President Obama’s support for a troop build up in Afghanistan and for the Senate health reform bill has eroded his support among his strongest 2008 supporters. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, former Governor and Democratic Party Chairman, Howard Dean, leaders at MoveOn.org, the AFL-CIO, and millions of others have made statements, or have expressed themselves in polls, reflecting a general disappointment with President Obama. |
    
|
The GOP is doing everything it can to help Mr. Obama win a second term. I want to signal out five of the best enemies a politician can have helping him, five scary types, four dudes and a lady name Palin.
Michael Steele, the chairman of the GOP. Mr. disunity, participates in dividing the party, embraces those who would destroy it. Mitch Mc Connell, the leader of the “No-No- No- ” GOP Senate caucas. A planner with no plan beyond the word “No.” Sarah Palin, the lady frightens the GOP establishment. Enough said. Rush Limbaugh, old Rush. The idea man and whip master-general of the party. His ideas frightens most Americans. So what? Most Americans frighten him. Glenn Beck, crying old Howard Beale wanna be. Glenn Beck’s America doesn’t include most Americans.
All Mr. Obama has to to is to point to these five and ask, the American people, “Do you want an America led by them?”
Mr. Obama should send each of the five a big old, fat Christmas goose, and thank his good luck for them. They are going to be key in giving him a second term.
Related posts:
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
dfunzy,
I can respect that.
Remember children the Chicago way is to intimidate, threaten, bribe, cajole, and strong arm your oppisition. It’s how Bugsy Malone, Hoffa, and Capone did it!
Laura,
You are right my apologies. Try this for on topic.
““Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.”
Pasted from >http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72889-pelosi-rahm-do-not-scare-rep-defazio<
Consti,
Please be topical to what is being discussed or commented on. The topic of my comment was about parties policing and bad mouthing their own. Your comment had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Next…
Laura,
“I thought that McCain and company promised consensus and placing effective soultions over maintaining party lines. Maybe my memory of hearing him and countless other GOP candidates is incorrect…” – I seem to remember Obama promising the same thing then refusing to meet with Republicans on Healthcare. Or comments from Fancy Nancy along the lines of “we won the election we write the bill.”
I also remember;
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BARACK OBAMA: We’re going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren’t driving the process and your voices aren’t being drowned out.
Yet the SEIU has THE MOST visits to the white house and plaid a big part in writing health care. Just reminding you of the facts from short term memory.
Erik,
If the Dems are so much rougher on their own, then please explain why any GOP who crosses the line of NO to create workable solutions is branded a RINO and blacklisted? I thought that McCain and company promised consensus and placing effective soultions over maintaining party lines. Maybe my memory of hearing him and countless other GOP candidates is incorrect…
But then I’m sure that the GOP’s refusal to cooperate with the Dems is somehow all their fault anyway…Check the John Birch Society or other such website and see if there’s a link to prove it.
No. I am serious about the underlying points that I make. And I think your response add to the discussion.
As far as J.
J and I kid on the surface, a little teasing, then we get to the underlying points we are presenting.
Continue pointing out where you disagree with what I write. It will keep things interesting. It is an old cliché, but it is full of truth — “we can disagree without being disagreeable.” I know you aren’t here to be writing just to be writing, that you are a serious person, but if what we write here is to have any utility, we must keep the reader in mind, and keep the focus on the points we are making and not on our personal opinion of each other. After saying that, understand, J and I kid around.
dfunzy,
I have been.
My responses may have been a little more “serious” than the “mood” of your article, but they have still been relevant and have stuck with the point you made about how some of the shrill Right will strengthen the President’s re-election run.
Erick:
J and I are kidding each other. You should read what he is writing about me! (lols) It is all in good humor to lighten up the serious stuff we discuss here. Go back and check both of our comments and his posts and you shall see.
dfunzy,
(1) Nothing I said was in defense of J Byron. As you mentioned, I recognize that he is fully capable of defending himself. I simply viewed it as a maniacal tirade – which it was – and chimed in accordingly. The fact that I mentioned J Byron was only due to the fact that he was the focus of your gripe.
(2) Liberals avoiding public dissent far outweighs that of Conservatives. As a matter of fact, if a Liberal dares disagree (enter your beloved Joe Liebermann who is still one of the most liberal Senators around), they are not only kicked to the curb, put kicked ON the curb. Yet, if an Arlen Specter defects, this is deemed acceptable among the rank and file of the Dem Party.
(3) Yes, your desire for assistance to Obama’s re-election cause is already highly evident. And my response is that if he keeps going the way he is going, he had better pray that the Republicans help him win, if that were more than a fantasy of your liberally-saturated mind.
Erik:
Quote you, “Regarding a small portion of your maniacal tirade against J Byron,”
I don’t believe you wrote that. You make it seems as if J isn’t capable of speaking for himself, that he needs his right-wing brother to hold him up. Maybe my kidding him about the eggnod was true?
I also can’t see how you could make that comment about Progressives not criticizing each other. There is a long history of Progressives telling the truth on, and bearing witness against, and even mis-behaving at party conferences, conventions, rallies. Man get two progressives together and you are going to have an argument. Three and there might be a riot. Conservatives are the ones who have been quiet. Remember Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment? Lately, the right-wing has been cutting up and going wild against each other. Keep on what you’re doing. I want the most progressive candidates to win in the 2010 mid-term and the 2012 Presidential election.
dfunzy,
Regarding a small portion of your maniacal tirade against J Byron, you hit something on the head: Conservatives are not afraid t0 “bad mouth” each other if a person is considered to be abandoning conservative principles. Democrats/Liberals on the other hand will publicly agree unto death if it means keeping the Progressive Party…well..uh…progressing. To most Liberals, principle isn’t important. Power is.
J:
A defender of Rush? I thought I detected a little of ” old Big Rush” in you. You’ve been holding back, just a wee little bit, huh?
You hate Steele? But he is your party leader? You don’t like a lot of your party? You see McCain as the enemy? But he carried your party’s banner in the last national election? What is his big sin? He tries “to win over the press?” How? By understanding that politics is the art of compromise? Does he compromise his principles? Or does he yield a little during the legislative process to achieve his core objectives? I don’t defend McCain, I just think he is closer to what a conservative really is than most members of that party.
You invoke the name of the GOP sainted Ronald Reagan and what was Saint Ronnie’s eleventh commandment? I know you remember it. It is right on the tip of your tongue, no? You would bite that tongue before you say it? You are holding it back? Your face is turning blue? I shall speak the words of the GOP saint. Thus spoke Ronnie– “Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican!”
My blogging brother, you have broken the commandment of the sainted Ronnie, and you keep breaking it. You and about every Republican are breaking Ronnie’s law! Now, brother keep on doing what you’re are doing. Keep bad mouthing each other, keep with your “purity” tests, keep driving out those who disagree with the rules of your “brilliant” lord chief of propaganda, Big Old Rush himself. Keep on and the better candidate will surely win in 2012. Who will be the better candidate? Who ever the Rush led GOP puts up will not make a better leader than Mr. Obama. Why?
J, we are in the Holiday season. This is the time to show the Christmas spirit, not the time to upset a blogging brother, by attacking his false idol, his hero, that anti-hero at best, of American politics, old Rush. “Brilliant” you call him? Does he shine like the most brightest star on high? Or is he a —! Don’t want to go there during Christmas. Must wait for the new year before I comment further on your precious Rush.
D,
I am a Rush defender. He is not only a brilliant statagist, his loyalty is only with the Republican party as far as they are Constitutionalist. Unlike Dem supporters, he calls politicians out. Bush was hammerred by Rush as often as praised, McCain was fodder for his fire and so on.
You are spot on about Steele. Like McCain and so many others who try to win over the press, they play a fools game.
Based on Obamas obvious “rush” towards Socialism, three things could keep him in office.
1. He assumes and grabs enough power that businesses fear his reach, leaving Replicans without corporate funding.
2. As a Statist, he gives the future of our once great nation away in benefits to the masses by demonizing most business and buying popularity (like Chavez), until of course his beast (government) is strong enough to change generousity into dependancy.
3. The Republicans do not come up with a unwavering Reagan-like candidate, preferring the attempt of the big tent, we stand for little attitudes of a Steele or McCain, and a third party gains enough support to split us while the Dems (as usual stay in lock step, destroying any desenters).
There you have it, some agreement, totally different hopes for our future.
It is too early out to predict with certainty who the winner in 2012 is going to be. We don’t know the candidates. This is my judgment based on now. Also I am poking a bit of fun at GOP leaders. If in 2012, the GOP has the same leaders it has now, they will unwittingly be a plus to the Obama campaign. Also I don’t think Obama is in any danger losing the Dem nomination or that Dem leaders will come out against him. Those links merely show that there is some dissent among the ranks.
dfunzy,
For the record, I seldom listen to Rush and have only watched Beck twice. But, based on the following links, you may be off base a bit.
Glenn Beck’s TV ratings:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/10/ratings-show-how-quickly-glenn-beck-began-to-dominate-5pm-cable-news/30141
Rush Limbaugh’s radio ratings:
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/latest-radio-ratings-show-rush-rules-the-roost
This is an example of how ratings are determined:
http://www.essortment.com/all/televisionratin_repm.htm
Of course, there could always be an argument of who makes up these audiences. For example, there could be a boatload of liberals who are listening or watching for the purpose of gathering an arsenal against a person. Though these audiences may or may not “include most Americans”, they include a growing portion who are getting tired of what is happening in the White House.
If Obama loses in 2012, there will be nobody to blame but himself and his advisors. It is so common (not to mention so convenient) to pass blame to someone else for a person’s misdoings. The unique thing about this particular blame game, however, is that we haven’t even come upon 2010 yet. Laying out this carpet so soon doesn’t misdirect a person’s faith reduction in the President, it simply reinforces the fact that he is already trying to save face and the honeymoon is barely over.