Gosh, if you’ve been reading Digby, Paul Krugman or Charles Pierce (among many, many others) you’d think that Mitt Romney was Thurston Howell III born with a silver horse in his mouth. He’s out of touch, insensitive and politically tone deaf. And rich. And his rich friends are arrogant, condescending, name dropping uber contributors of the 1% who think they are more equal than the rest of us.
There’s nothing to like about this guy. Seriously. He is very unlikeable. Plus, he’s a Mormon. Those damn Mormons. I think they have some weird eugenics program where they only breed good looking ones that have outwardly perfect families and where the mother has a homemaking blog and does interior design in her DIY tiny house that she built herself while caring for 4 small children under the age of 3. Don’t ask me how she does it but women like her make other women feel inadequate.
Mormons and scientologists. I’m always disappointed when I run across a blogger or celebrity who is a believer of either religion. I feel like they’ve let me down. Like Elizabeth Moss who plays Peggy Olsen on Mad Men? Every time I see her on TV, it’s like she’s got “SCIENTOLOGIST” stamped in spacey ultraviolet across her forehead. I can’t get past it. She might be the best damn ad copywriter in Manhattan but she still thinks she’s full of engrams and that’s where the careful constructed illusion of the brilliant writers falls apart for me. I *almost* buy into her character and then, boom, there I am, thinking about Sea Org instead of her Heinz bean pitch.
Who in their right mind believes that humans who pass all their earthly tests may get their own planet someday, or are the re-embodied spirit enemies of an intergalactic overlord named Xinu? Who really believes that stuff? It’s like fairy tales and horror stories and the made up religion of a con man. But whatever. There are some mainstream people who believe in trees with magical fruit and talking snakes, so, you know, Mormons aren’t so far out there when you think about it. Still, if you’re going to start a religion in the modern age, why wouldn’t you create a story that’s a bit more believable, unless religions have to be unbelievable to be believed in one of those weird manifestations of human psychology. Maybe Joseph Smith would have been the first guy to think up the Nigerian bank scam email if he were alive today. I think that’s why I get so disappointed when I find out a blogger is a Mormon. I understand (sort of) why the Judeo-Christian religions took root. They’re too old to have had a conman starting them. They’re the aggregation of myths and histories and traditions over thousands of years. Sure, it’s time to retire them for an updated God v2.0 but I can understand why it’s harder to resist religions that are so entrenched. But Mormonism and Dianetics? People should know better.
I wandered significantly off topic there.
Ok, so the topic wasn’t really Mormonism (or Thetans). The topic is that despite the non-Mormon related glaring faults of the Republican candidate, and all of his lackeys, he is still in a statistical dead heat with Barack Obama. Yep, you’d think with all that Obama supposedly has going with him, he’d be kicking Mitt’s ass all over Utah. But that’s not what’s happening.
And if you look at the numbers, it’s not like the Republicans love their candidate. They don’t. It’s just that he is their instrument to score one against the Democrats. It’s up to the political scientists to tell us why this is but my opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Barack Obama doesn’t really stand for anything except persistant failure over the past four years. It is because he is running on his “achievements” and his “achievements” were not transformative that he is having trouble. If he’d done something earth shaking in the Democratic tradition, voters would have a more defined opinion of him. They’d either love him or hate him. A Republican Town Hall meeting might end up going something like this:
But the healthcare reform act didn’t actually do much. A lot of the ACA isn’t going to go into effect until 2014 so there’s no way to say whether it is a success yet. And the ACA doesn’t really make any bold transformative changes anyway. It’s not like the WPA or Social Security or Medicare that had a lot of popular support. There won’t be enough personal testimonies before election day. Instead, there is persistent unemployment and an unending drag on the economy as our jobs, wages and standard of living are eroded away.
Sure, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress. But this president didn’t bother to differentiate himself. When The Village repeatedly urged him to compromise bipartisanly against our better judgement, he did. Well, Ok then. Now that we’ve run that experiment and have shown conclusively that it does not appear to work with this group of Republicans, the White House should have grown a unibrow and gotten tough, not doubled down on a wimpy losing strategy.
I love how Paul Krugman keeps yelling at the Tom Friedman types to stop pining for a centrist because they already have one in Obama. But in these poll numbers, that’s part of the problem. The public doesn’t see Obama as the centrist that he is. They see him as a liberal Democrat, which he most certainly is not. If he were a liberal Democrat, promoting liberal Democratic things and rallying the Democrats in Congress with purpose to help homeowners and working people, he wouldn’t be tied in the polls with a clueless, wealthy Mormon. He’d be eating the Mormon’s decaffeinated lunch. I don’t think Americans think Obama cares all that much about them. A lot of that has to do with the right wing noise machine. But let’s remember that the noise machine and Congressional opposition was just as strong against Bill Clinton and he wasn’t tied with Bob Dole at this point in 1996.
You can blame racism on the tie but politicos who do that are only making it worse for Obama. To blame the voters ignores the real, lasting effects of this prolonged recession on our society. Everyone knows someone who doesn’t have a job or is losing their house or can’t afford their student loans. There’s a lot of anger. There’s a lot of confusion by the right wing about what the solution should be to fix these problems. And there’s also a candidate who will be held responsible for not putting more effort into doing his job.
No matter how unlikeable you make his opponent, this election was always going to be a referendum on Obama. That’s what the polls are saying and what we have been saying all along.
Filed under: General | Tagged: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Mormonism, Scientology, Sea Org, Washington Post-ABC News poll, What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us? |
The Confluence 
It just isn’t Obama, Nancy Pelosi shares a good bit of the blame too. Remember how she punctured the balloon in 2006 with her “Impeachment is off the table” remark?
With those five words she gave Democratic party approval to everything George the Lesser did or let happen the previous six years. Failing to parade Wall street banksters before the House in orange jump suits cemented the opinion that Democrats were every bit as venial as republicans and didn’t give squat about Joe and Jane Sixpack. The only thing Democrats got going for them is their machine, that the only thing that can explain why some of them get re-elected.
George the Lesser left Washington with an approval in the high twenties it’s that same group labels Obama as a Commie.
I think that the rest of his negatives comes from voters like us who know the Democratic party elite sold us out at the RBC meeting and the national convention and those O-bots that had a rude awakening since.
Remember after his relentless Hillary bashing Chris Matthews shamelessly said his mission was to help Obama succeed?
He should keep up the good work. 🙂
Obama is wimpy? C’mon, you’re killing me.
Obama has institutionalized all Bush’s worst policies. Obama’s policies are identical to those of Bush. I thought Bush’s policies[R] sucked, now that Obama has adopted Bush’s policies and added the [D] imprinteur, I STILL think Bush’s policies suck. Once more, I think Bush’s policies suck even when it is a “Democrat” Obama that is implementing them. In fact, it’s worse, because when Democrats support Bush’s policies through the agency of Obama they become institutionalized into the fabric of government.
Nevertheless, Obama will be re-elected with a comfortable margin. But let’s remember, Obama has done an outstanding job protecting financial criminals by putting a Wall Street lawyer at AG and a right wing Republican at Treasury. I’d go on with the list of Wall street lacky’s Obama has promoted…but it’s a waste of ink.
Matching Bush in the warmongering department, Obama also escalated the Af-Pak troop level from 18,000 to 138,000 with disastrous results. And hey, there is the Obama led overthrows in Honduras, Libya and now Syria which has led to a right wing Junta, an Al Qaeda back government and soon a radical Islamic republic.
“Obama’s hands are tied” c’mon?
As of 01-MAY-2012, 1,275 of the 1,844 U.S. troops killed in the Afghanistan conflict have been killed since President Barack Obama took office. In that time the Taliban has grown stronger. So that’s about 70% of those who have died did so in Obama’s ~3.5 years. Heck-of-a-job.
Guantanamo and other torture facilities, which hold prisoners of questionable provenance, are under the Presidents sole authority, they are manned by US Army Soldiers. By the US Governments estimates, 40-60% of the prisoners are innocent of ANY wrong doing. The big bad Republicans have no say in it staying open, only Obama has that power…and it is Obama who wants the innocent men held… Why? To avoid having the US Government sued for wrongful imprisonment?
To say Obama is not responsible for wars continuation, is not only is a false precept, it sounds eerily like the excuses mumbled at Nuremberg. Obama as PRESIDENT & CIC has the power to end any armed conflict, WITH…OR WITHOUT, CONGRESSES APPROVAL. Nor was it some “Republican” controlled congress that “forced” Obama to commit wars of aggression in Honduras, Libya and now Syria, it was Obama alone. The Democrats appear to be as bloodthirsty as the Republicans…and we’ve known that since 2006 when the Dems gained control of both houses…something they held until the US populous gave up on Dems in 2010
And let’s not forget Obama’s ongoing efforts to destroy Social Security. Something even Bush was afraid to do…no Obama is tough, the perfect right winger…he’s good as gold to America’s short sighted money men.
I think the US would be better off by repudiating the policy of the Bush/Obama years. But it won’t happen, Obama will cake walk this election, however, his initial mandate will be gone because…he sat on his ass in his first two years…remember, he controlled both houses and had a mandate for reform?
The “choice” is this; two incompetent men of low moral character.
Romney will try to nominate more folks like Roberts to the Supreme Court, Obama will continue his crusade to destroy Social Security Insurance. Obama has shown a taste for blood, Romney may or may not have the stomach for killing and endless wars.
Neither will be US President in 2017, however, when Obama wins, the Democrats will have rejected the policies of FDR and returned the nation to the vulgarities and uncertainties that the 19th century offered…without the populous having the protection of the nationalism that prevailed at the time.
Sure the right wing birthers are nuts, but it was Obama’s agent that published an account that Obama was born in Kenya…now where did that he get that BS from huh? Like the rest of Obama’s “autobiography”, it’s pure hokum. Ask yourself, who gets an advance to write an autobiography at 34 when you haven’t done anything of merit?
Elections have no real effect on government policy. Policy is determined by the interests of the financial oligarchy that dominates both political parties. Obama has served those people well by delivering the Democratic party over to the dark side.
Actually Bush wasn’t afraid to try destroying SS, he tried very hard.
The Democrats opposed it at the time because it was a R president trying to achieve it, and because Joshua Micah Marshall used his TPM blog to organize naming and shaming of those Democrats who were set to co-conspire with the Bushites against SS.
Notice how Joshua Micah Marshall has done no such naming and shaming of Democrats who are collaborating with Obama’s sly long-game plot to destroy SS by attritional weakening and salami tactics.
If Obama is re-elected, he and the Democrats will achieve their long range goal of destroying SS. Whereas if Romney is elected, the Senate Democrats might maybe defend SS agains a Republican getting to take credit for destroying it.
Elect Romney to save Social Security from the Simpson-Obama Catfood Conspiracy. That’s what I’m going to do. Voting third party doesn’t guarantee the removal of Obama the way voting Romney might. ( I didn’t used to think that way, but the survival stakes are just too high now. Obama MUST be defeated, as his former law professor said; and a vote FOR Romney counts twice as hard against Obama as a vote Third Party. And of course I will vote for Stabenow and Dingell along with Romney in hopes that the House and Senate Dems
will lock Romney’s grid. Lock it down good. Lock it up tight.)
Yeah, Marshall’s been a fraudster for a quite a while…here’s a post on him just the other day…
S Brennan permalink
July 9, 2012
This “corporate lackey” disease is also part of the blog world…
Today we have a blogger by the name of Josh[let’s invade Iraq]Marshall making fun of Romney for have a shindig in the Hamptons.
Well, why not you say?
Well, because Josh[let’s invade Iraq] Marshall ALSO had a big shindig out in the Hamptons and there is no mention that Josh runs in the same [if aspiring] circles…and I think that’s a pretty relevant data point.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/it_must_have_been_grand.php
Is there a linkable referrence to Mr. Marshall’s shindig in the Hamptons? If that could be linkably demonstrated, it could be leveraged for use against Marshall to humiliate him into organizing another “name and shame” campaign against Obama’s Catfood Collaborators at the very least.
Google is not what it used to be, but Josh can’t hide from this one, back in 2005 Josh Marshall married Millet Israeli in the Hamptons, it was posted in Steve Clemons blog.
bwah ha ha ha! He can plead “wedding”, but still, there you go. And thanks.
Scientology is a real hot button issue for me. Why the leadership of that cult is not IN JAIL, I’ll never know.
As far as Obama? He is a mass of Nixon goes to China moments. He’s much, much, much worse than Mitt would ever be because he gets away with these things….starting with the health insurance (not care) bill. I’m sure SS is next.
A few years ago I remember reading that Scientology was discovered to have infiltrated agents INto the FBI and the IRS. Perhaps that measure of secret control of those institutions (or at least receipt of warnings) from withIN those institutions contributed some to Scientology’s Cloak of Shielding. I remember thinking: damn!
infiltrated the FBI and IRS? those guys are good.
The LDS Church has a large presence in the FBI and the Treasury Department.
Bizarre. I had no idea.
Anyway, I’m still disappointed with anyone who becomes a Mormon or Scientologist voluntarily or who doesn’t grow out of it if they were raised that way. They’re sillier than Christian fundamentalism.
I have read/heard that. In the LDS case, I suspect it is not so much TO infiltrate, but rather an authoritarian cultureset drawn to authoritarian hierarchical organizations . . . but I am willing to hear theories to the contrary.
Of course people with the straight-arrow appearance-cover of the Mormons would be uniquely placed to do spying and other internal damage if they rose up in such organizations and then went stealth-rogue along the way. Hanssen at FBI was a Mormon and his straight-arrow image and bearing prevented people from seeing what they were looking at for the longest time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
Obama a “centrist”? I think MIQ2XU referred to Obama very recently over at TCH as a “fascist neo-liberal”, and I think that is correct.
Speaking of language, I wonder if there is a way to introduce some more fine-grainedly analytical terms into the language naming the One Percent? Building on the title of Ferdinand Lundberg’s book The Rich And The Superrich might be a starting point. Who are the One Percent? The affluent, the rich, and the superrich. The superrich are the deadly menace, and the affluent and the rich are their protective armor which we have to work around or punch through in order to get to the superrich.
Or traditional phrases like the Power Elite or the Ruling Classes.
Or maybe an acronym which will either take off memewise or else die of neglect . . . . AR&S which stands for Affluent, Rich and Superrich.
The ARSes. I like it.
The ARSes. I like it. 😀
Fly little meme, fly. Grow big of beak and swift of wing.
By the way, I was never a botanist but I a very lowest level sometime-botany-buff. Did you say you were a botanist? If so, what branch of botany (if it is any of my bussiness . . . )
Systematic botany, i.e. evolution of plants, species concepts, that kind of thing. When I started the techniques included field work and study of the whole plants. As time went by it became pretty much all molecular work all the time.
Systematic botany, i.e. evolution of plants, species concepts, and that kind of thing. When I started, the techniques involved field work and study of whole plants. As time went by, it became all-molecular, all the time. Interesting times.
When I was a troubled young person at U of M, I took Systematic Botany under Professor Wagner. I got more out of it than my poor grade would seem to indicate, and I still have valuable memories.
Sorta on topic– this post, http://www.economist.com/node/21558275/comments#comments, sent me into a blogging furor. The comments are especially “educational” at exposing me as a “racist.”
I think the Scientologists must be drooling at the prospect of Romney in the White House. Mormonism is the missing link between Christianity and Scientology, and Romney taking the presidency paves the way for the Hubbardians.
I’m not sure Obama can win re-election. Revelations about Romney’s tax-free riches sunning themselves in tropical climates is apparently not annoying Joe and Jane Sixpack. His bizarro religion is not annoying them. His cold-fish personality is not annoying them. His loose acquaintance with the truth is not annoying them. The fact that “Obamacare” is actually “Romneycare” on a bigger stage is not annoying them. Maybe something will yet be revealed about Romney that will tick them off, or maybe we’ll all suddenly be fully employed and gas prices will drop and credit will loosen up again in the next couple of months. Or maybe Romney will be the next president.
Same/same, if you ask me.
r u reddy: I’m not a huge Stabenow fan, but I’ll definitely vote for her over Hoekstra!
Well, yes . . . and if Romney is President, she will be challenged to fend of all Romnoid attacks on Social Security as a “Democrat”. It would be an acid test of her and the other “Democrats”.
Whereas we already know what she and the other DemSenators would do about any Obamattacks on Social Security. She and they would support them with relish. She supported and bragged about supporting the so-called “payroll tax holiday”, after all. I would be depressed, but not surprised, to learn that Senator Harkin of Iowa is the one single lone and only Democratic Senator to vote against the “payroll tax holiday” . . . unless it was rolled into a bigger bucket of shit n shinola that he felt compelled to vote “for”. That would be a big disappointment, if he did that.
On the plus side, at least our governor is trying to beat down the evil Moroun. Not much else to say for him, but if he gets that done, that will be a legacy.
I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, hoping he would offer solutions that would help real people. He had the wind to his back; a large popular voting base, Democrats in both chambers and a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate. He spoke to the real concerns of voters on the campaign trail and many worked for him and turned out for him. His campaign, it turned out, proved to be a well-packaged con job. All the while he spoke glowingly about renewing the economy, he appointed Wall Street tools to the upper echelons of economic policymaking. His Treasury Secretary is the ultimate Wall Street tool and the only top economic advisor still in place. Instead of a 2nd New Deal, we got Hooveresque bank bailouts with no meaningful concessions. He talked about expanding affordable health care to the population while his party jettisoned Medicare single payer, he negotiated away the public option and privately cut a deal with Big Pharma to restrict drug imports so the Pharmacetical cartel could continue to gouge Americans. His stimulus plan, while better than nothing, was not adequate to the output gap we faced and it isn’t like he wasn’t advised of this. His own CEA chairperson, Tina Romer pounded the table for a stimulus twice the size of the one that eventually passed.
He now lies in a bed of his own making. His skin color is not the issue, if it were, he never would have been elected in the first place. His economic policies have done nothing to assist a struggling population and because of this his re-election is in jeapordy. It shouldn’t be; Mitt Romney is a bad politician and the very personification of extravagant wealth amid a sea of foreclosed properties, unemployed students who can’t possibly repay their student loans and mature adults who aren’t sure if they will ever retire. I, for one won’t be voting for him. I’m tired of seeing him support conservative policies and affixing a “D” label to them, giving Republicans ammunition to mischaracterize them as failed socialist endeavors. If it means we get Romney for a term, so be it. Maybe we’ll get a real Democrat in 2016.
Welcome to the dark side, Greg.
Bwahahahahahahhhhh!
At least we kept McCain out of office. And Pei-lin after that.
Though hindsight suggests that HRClinton would have let us achieve the same thing, plus having some positives without Obama’s negatives besides.
Will the DemParty permit a Nominee Transplant? The Wall Streeters from above and the Black Voter Bloc from below will do their best to prevent it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve to be pressed for.
One thing for sure, Romney does not scare me the way McCain did.
Despite the rant, I have actually calibrated the pros and cons of casting a protest vote, knowing it will help Romney. If we are to get conservative policies no matter who lives in the White House, I want the Republican signing his name to them. Like you, I am not frightened at the prospect of a Romney presidency. I’m under no illusions he’ll help at all, but maybe the left, now hypnotized by Barack the Great, will rediscover its survival instinct when President Gekko comes after their Social Security. And yes, having Johnny Bomber and his Daisy Cutters in the WH was too risky to contemplate.
If the DP doesn’t go for a Nominee Transplant, and Obama is nominated at the DP convention, will a “Democrats for Romney” movement be the result?
It won’t be “the” result but it could be “a” result. Many Democrats will vote Obama regardless. Loyalty and inertia are powerful forces. Of the ones who don’t, those who consider Obama the “more effective evil” will vote for Romney in a desperate effort to make sure Obama is defeated. Others who feel Romney is not that much worse (or better) than Obama will vote Third Party. Some like Riverdaughter will do so for serious reasons. Others will do so because they are preening self-actualizers who wallow in juvenile phrases and concepts like “Obomney versus Robama”. You know . . . the sort of mewling and pewling adolescents who voted for Nader in 2000. They know who they are and so do we. (I remember and like what David Emory said about them on one of his Anti-Fascist Radio-For The Record broadcasts. ” Remember their names . . . and Make. Them. Pay.”
Also, the bed Obama lies in is paved with gold and diamonds. Win or lose 2012, he will be richly rewarded after he leaves office. I would not be surprised to see him given a lucrative partnership in The Carlyle Group. Maybe he will get to sit next to Herbert ‘Opium Poppy’ Bush in partner meetings.
I don’t know, Greg: that you voted for him in ’08 puts you at the end of this “We told you so” line…you are late to a party of verifying and challenging politicians. You don’t say you trolled the net in support of his unproven bullshit, but you voted out of HOPE and now you rebound… it took a litany of the same bait-and-switch proof to open your eyes. Your evaluation of his appointments prove you have a decent apparatus for assessing. The misery he’s putting you through is fully earned by your HOPE vote. Next time, trust your legitimate, known quantity fellow democrats and don’t go “gaga” for the lamp-grabbing, line-jumping, “present” voting fraud. If you do get a “real Democrat” in 2016, will you be as good at recognizing it as you were in ’08?
Guilty as charged. My ” conversion” came in 2009 when I saw the same pattern of him giving a great speech, then doing the exact opposite in reality. Here is what I learned: look at the policies, always look at the policies. And the record of achievement. Forget style. BHO had nothing beyond the raucous crowds and the sweet sounding words. As such, he’s proven to be an empty suit in the Oval Office.
This analysis would certainly apply to people who voted for Obama over Clinton in a caucus or a primary. Once the Party leadership awarded the nomination to Obama, that question was mooted by the new General Election question: Obama or McCain?
Then too; if, as Riverdaughter says, it is not too late to torture the Democratic Party into forcing Obama off of the ticket if enough people can torture the Democratic Party into doing so, what is the best way to attract the most people to a desperate last-minute effort to torture the Party into changing nominees? Welcoming the “we see now” returnees with a minimum of time spent on We Told You So would raise the chances of weaponising their rage and hatred and directing their weaponised rage and hatred toward the task of torturing and terrorising the Democratic Party into switching candidates. For example . . . up at the level of borderline famous names . . . is it better to keep mocking Matt Stoller for not having supported HRClinton through the primaries or is it better to recruit Matt Stoller’s rage at betrayal to the cause of Candidate Transplant? The answer depends on whether one wants to get satisfaction or results. If results are what matters, then acceptance of willing recruits might be the more lucrative course.
( Since the question may arise: who did I vote for in my primary, I voted for Kucinich. If Obama and Edwards would have kept their names on the ballot along with Clinton, I would have voted for Kucinich regardless. Quite the purist I was).
( And stubbornly loyal, too. I voted for Kucinich over Kerry in the MI caucus of 2004.)
I don’t see how Obama realistically gets replaced on the ticket now. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to assume the mantle, but let’s be clear, Barack Obama is Wall Street’s candidate and there IS NO WAY they will permit a replacement. I don’t care what the likes of Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein say publicly, Obama is theirs and they won’t give him up. I suspect Hillary fears a challenge to O’s leadership will fracture the party(alienate African Americans )so she’s staying on the sidelines. OTOH, if BHO wins re-election, the likelihood any Democrat, including Hillary, will win the presidency in 2016 is far-fetched.
The best outcome for her is for Mitt Romney to win in 2012. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can’t in good conscience cast a vote for Mitt Romney. I can, however, vote for the Green Party candidate or I can abstain.
Personally, i think we are on the cusp of yet another financial crisis that could start to accelerate this fall. Obama’s re-election prospects are very tenuous right now.
I guess the Democratic party will have to weigh the number of votes it can get from wall street against all the votes it can get from everyone else.
I don’t expect Hillary to run in 2016. Anyone who pushes that meme is just trying to get voters back in line in 2012.
If Obama isn’t replaced, don’t expect anything good to happen from either candidate. If you accept the idea that it is over before the nomination, then they’ve already won and they know there is absolutely no one that will get in their way.
I won’t be a party to that.
You don’t have to necessarily vote Green Party specifically. There may be Democratic Socialists of America on your state’s ballot. There may be other third parties. There may be Rocky Andersen and his Justice Party.
One doesn’t have to vote Naderite RepubliGreen. There are other choices.
As for Matt Stoller, I doubt that anything I write us going to hurt his feelings. If he thinks of this blog twice in his lifetime, I’d be surprised.
The problem with people like Matt and other former Obots who have had an epiphany is that they were very vulnerable to peer pressure the first time and unless they take measures to guard themselves, like learning to live with the pain of independence, they’ll fall right back into the hands of the campaign operatives.
There’s nothing I can do about it and I fear that it’s going to happen anyway. The reason I fear it is that Matt et al have made no attempt to reconcile with the former Clintonistas. The fact that we are still seen as losers and an embarrassment indicates to me that Matt and his friends can still be manipulated. If we were talking to one another and on each other’s blog rolls, then the pain of independence would be reduced because we wouldn’t all look ridiculous, sticking our necks out for going against the current of the party. Because Matt and the others haven’t done this, they are making themselves open to attack from the party and they don’t have allies. So, I expect people like Matt to surrender before November.
Being a pariah is hard work and most people can’t do it for long without help. But without help, your warnings don’t have much bite.
Maybe instead of asking why we mock Matt (I don’t), it would be more productive to ask Matt why he and his friends are still distancing themselves from us.
That’s the big question. Because there’s not a whole lot we can do to be in their club. We were already there four years ago. It’s Matt et al who gave to realize that any differences between us and them are artificial and manufactured.
We never stopped being liberal Democrats when we left the party.
It would seem to me that there must be enough “Democrats for HRClinton all over again” that they could buck eachother up under the pressure of applied pariahship if they came back together as a movement of movements. The names and addresses and phone trees and email trees must all still “be there” or easily re-assembleable.
And many of them might even accept another candidate in Obama’s place if that candidate is suitably Democratic, was not a part of the Counter Clinton Conspiracy, and is otherwise acceptable. Such people could organize a mass remindering of the current Democratic Officeholders that such people will NOT vote for a DemPrezVice ticket with Obama anywhere on it. The DemParty hierarchy could then process all those millions of reminders however they like. But at least they would have those reminders.
Now IF such a movement called itself into visible existence, perhaps it could provide semi-famous “letdown” ex-Obamacrats like Stoller with a counter-community which could immunise him from Obamacratic manipulation. Perhaps he could be manipulated into becoming a valuable weapon in the hands of the “Nobama” movement instead. If this is indeed to be a “war of political extermination” does it matter if the Stollerfolk remain manipulable, as long as he becomes a valuable weapon in the hands of the “Nobama” movement?
Nate always been a partisan hack [and rabid Obama fan], but I think there is truth in the link.
So if you don’t want Romney, you can safely vote for [whoever] to lower Obama numbers…because if he comes in with Nate’s projected numbers…kiss SSI good by.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/why-obama-may-be-stronger-than-his-approval-ratings/
What a silly piece of mumbo jumbo.
I think Nate reinforces my “what have the Romans ever done for us?” theory. If a party does things that improves your life, it doesn’t matter HOW much that party is hated. People won’t turn their backs on it.
Bill Clinton is the latest example. His performance approval was high even as he had a low favor ability rating. People realized he was a good public servant whose policies made a positive difference in their lives. They might not have cared for him personally but they voted for him because he was a good president.
You can really hate the Romans but still love social security, medicare, rural electrification and the Internet.
People will vote for that.
People will *not* vote for “times are tough and you need to sacrifice and give up your secure retirements so the bankers may thrive”.
I think mitt can win this, much as I hate the idea, by reminding people about how we ended up with Obama in the first place. He’s not stupid and his party has some of the best in the business when it comes to psychological tricks. All they need to do is remind everyone of what they COULD have had if Obama hadn’t bought the election.
Just watch. Republicans are in it to win it and right now, Obama is running on the Jon Corzine re-election strategy. No one was fooled by Chris Christie, new jerseyans knew exactly what would happen if he won. The Democratic party flooded this state with fear messaging. It didn’t matter. Corzine still lost.
This is the train that Obama is on.
So then it’s a convention fight. I see your point. We pressure the superdelegates to replace Obama on the ticket.
I admit that it’s a long shot. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.
If you do nothing, if you lock yourself into a path because of fear, then you do not know what you might have accomplished if you had tried to change it.
What does the left have to lose at this point? We can’t know the future and it may turn out that Obama will be a different kind of president in his second term.
However, we know him better now than we did in 2008 and his nature is better understood. All of the things that gave us pause, his inexperience, his lack of coalitions earned from hard fought legislative battles, the fact that he miraculously jumped to the front of the line with help from wall street money, his social conservatism, his acceptance of suffering for people who are not wealthy or well connected and his assistance to the banking system, all that tells us who he serves.
If you marry a person thinking you can change them and make them a better person, you’re going to be disappointed unless there is a spark of character that is worthy of the effort. Obama never had a character worth redeeming. As far as I can see, his primary talent is his own self promotion. Even his “accomplishments”, like the ACA are valuable only to him as a check in his ‘win’ column. To everyone affected by the ACA, even to people with preexisting conditions, the policy is small change. It’s just a game to him.
I think we can all see that now and I don’t expect it to get better if he’s given 4 more years.
It’s up to the Democrats to replace him. But I don’t think there will be the same fury about the superdelegates making the call this time around. It would almost be a relief if the told him to step down.
Sure it would be a shock on the national stage but they could look like they are rebranding themselves if they do this right.
Give the polls a little more time. If it looks like Obama is dragging down the rest of the party, there will be discussions.
Is there a list somewhere of all the Superdelegates to DemCon 2012, along with all their names and phone numbers and home addresses and office addresses and emails? If millions of “better Romney than Obama” Democrats were to flood and drown each of those individual named Superdelegates with reminders of who they (We) will NOT vote for, and politely worded sworn oathes of vengeance; the Superdelegates might at least have something to think about.\
So . . . is there a linkable list of all the Superdelegates by name, and all their contact information?
You can probably start with Senators and Congressmen/women. Also state Governors. THey are the heavy hitters in the party and are superdelegates. Beyond that, it’s probably the big donors or establishment types who are at the top of the party apparatus. My state is decidedly red ( Arizona ) but it doesn’t preclude contacting other offices in DC or the state capitals. Riverdaughter is probably right, if Obama’s poll numbers continue to drop, the leadership, if they have any survival instinct at all, will be more amenable to a ticket change.
In the absence of official lists, these sound like good places to start, then.
Anyone who really WILL vote against Obama if Obama remains on the ticket has nothing to lose by telling herm’s Democrats all about it.
Anyone who fears they will break down and vote for Obama in the end should probably not write or call to the contrary. Politicians can smell an empty threat the way dogs smell fear.
Welcome to the Dark Side, Greg.
We have ponies!
Cookies. We have cookies.
Hilarious! Especially like the wacky packages. Brings back memories.
And even if the movement fails, maybe the experience will make him sufficiently humble and a better president if he manages to win a second term. Hillary’s delegates from 2008 should be organizing a push on the convention floor, we can’t do that, but calling around ourselves and expressing dissatisfaction with the direction of the country will help.
If the movement fails and Obama ends up running and getting re-elected, it will make him a more spiteful and vengeful and hateful President.