.
I think people are tired of the complexity of the situation
Well, I gotta admit, the world, the Mideast, Russia, China and Europe, have all gotten a lot more "complex" with Zero and the Vagina in charge of the USA. Way more complex.
Old Chinese curse (modified): May you live in Zero/Vagina Complex Times.
I agree. Trump is the anti-Obama. I don't agree with his explanation. :)
Axelrod: People are tired of Obama because he is so awesomely intelligent, thoughtful, and able to deal with complex situations with great nuance and Donald Trump is a boorish, simpleton demagog.
Obama is anti-American, so it is easy to be anti-Obama
Does Hillary have the balls to be the anti-Obama? Probably. Any volunteers to find out? Probably not.
That's about right. A true leader for Americans will replace a fake leader who is against Americans. Trump is the anti Anti-American.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page writers got it far better. They didn't so much suggest that Trump was the "anti-Obama," but that Trump was the reaction to Obama.
"The Obama-Trump Dialectic":
"Every thesis creates its antithesis, a famous philosopher once said, and so it is now in American politics. President Obama’s insistent failure to confront the realities of global jihad has produced its opposite in Donald Trump’s unfiltered nationalist id. This is a reminder of how much damage a misguided American President can do to the country’s political culture."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-obama-trump-dialectic-1449621957
I thought that this idea would be fleshed out a bit more, so I dug through the entire transcript, and that was essentially it. What I get from it is that Obama came across as weak, and that got him elected. Trump, and really most of the other Republicans, are portraying themselves as strong, esp. internationally, willing to use American force. And, I think that is going to be a winning strategy, esp. against Hillary, who sold American foreign policy to the highest bidder, raking in many millions to her husband and their foundation. It was turning against GW Bush (43) that got us, and the rest of the world, in such a mess, in terms esp. of the Middle East, ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.
Look at both San Bernadino and Paris. Radical Islam has struck, and both Obama and Hillary are pretending that it didn't happen. She apparently recently chose Minneapolis to speak on Islamic fundamentalism, the place with 30,000 Somali refugees, many of whom would apparently prefer living under Sharia law. She, and Obama, pretend that everything in fine, that these populations of fundamentalists pose no danger to our country. Etc. That sort of stick-your-head-in-the-sand type of mentality may have won Obama the election seven years ago, esp. with in a war weary country. But, it isn't going to win the election this time around. We have moved, in that seven years, a long way from feeling fairly safe, with Iraq under control, and Afghanistan getting there, to Iraq and Syria having blown up, Afghanistan going there, and both Russia and China resurgent and threatening. It is a much scarier world out there, and much of it can be blamed on Obama and Hillary, and their foreign policy of American appeasement and weakness.
And, yes, Trump is the best at this. And, a lot of people love the fact that he calls a spade a spade, or, rather, in this context, he calls Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists, and doesn't pretend that it doesn't have anything to do with their religion and 7th century mindset. There is a difference between different groups of Muslims, and you cannot generalize that most of them are peaceful, so ignore that some groups, notably Somali, Iraqi, Syrian, and Pakistani Muslims are esp. dangerous, with large percentages of recent immigrants from those countries wishing to live under Sharia law and be willing to kill for their religion. This is Obama's, and Hillary's, legacy - a large number of unreconstructed Muslim fundamentalists in our midst who are happy to kill for their faith.
He is the anti-Obama.
That ad makes itself
TL/DR: Republicans like Trump because they're idiotic knuckle draggers who can't understand Obama's masterful intellect.
I can't help but think that some of Trump's polling numbers are a massive trolling effort by pro-Clinton forces trying to drive moderate votes in her direction by tainting anything with (R) after its name.
Why?
1. Trump is a pretty bad Republican, and everyone thought he was a Dem until he announced his run.
2. He's a known friend of the Clintons.
3. Anecdotal, but .....All the actual Republicans (the kind who vote in primaries) I know loathe him.
I mean, he just seems to much like what a writer for the Nation would assume Republicans want. And it's so easy to lie to pollsters, or to pay people to show up to rallies......
I'm not a Cruz fan either (something slimy about that one...) But again... a lot of the actual primary-voting R's I know are deeply concerned by his smooth tongue and inexperience. He strikes many of us as "Obama from the other side of the aisle" and .... with the world falling apart, we can't afford another 4-8 years of "Smooth-tongued but unable to govern and compromise."
So, I can't help feeling that this whole primary is a massive Trolling effort. I'm hoping the primaries prove me right in this, because if it ends up Trump or Cruz vs. Clinton? I won't be voting in the Presidential race.
(Webb, I could have lived with. But he dropped out.)
@Cookie, many issues really are simple. The urge to declare them "complex" comes from disliking the obvious conclusion.
Trump is not the anti-Obama. He is the anti-establishment Trump's supporters hate Establishment Republicans as much as they do Obama and the Democrats.
You want to know why Trump is doing so well ? Look at the omnibus spending bill that the Republican Congress just passed. If that is the best a Republican House and Senate can do after two landslide elections, then what is the point of supporting and electing Republicans?
So, a toady for Obama is explicating the reason for Trump's Success. Is there any reason what-so-ever that we should believe he is an expert in this? No.
How hard would it be to find a coherent follower of Trump's to fly in from wherever to appear? Too hard, I guess. Instead we are presented with warmed-over probably-sober politicos who are cheap because they're available.
Robert Cook said...
What he's saying--and I agree with him--is that many voters do not want to hear complex issues discussed in complex terms; they want complex issues boiled down to dumb talking points--
Yeah, Obama sure took the complex non-talking-point approach when he accused Republicans of being scared of widows and orphans.
wendybar said...
Obama is anti-American, so it is easy to be anti-Obama
See, some things are simple, not complex.
One of the things a LIKE about Trump is that he actually likes the USA and wants to do what is best for the USA. I think our politicians should be doing what is best for the USA and the people already here (except for the ones who broke in, burglars should be prosecuted).
"@Cookie, many issues really are simple. The urge to declare them "complex" comes from disliking the obvious conclusion."
Few issues are really simple. Even those issues that are relatively simple are more complex than many want to recognize or deal with. The urge to declare them "simple" comes from disliking the difficulty of recognizing their complexity or of finding effective solutions to the issues. We have become habituated to wanting primitive solutions, aggressive or violent solutions, in the illusion that, as in the fictions of mass media, the purging of emotion expressed through a punch in the face or a shot to the head (or the mass jailing or deportation of masses of people) solves all. The consequences of our actions over the last decade and a half refute that illusion conclusively.
"Yeah, Obama sure took the complex non-talking-point approach when he accused Republicans of being scared of widows and orphans."
Don't assume I am talking about or in any way approve of Obama. I do not. He uses seemingly "complex" or "nuanced" means of expression to dissemble, to misdirect, to justify, to lie. Other times he resorts to such simple-minded and petty remarks as you refer to, and that serve no useful purpose at all.
It's grand to see someone standing up to Ms. Clinton in defense of the little people. She finally picked on someone her own size. It shouldn’t be long now before he starts carpet bombing given he’s already won the nomination it only makes sense to start the fight now (read his book if you haven’t). They have certainly given him no end of ammunition. Where the only sin is losing a war and having any ammo left. And all us abused kids (the little people standing around the playground will do nothing but cheer. Maybe enough to nominate Bernie. The Clinton's have a long history of abuse of the least of us to atone for. Gozer has arrived. And she just stuck her thumb in his eye. Might just as well blame the helpless disabled and their office Christmas party for San Bernardino. Where's Charles Dickens when we need him? Bill Murray should play the part of Mr. T.
It's great fun to imagine how this generation's T.R. will rise to the defense of all the women that this family and party have raped, literally and not. An innocent filmmaker is thrown in jail based on an accusation from a country that has no internet access whatsoever for the $1 a day plus food militia that killed our people (granted, it's just too hard for the NYT to life a phone). Consider that if he hadn’t “spoken” he wouldn’t have been imprisoned. Is this a country we can be proud of?. Ask any oilfield worker who has sweated in Libya. Certainly a secretary of state would either know this or call one of her predecessors that did, and call her intelligence chief on the carpet for causing her to look so stupid. Better yet, fire him for incompetence or dereliction of duty recalling the oath he swore.
All of us need to count our blessings. Remember we could be Sweden - then again, they are re-arming like mad, so we’re about to see a real-world measurable experiment on the proposition that wishful thinking as captured in the welfare state and regulation is enough to assure a civil society, much less utopia. Reminds me that now the Swedes in northern Maine and Minnesota have the same demographics, and are more peaceable than their home country, and almost a utopia. Amazing the ill’s that non-acclimated (non-shared values) diversity brings.
I need to go buy some more popcorn. It’ll be wonderful watching this bully and her family finally get their comeuppance. She picked on the wrong guy.
A glorious Christmas and a peaceful 2016 to you Ms. A and yours, and your readers. I find this blog a wonderful quick and eclectic read with my morning coffee as I start the day.
Gahrie can you please define "establishment Republicans"?
Anybody else want to take a shot at that?
I'd agree that it seems that many Trump supporters seem to have equal contempt for "establishment Republicans" (however that is defined) and "Democrats." That is what they say. Then why run as a Republican? I listen to the way that some of these folks talk about Republicans and I wonder why they are so determined to be included in that party.
It sure gives me reason to argue that the Republican Party should not bear any moral responsibility for Trump. And that is precisely what is going on in American media today. The usual left-wing pundits remarking about how the Trump phenomenon proves that the Republican Party operates on a wellspring of ignorance, racial hatred, bigotry and xenophobia. When in fact the guiding principle of Trumpism seems to be, "We will beat all of those people who you recognize as the Republican Party."
8) Both have been enabled by their side's hatred for the opposing party's term-limited incumbent (Bush for Obama, Obama for Trump) and a sense that the "conventional" party candidates won't be enough to overcome all the damage done.
I'd argue Trump has been MORE helped by the open disdain the GOP has shown its voters for years. It's hard to argue "He's not experienced" when the "experienced" guys keep passing terrible legislation and seem to oppose almost every conservative thought or idea.
If the GOP wasn't such a terrible party, Rubio would probably be running away with this. But he's too tied to the inept establishment.
I'd agree that it seems that many Trump supporters seem to have equal contempt for "establishment Republicans" (however that is defined) and "Democrats." That is what they say. Then why run as a Republican? I listen to the way that some of these folks talk about Republicans and I wonder why they are so determined to be included in that party.
Who do we mean by the Establishment?
McConnell is a biggie. The "campaign consultants" who make millions and don't care if they win. The contributors who want the government spigots turned on and the border wide open.
Look at who voted for the recent budget. THEY are the opponents of the base. What they passed was terrible and unpopular, so they just tied the Republican name to it. Look at who voted for the Corker Amendment, making the Iran deal law. Look at who caved, inside of two months, on Obama's immigration orders based on their asinine strategy.
They love themselves, not so much the country. If they loved the country, some of their screw-ups would've been to our benefit.
Gahrie can you please define "establishment Republicans"?
Well we can start with all of those who prefer to work with the Democrats rather than Conservatives and the Tea Party.
Now that I've answered your question, you answer mine:
Given the passage of the omnibus bill, just what difference did it make that we elected a Republican House and a Republican Senate?
Where did the Democrats lose and the Republicans win? Was spending cut? Was governmental misdeeds punished? Was Obamacare protected?
Obama is the sort of person for whom, if he finds the terrain looks different from his map, it is the terrain that is wrong.
It sure gives me reason to argue that the Republican Party should not bear any moral responsibility for Trump
You'd be exactly wrong.
The Republicans created Trump by not providing a loyal opposition to the Democratic party and the Washington establishment. They bear all of the moral responsibility.
If the Republicans had cut Democratic spending, punished the IRS, EPA, NASA and other Democratically controlled agencies, maybe tings would be different.
What has Republican control of Congress gotten us?
"Given the passage of the omnibus bill, just what difference did it make that we elected a Republican House and a Republican Senate?"
There's a lot to complain about in the omnibus spending bill, but do you really think Obama with a Democratic Senate and House could not have done far worse? For example, much higher spending, higher taxes, and a spate of new regulations, minimum wage hikes, and who knows what else? Things could always be worse.
As for "Republicans who prefer to work with Democrats" I see what you're getting at, but "establishment" isn't really the right word for them, as the establishment can include staunch conservatives as well as moderates. A better term is "weak willed" or "corrupt".
"I'd argue Trump has been MORE helped by the open disdain the GOP has shown its voters for years. It's hard to argue "He's not experienced" when the "experienced" guys keep passing terrible legislation and seem to oppose almost every conservative thought or idea."
That's also the same argument Obama used against Hillary in 2008. Both Obama and Trump's rises can be seen as disgust a lot of people have had with the "ins". What better way to register your feelings towards the connected Washington crowd than to support a guy who appears to be an outsider?
Trump is the anti-establishment? That's a start.
Robert Cook said...
What he's saying--and I agree with him--is that many voters do not want to hear complex issues discussed in complex terms; they want complex issues boiled down to dumb talking points--something is black/white, good/bad-- and they want everything handled simplistically and aggressively.
12/21/15, 7:33 AM "
Only the delusional see complexity where there is simplicity. Trump's appeal is in his cutting through the pretentious bullshit and getting to the point. As for the Middle East the thrust of his argument is Islam is a problem but the problem is not our problem. Let them solve their own problem and if they continue to persist being a problem for us,then smash them. Before we needed them for oil (what other value do they have? none.)and now we don't. It really is that simple. That is what Trump gets and the people who support him get. No contrived and irrelevant complexities needed.
Yes, the world is complex, both domesticly and internationally. But one can not lead and should not govern as if it was. This is not to say that solutions and policy are simple, far from it. But once deliberation has ended, they must be straight forward and consistent. The weakest, most irresolute, executives are those who feel the need to "show their work."
@Gahrie
You want to know why Trump is doing so well ? Look at the omnibus spending bill that the Republican Congress just passed. If that is the best a Republican House and Senate can do after two landslide elections, then what is the point of supporting and electing Republicans?
I agree that the omnibus spending bill is an abomination. I'm with you completely on the substance.
Here's where we may depart though -- one US Senator, who is also a Prez candidate, campaigned against this Omnibus Bill, voted against it, and has sharply criticized it, and those who voted for it or dodged it.
His name is Rand Paul. Yes, an honorable man. But, he is also stuck at 1 or 2% in the polls.
So, (1) Why aren't Conservatives rushing to support Rand Paul who is actually doing something against the "establishment" and (2) if they aren't, what does that tell us, politically, about the issue?
These are neutral questions -- I love your posts.
Blogger Gahrie said...
Gahrie can you please define "establishment Republicans"?
Well we can start with all of those who prefer to work with the Democrats rather than Conservatives and the Tea Party.
Now that I've answered your question, you answer mine:
Given the passage of the omnibus bill, just what difference did it make that we elected a Republican House and a Republican Senate?
Where did the Democrats lose and the Republicans win? Was spending cut? Was governmental misdeeds punished? Was Obamacare protected?
12/21/15, 9:42 AM"
This why the TEA Party came into being and this is why Trump right now has traction. As George Wallace once said about Republicans and Democrats;"there ain't a dime's worth of difference". So what would have happened if the government shuts down? Nothing. Obama and left can bitch all day long and the response by a competent opposition is we decide the spending and that is that. You can stop the shut down by stop playing games. No one who isn't dependent on government will notice a shut down and for those who are,that is not a problem that is of importance to taxpayers.
There's a lot to complain about in the omnibus spending bill, but do you really think Obama with a Democratic Senate and House could not have done far worse?
Worse? Perhaps, but far worse? How much worse could it get?
So, (1) Why aren't Conservatives rushing to support Rand Paul who is actually doing something against the "establishment"
Because Paul is a Libertarian, not a Conservative. They are looking for someone to push back in the social wars also, and Paul is on the other side for most of those.
and (2) if they aren't, what does that tell us, politically, about the issue?
It tells us that Libertarians are not Conservatives, and the Republican Party longs to be Conservative, not Libertarian.
That's also the same argument Obama used against Hillary in 2008. Both Obama and Trump's rises can be seen as disgust a lot of people have had with the "ins". What better way to register your feelings towards the connected Washington crowd than to support a guy who appears to be an outsider?
Absolutely. And his open disdain works for me. I love Cruz, also, because slugs like McConnell openly loathe him (I also think he's brilliant and his ideas have a good shot at being effective). If McConnell wanted to kill Trump, he should just say that he supports him completely.
@Gahrie
Disagree -- respectfully.
It tells us that Conservatives don't really care about the Omnibus Spending bill. If they did, they would be throwing a few kudos and coins to Rand Paul -- on this issue.
I do not see any complexity about bombs and bullets aimed in my direction.
You say this Trump chap is the anti-Obama? Hmmmm, might have to give him a closer look.
And anti-establishment Republican too?
By Jove, I think I like the cut of his jib!*
Actually I do NOT. But those two factors alone should be worth 30% in a Republican primary.
"Worse? Perhaps, but far worse? How much worse could it get?"
We got a taste of it in '09-'10, the most damaging part of it being the ACA which still won't be repealed as long as Obama is in the White House. But if he had a Democratic congress right now, he'd be passing additional funding for it (particularly the insurance risk corridors) and other legal changes to shore it up or even expand it. Right now we have gridlock, which I'm not happy with because entitlements are gradually getting worse, but I'd take gridlock over a government rapidly trying to take advantage of their majority and not letting a crisis go to waste.
Not that any of that excuses these spending bills (which remind me a lot of the pork bills of the Bush years) but every time I wonder "could things get worse" it seems they can.
What he's saying--and I agree with him--is that many voters do not want to hear complex issues discussed in complex terms; they want complex issues boiled down to dumb talking points--something is black/white, good/bad-- and they want everything handled simplistically and aggressively.
Cookie illustrates the singularly obnoxious libtard conceit that the liberal mind can grasp such exquisite complexity. How much smarter the liberal is compared to the rubes and hillbillies. And because they are so exquisitely brilliant and can grasp such complexity, they think they can act as brahmins and control everyone else's life for the common good. They think they are smart enough to allocate resources belonging to others and fix prices. They think they can repeal the economic cycle and wave a magic wand to make adverse selection in the health insurance market disappear. They think they can go on an apology tour of the middle east and all of a sudden the moojies will magically see things our way because the rubes in the prior administration were oh-so-stupid. They think they are smart enough, and their appointees are smart enough, to direct efforts and capital allocation better than the owners of capital.
And time and again their policies lead to disaster. They are the Clown Princes of Unintended Consequences. They produce chaos, death, shortages, and want at every turn, and they never learn. Their conceit that they are possessed of this subtlety of mind and time and again the actual track record shows that their nuanced understanding is not only not as nuanced as they think it is, but 180 degrees wrong.
It never occurs to them that there are limits to their expertise. It never occurs to them that perhaps they cannot possibly be expected to be experts on everything. And so they think they can run a health care system. They put a 30 year old whiz kid in charge of the automobile industry. They run school lunch programs from Washington. They overrule local commanders' targeting decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan and wonder why they don't get results.
It never ends with these people.
And the more easily someone cuts through their bullshit with a single telling word or phrase, the more they convince themselves that they are the the enlightened ones, and the hillbilly who simply points out that the emperor has no clothes is simply not educated enough or worldly enough to perceive the painfully exacting subtlety of the situation. It's the hillbilly's fault, the hater!!!
We got a taste of it in '09-'10, the most damaging part of it being the ACA which still won't be repealed as long as Obama is in the White House.
As of now, do you really think the GOP Establishment wants it gone? I do not. They already had plans drawn up to replace the subsidies if the SCOTUS outlawed them.
Gahrie I have answers to all of your questions. They are painfully bland, ordinary and obvious.
Yes, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate mean something. They meant that we got no more ObamaCares, Dodd-Franks and no Climate Change treaties. They meant that the sequester -- the biggest, baddest (and ironically unintended) budget cuts in history stayed in place.
The House majority gave us the Benghazi Committee. The Senate majority meant that we started getting all new sorts of judicial nominees out of the White House.
I was personally disappointed with the Omnibus; but no serious person thinks that Republicans would be able to defund Planned Parenthood without a government shutdown, which would have been blamed (mostly unfairly) on the Republicans alone, by the mainstream media. Likewise, I think that most of the ten issues that Conservative Review outlined would have been a shutdown issue:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2014/12/top-10-problems-with-omnibus-budget-bill
The simple fact is that the ONE AND ONLY way to roll back the Obama years is to do it the way that Obama installed it in the first place. House and Senate majorities with the White House. We have to win the White House. We have to win the White House. We have to win the White House. We need a candidate who can unite Republicans, excite them, and bring in enough independents to win. We actually need somebody with coattails long enough to help in some tight Senate races.
Democrats won the House and Senate in the last term of the George W. Bush Administration. They didn't self-immolate because they didn't get their way overnight. They rolled out their new bumper sticker: "We need a better president." And after a bitter primary battle, they got their guy. Barack Obama, the Democratic Marco Rubio.
We have to win the White House. We have to win the White House. We have to win the White House. We need a candidate who can unite Republicans, excite them, and bring in enough independents to win. We actually need somebody with coattails long enough to help in some tight Senate races.
Blah blah blah...we've heard it all before. We have to nominate someone moderate to win the independents. Conservatives bite the bullet, and vote for the establishment guy.
Then we spend the next four or eight years listening to excuses as to why the Conservative issues are ignored as the Republican establishment works with the Democrats to govern instead.
So who's the savior this time? Jeb?
Jason, you're making baseless claims and assumptions again. I merely said "many voters," I did not specify any party or voter segment. I think the tendency is widespread, a result of our visual culture.
Democrats won the House and Senate in the last term of the George W. Bush Administration. They didn't self-immolate because they didn't get their way overnight
But they did get their way overnight. Look at the budgets Bush's last two years in office after the Democrats took control of Congress. They passed a minimum wage increase and ended tax subsidies to oil companies. They attempted to attack the pharma companies through medicare, and devote money to stem cell research. (the Republicans won't even try to pass Conservative legislation)
"I do not see any complexity about bombs and bullets aimed in my direction."
There are no bombs and bullets aimed in your direction. Worry more about the vastly higher likelihood you'll die in a car crash or household accident, or from cancer or other illness caused by industrial pollution, than from a terrorist event.
That said, there are always complexities, even about bombs a bullets aimed in one's direction.
But they did get their way overnight. Look at the budgets Bush's last two years in office after the Democrats took control of Congress. They passed a minimum wage increase and ended tax subsidies to oil companies. They attempted to attack the pharma companies through medicare, and devote money to stem cell research. (the Republicans won't even try to pass Conservative legislation)
That's my thing. Republicans were voted to STOP Obama...and they won't. They won't even really TRY. They engage in, to use Ace of Spades' term, "failure theatre". They are setting themselves up to fail, but they want to LOOK like they're trying super hard.
Here, serendipitously published just today, are some complexities that have to do with bombs and bullets aimed in one's direction.
They meant that the sequester -- the biggest, baddest (and ironically unintended) budget cuts in history stayed in place.
By the way, Sen. Reid is bragging about how the sequester cuts are gone after the omnibus was passed.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out a significant Republican victory in the omnibus bill.
Post a Comment