DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 09, 2010, 05:33:29 PM
-
The Great Obamalacking of 2010
"Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet! Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-yummy!" -- Cartman, South Park
Admittedly, it has been a lot of fun to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Left after the savage beating they received on election day. However, it's more than a little disturbing that almost no one on the Left seems to think they lost because they actually did a bad job.
In other words, according to liberals:
- Obamacare,
- the failure of the stimulus,
- Obama bowing to foreign leaders,
- the way they handled the BP oil spill,
- trying to close Guantanamo,
- not reading bills before they passed them,
- cash for clunkers,
- talking up amnesty,
- trying to pass card check and cap and trade,
- taking over student loans,
- refusing to seriously address the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
- taking over GM and Chrysler,
- doing nothing to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,
- dropping the Black Panther intimidation case,
- expanding the bailouts
- and raising spending up to frightening levels
had nothing whatsoever to do with why they lost.
What did? Well, here are the extremely lame excuses that seem to keep cropping up again and again.
1) The voters are racists: Really? Did people somehow fail to notice Obama was black when they voted him into office? Moreover, how is it that voting out white liberals like Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson is racist? Is it just because they're in the same party as Obama? If so, was it racist to vote in Republicans like Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, and Allen West? How is it those "teabaggers" are supposedly diehard racists, but they were usually the biggest supporters of conservative minorities who ran for office?
2) The voters are stupid, angry, and had a temper tantrum: Ever notice that voters never have "temper tantrums" when they're replacing Republicans with Democrats? That's just democracy at work. But, when it goes the other way, then suddenly America is a giant romper room and liberals are the condescending nannies who need to teach the whiny babies how good socialism, government, and appeasement are for them. Here's a crazy thought: Maybe the voters are the real adults and after punishing the Republicans for not putting away their toys, they're punishing the Democrats for getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
3) It's the economy, stupid: Had the economy been thriving instead of tanking, there's no question that the Democrats would have done better at the polls. Still, a bad economy during a mid-term election is hardly a rarity, and this was the worst shellacking a party has suffered since 1948. If you want a fairly comparable example, look back to 1982 during Reagan's first term when the economy was about as bad as it is today. The results? The GOP lost 26 seats and actually gained one in the Senate. The economy may have been a factor, but it's impossible to argue that it was a decisive factor in the great Obamalacking of 2010.
4) Obama compromised too much with the Republicans: Laugh if you want, but you hear this EVERYWHERE on the Left. According to liberals, Obama would have had a much bigger stimulus and single payer health care if not for his deep desire to work with Republicans. There are many problems with this theory, starting with the fact that Republicans almost unanimously opposed those programs. Making some very minor changes, in an attempt to pick off Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, doesn't constitute any sort of meaningful compromise. Moreover, for much of the last two years, Obama could have passed that legislation without any Republican votes, but more moderate members of his own party weren't willing to go quite as far as the Left wanted. Given that many of these very same Blue Dogs lost their jobs for going too far to the Left as is, if anything, it would have been politically smart for them to drive Obama much further to the center. Last but not least, there's very little evidence that pushing single payer or a bigger stimulus would have made the impossible-to-please professional Left any happier or made the bills any more popular or effective. If the American people rejected Democratic policies as is, there?s no reason to think they would have embraced Dems had they done the ?Full Lenin? and gone even further to the Left.
5) After the Citizens United decision, Republicans were able to buy the election: The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a victory for free speech and despite the Democrats? claims to the contrary, it didn't unleash any sort of flood of foreign money into the election process. Not only does election law require all foreign money to be firewalled off political contributions, Democrats took in more "foreign money" than Republicans. Additionally, the Democrats outspent the GOP overall. So, if money were really the issue, Democrats would have gained seats instead of taking a "shellacking."
6) The Democrats didn't trumpet their accomplishments: This is another ever present theme of the Left -- the Democrats accomplished so much, but they just didn't tell people about it. Of course, there's an incredibly obvious reason for that. The American people hated the Democratic agenda with all the intensity of a nuclear blast. That's why the Democratic Party's "accomplishments" were discussed in great detail all across the country -- by Republican candidates.
7) Obama didn't do a good enough job of communicating his policies: But, wait: I thought Barack Obama was supposed to be the greatest political communicator since Reagan? Wasn't this a man who was elected largely because he could give a great speech? Moreover, hasn't Barack Obama spent more time publicly discussing his policies than any other President in history? Hasn't the mainstream media incessantly discussed, promoted, and told us how wonderful Barack Obama's policies are? Claiming that communication was the problem is sort of like claiming the problem with the desert is that it's not hot enough and it needs a little more sand.
I wonder which excuse Xo is going with (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/11/09/7_lame_liberal_excuses_for_the_2010_election_shellacking)
-
I'll go with #3
-
I'll go with
- Obamacare,
- the failure of the stimulus,
- Obama bowing to foreign leaders,
- the way they handled the BP oil spill,
- trying to close Guantanamo,
- not reading bills before they passed them,
- cash for clunkers,
- talking up amnesty,
- trying to pass card check and cap and trade,
- taking over student loans,
- refusing to seriously address the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
- taking over GM and Chrysler,
- doing nothing to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,
- dropping the Black Panther intimidation case,
- expanding the bailouts
- and raising spending up to frightening levels
-
Nah, it's the economy that caught peoples attention. And the fact that what the dems were trying to do to fix it, wasn't trickling down to them.
-
I'll go with
- Obamacare,
- the failure of the stimulus,
- Obama bowing to foreign leaders,
- the way they handled the BP oil spill,
- trying to close Guantanamo,
- not reading bills before they passed them,
- cash for clunkers,
- talking up amnesty,
- trying to pass card check and cap and trade,
- taking over student loans,
- refusing to seriously address the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
- taking over GM and Chrysler,
- doing nothing to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,
- dropping the Black Panther intimidation case,
- expanding the bailouts
- and raising spending up to frightening levels
Ah so you are echoing Hawkins.
-
ahhhh, something you finally got right. Of course you could say it's Hawkins echoing me, since I've made the same references of Obama's failures, multitudes of time, prior to this article 8)
-
So you posted Hawkins's article as some type of self affirmation?
-
Yea, that has to be it ::)
-
Cool. I'm on a roll.
-
Yea, you got 1 right response so far, as it relates to all these posts the last day+. Be proud
-
Only 1? I'll just have to try harder.
-
Only 1?
As far as your accusations and claims of sirs' positions on recent issues......yep
-
Right. Like you aren't known for misrepresenting positions.
-
and your BEST example would be........?
-
The KO thread ::)
-
Yea, the KO thread is a perfect example of yours, I agree. Still waiting for this best example of mine. Specifics please, with the astute explanation of "how"
-
::)
-
Didn't think you were going to find one. Here, lemme show a specific one, one of many in the KO thread:
Absolutely. Need to focus on that speck in someone else's eye
That plus campaign donations are free speech.
Yea.... and? (Demonstrating immediately how this isn't a free speech issue, as I questioned your bringing it into the debate)
You are the one who said KO shouldn't have been Ko'd. What was your reasoning if not that it was a free speech issue? (noting now not just the error in free speech, but how I'm supposedly changing my position on KO'ing, KO)
a) it wasn't me that initiated a KO KO thread
b) it's NOT a free speech issue, and never was. It's a hypocrisy issue, and always has been (again, reinforcing what this issue has been all about)
Sure it is. (a supposed free speech issue, bold emphasis being mine) Next thing you know you will be all in favor of Campaign Finance Reform
See? Now, your turn. Please demonstrate your best example of my supposed misrepresentation within the KO thread
-
Gonna have defend Keith as well, on this one. We all know what a fringe left lunatic he is. Why on earth would it be a problem for hom to donate to some Democrats? How can that possibly "taint" Keith's supposed "objectivity" given his SOP? Now, I can understand if there's a policy already in place that says you can't, and him having done so was merely an effort to play the old "rules don't apply to me" liberal MO, but come on, why is there a policy in the 1st place, when you hire someone who's so far left, he's nearly right?
So why are you against the policy?
-
How is that even remotely addressing your claim of misrepresentation? When your wrong Bt, just say so. This dog & pony deflection show is getting quite tedious to those who frequent our saloon.
If you want to start a different topic or tangent, by all means, start a new thread, and i'll respond to that
-
It's really simple. You said I said this was all about free speech. And that is not what i said. Now if you want to cut or run or claim migraine disability that's fine.
This dog & pony deflection show is getting quite tedious to those who frequent our saloon.
BTW when did you get elected to be spokesperson for the saloon?
-
It's really simple. You said I said this was all about free speech.
And I demonstrated exactly where:
Sirs: it's NOT a free speech issue, and never was. It's a hypocrisy issue, and always has been
Bt: Sure it is. Next thing you know you will be all in favor of Campaign Finance Reform
Now, waiting for you to demonstrate how I misrepesented you here in the KO thread with the appropriate comments. But if you wish to claim ::) disability, that's fine too
And that is not what i said. Now if you want to cut or run or claim migraine disability that's fine.
No need....reading comprehension is all that's required. For those with a vision impairment, they may need glasses, to read that which was typed for all to see. And for those with a speaking impairment, might i recommend a teleprompter
This dog & pony deflection show is getting quite tedious to those who frequent our saloon.
BTW when did you get elected to be spokesperson for the saloon?
Don't recall ever claiming so
-
Then why are you speaking for those that frequent the saloon?
-
Yea, great specific reference to my supposed misrepresentations, requested....about 10posts ago now, and counting. 8)
-
Then why are you speaking for those that frequent the saloon?
Your words. Why did you say them. Simple question.
-
And now we're at 12posts and counting. Simple question, 12posts ago
-
So you refuse to answer?
-
14posts now....yea, by this time, I guess that can be officially concluded as a refusal. I guess you could claim the ::) disability
-
Another migraine or do you detect quicksand?
-
...and we're at 16.
For the rest of those, perhaps just noting this particular post, just go back 16responses, and you'll see what simple question hasn't been answered, and by whom.
Here's a hint, it's actually a question that has some substance to the points being made, and not a deflection effort that has any relevence to this or any other thread
-
Must be that you detected quicksand.
That's OK, I forgive you.
-
18 and counting
-
18 and counting
Are you counting all the posts or just mine?
-
Each post since the original "simple question" was posed, and still yet to be answered. Should be 20 now, or about there