Caius
Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
|
See, this is how the worst of the talking heads perpetuate their popularity during the periods when the party they support is on the defensive. Whipping their supporters into a fervor with vitriol is an all-too-familiar tactic, of course, but people underestimate the more subtle but arguably more crucial factor - they do everything in their power to create the illusion of mass popular support for their positions that simply does not exist and to convince their audience that they are just the tip of the iceberg of a vast ground-swell of rebellion that is about to erupt at any moment. Once put into this mode as member of a defiant union of the disenfranchised they are pretty firmly inoculated from the idea that there is any benefit to compromise or need to accept any element of the policies of 'usurping' bastards in power,who just refuse to head the will of the American people. It's really a little genius. Assuming they don't believe their own hype. When they do it's perhaps better classified as an idiot-savant-like, highly effective display of self-important grandstanding.
I mean, come on man, give a little nod to reality here. I'll admit there's a lot that is up in the air for the next round of congressional elections, but the smart money is on the democrats easily maintaining a slightly more slim majority at worst. There's actually a very real possibility they will pick up more seats than they lose. As for Obama failing to be re-elected...even from years away I feel pretty confident in saying that your hopes there are an utter pipe dream. To say that he will lose by one of the largest margins in U.S. history suggests that you have a rather tenuous grasp on the realities of the contemporary political landscape. And unless you want stew in resentment, you'd be best off coming to terms with those realities, because in all-likelihood Obama is not just going to win that election, he's going to come out of it more popular than ever.
Forgive the divergence into history, but what people seem to be forgetting, what any beginning student of U.S. history ought to recognize, is that this has all happened before, with arguably America's most successful politician, FDR. Roosevelt also rode into power on populist momentum fueled by the generations worst economic meltdown and mass distaste for perceived ineffectiveness and corruption of the Republican party and he too faced a steep upward battle in his first term from a incised and rallying ultra-conservative core as he instituted broad policies to stimulate economic recovery and create a much broader system of social support for the needy. It's important to note here that Roosevelt's policies were much more massive and notably more progressive for their time than Obama's and the Republican resistance (especially the influential and wealthy industrial elites) even more fervent than teabaggers.
And what was the ultimate outcome? Roosevelt's semi-restrained smirk staring up at you from the dime as if he just porked your mother and is avoiding eye contact with you only out a courteous decision not to rub it in. Yes, the conservative core threw everything they had at him and indeed made some early gains, crippling many of his most progressive policies, sewing some of the greatest political discord in American history that didn't lead to outright war. But as his economic policies (agreed by economic historians on both sides of the aisle to have been prudent if not outright brilliant) began to bear fruit and pull America from depression, it became apparent that the Republican assault had failed, and in many ways backfired, and that Roosevelt, already wildly popular for his social stances, would indeed win reelection (by a landslide) and be around for another term. Only it wasn't just one more term. He went on to win the presidency two more times, twice the number of any other president in American history. And all of this despite his taking America out of its then-beloved isolationism and interning American citizens without legal cause on the basis of race. After he succumbed to complications from his paralytic polio, and the collective sphincter of the Republican body relaxed just a little, people decided there might be some good cause in limiting the number of terms a president could conserve, just in case someone came along who could make as many people's balls tingle as FDR, someone that wasn't also the best Daddy America had ever known.
Point is this, chief, better get some antacids to help you swallow that bile, because there is every indication that Obama could end up being the most popular president of your lifetime. You don't have to like the man or his policies, but don't bury your head in the sand about the basic power of the strategy and positions he's chosen have in American politics, you'll only end up more the bitter.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: domiguy
More importantly why did you start the same thread as FatDomSaniddy did...Isn't that against tos?
Maybe beause all of the bitching you did to the mods got it moved before he could see it???
The fact is... you would have NEVER allowed Bush 43 get away with bowing to the Chi-Coms without roasting him live on the boards.
And look.... you will not have to worry about President Obama disappointing you for much longer, he will only be cowtowing to the next Republican Congress for two years before he gets defeated by one of the largest margins in US History... if he even runs again.
< Message edited by Caius -- 4/13/2010 5:09:32 PM >
|
RE: A bow to iron-fisted tyrants - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread