Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
"controlling what people are talking about"

R U Serious? Have you heard of the noise machine? Tea Baggers? Fox News?

When the competition is between the rational/progressive, and appeals to fear, guess which wins?

You might recall McCain was for Social Security buy-in, until it actually came to a vote. You fool easy.

I'm really uninterested in assignations of intent, what you think is a candidate's motivation. We all have our private evaluations. I think Obama means well and is smart, and is doing the best he can.  I'll continue to think so absent real evidence this isn't true.

I've seen some good things happen that are inconceivable under Rethugs. That's what people forget. I've been watching politics since 1948.

Donate to Wikipedia!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 at 08:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm completely serious.

You're not understanding the difference between ends and means. The teabaggers aren't successful, because outside of the Fox camp, no one takes them seriously.

The difference between that and the Bush years is that after 9/11 almost everyone on board with the anti-trrrism message.

That's very poor leadership pragmatically - anti-trrism is a crock, and always has been, even if you take 9/11 into account. But politically, it was hugely successful, and immensely influential.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 at 08:40:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What?! You're saying that paying attention to public fear of terrorists is incompetent politics?

No one takes teabaggers seriously?

Best polling I know indicates that Republicans intend to vote 2010 at TWICE the percentage Democrats do.

In my math, two to one beats five to three.

The Dems need to energize their base, and sniping ain't the answer.

Donate to Wikipedia!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sun Dec 20th, 2009 at 08:49:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I understand correctly, TBG says that fear of terrorism was always irrational, but Bush used it in an efficient way to grab and hold leadership. Obama has not used his bully pulpit nearly as effectively.

ormondotvos:

Best polling I know indicates that Republicans intend to vote 2010 at TWICE the percentage Democrats do.

In my math, two to one beats five to three.

Last time I saw on of these at FiveThirtyEight it was because Democrats intended to stay home.

ormondotvos:

The Dems need to energize their base, and sniping ain't the answer.

As this is a european site, arguments about what can be discussed or not based on what effect that discussion has on the base of the democratic party rarely works here. We feel as free to snipe at Obama as at Medvedev.

But I agree that the Dems do need to energize their voters, and preferably also the potential voters in the about 50% that do not vote in federal elections. I would think they could do that by political leadership, and preferably also by showing clear political results.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Dec 21st, 2009 at 04:54:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but once again, there's the legislature, and its deals, and the corporate lobbyists and THEIR legislators, the party system, with its allocation of funds, and then, way down the list, the voters who can probably be disregarded because at the least little violation of their single issue will sit on their hands.

Progressive politics is about personal freedom, which seems to imply "me first" politics, which progressives are fond of tagging the conservatives with.

Funny thing, the conservatives think the same way, "me first" about money and family, but nonetheless other-directed in the sense they think about region and nation.

"'Tis a puzzlement..."

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Mon Dec 21st, 2009 at 08:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ormondotvos:
Yes, but once again, there's the legislature, and its deals, and the corporate lobbyists and THEIR legislators, the party system, with its allocation of funds, and then, way down the list, the voters who can probably be disregarded because at the least little violation of their single issue will sit on their hands.

I would say it is the voter that is loyally voting for the same party no matter how many times their interests get run over that can be safely disregarded.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Dec 22nd, 2009 at 04:15:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series