Even after shellacking, 2012 looks OK for Obama

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:


On Boxing Day, it's worth noting that Barack Obama is down but not out.
You could tell as much from the contrast between his petulant postelection press conference and his peppy pre-Christmas press conference. In the former he was crabby about accepting Republicans' demands that income tax rates on all taxpayers not be raised. In the latter he was celebrating the lame-duck Congress' acceptance of his stands on the New START treaty, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and even the previously reviled tax deal.

Obama has obviously figured out that Americans prefer to see their president describe the glass as half full rather than half empty. That's a good lesson for him, and for Republicans as well, especially those who believe that the Obama Democrats' shellacking in the midterms means that Obama himself will definitely lose in 2012.

History should provide some caution for these folks. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush saw their parties fare pretty well in their midterm elections. But they were defeated for re-election anyway.

In contrast, pundits thought that Ronald Reagan's Republicans took a shellacking in 1982 (actually, about half their losses resulted from redistricting) and Bill Clinton's Democrats definitely did in 1994. But both the 40th and 42nd presidents were resoundingly re-elected, carrying 49 and 31 states.

Several factors will likely work less strongly against Obama in 2012 than against the Obama Democrats in 2010. Turnout will be different, for one thing. We may see again the record turnout of blacks we saw in 2008. Young people who pretty much shunned the polls in the midterms may turn out and vote -- though the 34-point margin they gave to Obama was halved to 17 points for congressional Democrats in 2010.

[pinz]

If we can't muster the will and the candidates to defeat him in 2012, I fear we must bid farewell to the USofA for a couple of generations.

 

Russia managed to dismantle the Soviet Union, but only after the parasites picked its bones clean over the course of 70 years. That same group is now closing in for the kill on us. I feel like a wildebeest trying to outrun a pride of hunting lionesses.

[righteousmomma]

If we can't muster the will and the candidates to defeat him in 2012, I fear we must bid farewell to the USofA for a couple of generations.

 

Russia managed to dismantle the Soviet Union, but only after the parasites picked its bones clean over the course of 70 years. That same group is now closing in for the kill on us. I feel like a wildebeest trying to outrun a pride of hunting lionesses.

Ditto!

I thought the first "comment" letter pretty well stated modern times.

The next two years has nothing to do with politics as we have known it. There is a great many of us out here who do not think this is about Democrat vs. Republican; it is about Gramsci "progressives" and constitutionalists. It is amazing to me that most do not recognize a socialist revolution even when the 'frog in cool water before the boil' theory was laid out 100 years ago and can be traced directly to todays "progressives". Just to set the record straight so I don't have to respond to a deflection like wanting to eat un-inspected meat...modern "progressives" have absolutely no connection with Americans like TR and Upton Sinclair. They have roots that are better traced to the 'wobblies' and other communist/socialist movements and adhere to the concept of 'praxis' or process. And Americans by and large understand it at a visceral level if not at a theoretical.

[Sanguine]

If we can't muster the will and the candidates to defeat him in 2012, I fear we must bid farewell to the USofA for a couple of generations.

 

Russia managed to dismantle the Soviet Union, but only after the parasites picked its bones clean over the course of 70 years. That same group is now closing in for the kill on us. I feel like a wildebeest trying to outrun a pride of hunting lionesses.

 

Well said, Pinz.

 

We should be, right now, out there renewing and rehabilitating the Republican party. We should be responding appropriately to many of the leftist outrages - in the news, the courts, etc., as appropriate. We should be educating and enlightening so that when the elections come around more of the voters actually understand our history and the issues. We should be finding, vetting and preparing candidates who will represent American values and uphold conservative standards. This is what we SHOULD be doing.

 

But, it seems the Republican Party STILL hasn't gotten the message and is hunkered down acting like they still believe that it's a game of numbers and self-interest only. That is what the Tea Party has been reacting to, and has tried to counter.

 

And, Pinz is right. Get ready to become a tender European-flavored wildebeest looking at the lions over your shoulders.

[Chickadee]

I don't believe it is entirely just a Republican Party issue. I know we are a more soft-spoken party and perhaps don't get our message broadcast out well enough. We must have a strong message which appeals to libertarians and independents, as well as to ourselves. I don't know how to help with change in that department. Any suggestions?

 

I firmly believe our message becomes splintered as long as we have tenacious folks, like a lot of those at FR, who say we must elect ANY ONE BUT when it comes to, for instance, any candidate who has not been proven to be 100% pro life. This is when we conservatives are like deer in the headlights and we will be run over.

 

This so-called conservative faction willing to vote for a liberal (Democrat) because they have strong feelings about an issue which their conservative candidate is weak on (and who they then then call a RINO), is a real problem. Really folks, ANY ONE BUT A RINO? Isn't that why we have Obama?

[Geee]

I don't believe it is entirely just a Republican Party issue. I know we are a more soft-spoken party and perhaps don't get our message broadcast out well enough. We must have a strong message which appeals to libertarians and independents, as well as to ourselves. I don't know how to help with change in that department. Any suggestions?

 

I firmly believe our message becomes splintered as long as we have tenacious folks, like a lot of those at FR, who say we must elect ANY ONE BUT when it comes to, for instance, any candidate who has not been proven to be 100% pro life. This is when we conservatives are like deer in the headlights and we will be run over.

 

This so-called conservative faction willing to vote for a liberal (Democrat) because they have strong feelings about an issue which their conservative candidate is weak on (and who they then then call a RINO), is a real problem. Really folks, ANY ONE BUT A RINO? Isn't that why we have Obama?

 

 

I believe that we will start alienating some of the people who have started to change their opinion of the party if we have more awful rhetoric such as recently happened on FR. People who are trying to keep independents from coming to the Republican party will point to this and say I told you so, I know that the left have crazy hate on their websites too, but you know that it is always pointed out more on Republican websites.

[quantim]

Washington Examiner:

 

 

 

 

Obama has obviously figured out that Americans prefer to see their president describe the glass as half full rather than half empty. That's a good lesson for him, and for Republicans as well, especially those who believe that the Obama Democrats' shellacking in the midterms means that Obama himself will definitely lose in 2012.

 

Obama has figured out nothing. He's out golfing in Hawaii and doesn't give a damn.

 

But one thing is certain, is that the MSM won't shut up on how great Obama is, they're 'triagulating' for him as predictable.

 

After the holidays we're back to high unemployment, and a voting public madder than hell on what these same scumbags did in the lame-duck just as they have the previous two years.

 

The congress will stall him and the Kenyan will be out there calling names like 'obstructionists' within a week. Nothing will change with this guy.

[Valin]

I don't believe it is entirely just a Republican Party issue. I know we are a more soft-spoken party and perhaps don't get our message broadcast out well enough. We must have a strong message which appeals to libertarians and independents, as well as to ourselves. I don't know how to help with change in that department. Any suggestions?

 

I firmly believe our message becomes splintered as long as we have tenacious folks, like a lot of those at FR, who say we must elect ANY ONE BUT when it comes to, for instance, any candidate who has not been proven to be 100% pro life. This is when we conservatives are like deer in the headlights and we will be run over.

 

This so-called conservative faction willing to vote for a liberal (Democrat) because they have strong feelings about an issue which their conservative candidate is weak on (and who they then then call a RINO), is a real problem. Really folks, ANY ONE BUT A RINO? Isn't that why we have Obama?

 

 

Exactly!!!! The problem is there are those on our side who demand perfection from a political candidate. Or they survey the field and assess the candidates voting record, where they stand of the issues, who they have allied themselves with, their campaign/fund raising record...then choose the candidate who is least likely to win the nomination and loudly declare that anyone who disagrees is not a "real" conservative.

For them ideological purity trumps all other consideration.

[Valin]

I don't believe it is entirely just a Republican Party issue. I know we are a more soft-spoken party and perhaps don't get our message broadcast out well enough. We must have a strong message which appeals to libertarians and independents, as well as to ourselves. I don't know how to help with change in that department. Any suggestions?

 

I firmly believe our message becomes splintered as long as we have tenacious folks, like a lot of those at FR, who say we must elect ANY ONE BUT when it comes to, for instance, any candidate who has not been proven to be 100% pro life. This is when we conservatives are like deer in the headlights and we will be run over.

 

This so-called conservative faction willing to vote for a liberal (Democrat) because they have strong feelings about an issue which their conservative candidate is weak on (and who they then then call a RINO), is a real problem. Really folks, ANY ONE BUT A RINO? Isn't that why we have Obama?

 

 

I believe that we will start alienating some of the people who have started to change their opinion of the party if we have more awful rhetoric such as recently happened on FR. People who are trying to keep independents from coming to the Republican party will point to this and say I told you so, I know that the left have crazy hate on their websites too, but you know that it is always pointed out more on Republican websites.

 

 

I've always told people that FR is a good site for news (although of late I'm beginning to reassess that), but beware as there are more than the usual share of nutters there.

[Sanguine]

I don't believe it is entirely just a Republican Party issue. I know we are a more soft-spoken party and perhaps don't get our message broadcast out well enough. We must have a strong message which appeals to libertarians and independents, as well as to ourselves. I don't know how to help with change in that department. Any suggestions?

 

I firmly believe our message becomes splintered as long as we have tenacious folks, like a lot of those at FR, who say we must elect ANY ONE BUT when it comes to, for instance, any candidate who has not been proven to be 100% pro life. This is when we conservatives are like deer in the headlights and we will be run over.

 

This so-called conservative faction willing to vote for a liberal (Democrat) because they have strong feelings about an issue which their conservative candidate is weak on (and who they then then call a RINO), is a real problem. Really folks, ANY ONE BUT A RINO? Isn't that why we have Obama?

 

I don't know if it is entirely Republican Party issue, but that's not my point. And, I'm not suggesting that we resort to the tactics that the democrat party has used so effectively and devastatingly over the past 40 or so years. I AM suggesting that the Republican party comprehend the new reality and understand that the voters will no longer accept their being merely a more genteel version of the rapacious, "progressive", democrats.

 

And I'm pointing out that the Republicans have been a very big part of the problem and have contributed greatly in getting us to the place where we now are.