Kingfish wrote:The only thing worse are the Tea-baggers which are plainly uneducated.
It's a shame, a down right shame, that the tea partiers can't be as "educated" as these geniuses!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopOpinion
Good News for Liberals!
Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times Book Review, last year published a quickie book, "The Death of Conservatism," based on a February 2009 piece in The New Republic. "As Tanenhaus sees it," National Public Radio's Robert Siegel explained in introducing an interview, "American conservatism has degenerated into a hollow echo-chamber of movement die-hards and talk show hosts, disconnected from the broad public, which until recently it spoke for."
NPR put the interview on its website under the headline "Author: Liberals Should Lament Conservatism's Death." This week's election results make clear beyond doubt that conservatism is alive and well. So liberals don't have to lament after all!
Of course, not all liberals were lamenting conservatism's putative death. In "40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation," published in May 2009, James Carville gloated: "Republicans have no hope of making serious inroads into Democratic advantages in 2010, or likely in 2012 and 2014 and so on. It's time to call TOD on the GOP." We think TOD stands for "time of death."
The month earlier, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg noted that a trio of Republicans "have raised the possibility of the GOP winning back the House of Representatives next year":
That idea is lunacy and ought to be put to rest immediately.
None of the three actually predicted that Republicans would gain the 40 seats that they need for a majority, but all three held out hope that that's possible. It isn't. . . .
there are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero. Not "close to zero." Not "slight" or "small." Zero.
Big changes in the House require a political wave. You can cherry-pick your way to a five- or eight-seat gain, but to win dozens of seats, a party needs a wave.
Recruiting better candidates and running better campaigns won't produce anything like what took place in 1980, 1994, 2006 and 2008, when waves resulted in huge gains for one party. The current political environment actually minimizes the chance of a near-term wave developing.
The problem for Republicans is that they aren't yet in the position--and won't be in one by November of next year--to run on a pure message of change, or on pent-up demand for change.
Waves are built on dissatisfaction and frustration, and there is little in national survey data that suggest most voters are upset with President Barack Obama's performance or the performance of his party.
Hey, who could have expected Barack Obama would actually change anything in a year and a half? Then there's former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, writing in October 2009:
Lots of buzz about the possibility that 2010 will be another 1994, with the triumphant conservative majority sweeping back into its rightful place of power. And of course, anything is possible.
But the signs really don't point to that. . . .
Here in my home state, it's looking increasingly likely that Corzine will beat Christie after all. And while some of that reflects Christie's various personal issues, plus Corzine's willingness to bring out the brass knuckles--as we say in New Jersey, you got a problem with that?--it also, I think, reflects the fact that Christie can't explain what he would do differently. These days, the Republicans are the party of no ideas--and it shows.
As we say in New York, fuhgettaboutit.
Here's how MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann sized up the political implications of ObamaCare's passage back in March:
Failed, Mr. Boehner. You lost. You blew it. . . . I would think the "will and desires of your fellow countrymen" should be pretty damn clear by now: Your countrymen think your policies are of the past, and your tactics are of the gutter. . . . And so I offer this olive branch to the defeated Republicans and Tea Partiers. . . . You are rapidly moving from "The Party of No," past "The Party of No Conscience," towards "The Party of No Relevancy." You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota. And before the mid-terms, you will have been reduced to only being this generation's home for the nuts.
First of all, "behind the wheel"? We thought they were standing alongside the car sipping a Slurpee. Second, that's Mr. Speaker.
"Critics notwithstanding," Time's Mark Halperin wrote in April 2010, "the President is on a path to be a huge success by the time of November's midterm elections. Among Halperin's observations: "The health care bill's passage is, of course, the White House's signal achievement." Of course! And: "Obama has largely . . . preserved the majesty of the office." Ha ha, Slurpee anyone?