Author Topic: 2004 is here again (Read 6336 times)

Perd Hapley · « **on:** May 25, 2011, 02:26:14 PM »

Is this election shaping up to be another 2004? Back then we had a president that fired up the opposition, while being a disappointment to his own base. A slew of candidates attempted to capitalize on this, and one of the most interesting (Dean) imploded spectacularly. In the end, a dry dustball was nominated, who failed to excite enough of a following.

I think it is turning out, and will turn out, the same.

makattak · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2011, 02:53:05 PM »

It will if we nominate our own boring, flip-flopping, obviously fake candidate.

(I'm looking at YOU, Mr. Romney.)

SteveT · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2011, 03:56:09 PM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on May 25, 2011, 02:26:14 PM

Is this election shaping up to be another 2004? Back then we had a president that fired up the opposition, while being a disappointment to his own base. A slew of candidates attempted to capitalize on this, and one of the most interesting (Dean) imploded spectacularly. In the end, a dry dustball was nominated, who failed to excite enough of a following.

I think it is turning out, and will turn out, the same.

Who would Dean be in this analogy?

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2011, 04:50:09 PM »

Quote from: SteveT on May 25, 2011, 03:56:09 PM

Who would Dean be in this analogy?

Some component of the Rudy McRomney beast.

SteveT · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2011, 06:21:33 PM »

so they are the most interesting?

longeyes · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2011, 06:44:30 PM »

Perhaps all this proves is that most people prefer to stick with the devil they know?

Inertia is the best campaign strategy of all, and if Obama, with his execrable record, wins again he can thank Inertia more than anything. Unfortunately, inertia is looking more like entropy all the time.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2011, 09:14:09 PM »

Quote from: SteveT on May 25, 2011, 03:56:09 PM

Who would Dean be in this analogy?

I think Trump and Gingrich combined make a Republican Dean.

SteveT · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:00:11 PM »

Dean was a candidate who fit the left base perfectly, generated a lot of excitement and as you said imploded. Albeit with a LOT of help from the Media.

I don't see people really being that fired up about Trump or Gingrich.

zahc · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:12:25 PM »

We could elect Ron Paul this time. Do you think, with the TSA stuff in the past 4 years, that he has any more chance than the last time?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:15:42 PM »

Quote from: zahc on May 25, 2011, 10:12:25 PM

We could elect Ron Paul this time. Do you think, with the TSA stuff in the past 4 years, that he has any more chance than the last time?

No. If anything, he has less of a chance. In fact, were I advising Ron Paul, I would ask him not to run.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:26:53 PM »

Quote from: SteveT on May 25, 2011, 10:00:11 PM

Dean was a candidate who fit the left base perfectly, generated a lot of excitement and as you said imploded. Albeit with a LOT of help from the Media.

I don't see people really being that fired up about Trump or Gingrich.

Believe it or not, people were pretty excited about Trump. People really are that starved for straight talk from outside the beltway, even if it does come from an obnoxious guy that's half businessman, half showman, and all talk.

Gingrich was the imploding part, because of the whole Gingrich v. Ryan kerfuffle.

Tallpine · « **Reply #11 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:35:32 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on May 25, 2011, 10:15:42 PM

No. If anything, he has less of a chance. In fact, were I advising Ron Paul, I would ask him not to run.

As much as I like the man and his views, I have to agree with you.

SteveT · « **Reply #12 on:** May 25, 2011, 10:50:30 PM »

Sorry, I just don't see Trump being comparable to Dean. Besides with the way he enter/exit(ed) the race he's anything but straightforward. Plus, he's not actually a billionaire. Releasing his financials would have made him look terrible.

And Gingrich imploding? I think that's a standard thing he just does, like every 3 days. Kinda like ole faithful. He must be hell on his handlers, not to mention his loved ones.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #13 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:03:50 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on May 25, 2011, 10:15:42 PM

No. If anything, he has less of a chance. In fact, were I advising Ron Paul, I would ask him not to run.

This, I don't understand.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #14 on:** May 25, 2011, 11:24:42 PM »

Quote from: CNYCacher on May 25, 2011, 11:03:50 PM

This, I don't understand.

Drugs, prostitution, etc. One interview and he's done for with ma & pa kettle.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #15 on:** May 26, 2011, 12:04:17 AM »

Quote from: SteveT on May 25, 2011, 10:50:30 PM

Sorry, I just don't see Trump being comparable to Dean. Besides with the way he enter/exit(ed) the race he's anything but straightforward. Plus, he's not actually a billionaire. Releasing his financials would have made him look terrible.

Sigh. I just meant that they were zany candidates who said a lot of undiplomatic things. When I said "straight talk," I meant that Trump did not mince words. I did not mean to imply that he was something other than an opportunist parading as a Tea Partyer. Which, of course, he was.

As for his financials making him look terrible, I thought it was the hair.

De Selby · « **Reply #16 on:** May 26, 2011, 01:02:25 AM »

I do not understand conservative hatred of Obama - his policies are identical in every significant respect to GW Bush's. Literally.

Republicans should be pleased - they got their pick re-elected for a third term, and even got leftists to vote him in.

When historians review this period, they will have to deal with bush and obama in the same book - there's no rational basis for drawing a line between the two.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #17 on:** May 26, 2011, 01:03:47 AM »

Quote

I do not understand conservative hatred of Obama - his policies are identical in every significant respect to GW Bush's. Literally.

Your sentence contains its own explanation.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #18 on:** May 26, 2011, 01:21:11 AM »

Quote from: De Selby on May 26, 2011, 01:02:25 AM

I do not understand conservative hatred of Obama.

There's a surprise.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #19 on:** May 26, 2011, 01:22:27 AM »

Quote

When historians review this period, they will have to deal with bush and obama in the same book - there's no rational basis for drawing a line between the two.

Well, there are the little problems of exploding the budget deficits far beyond Bush's worst of $400 billion, ramming through the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care" act against the wishes of the public, handing Chrysler and GM to his union cronies, handing nearly all of the $1 trillion "stimulus" to public sector unions and workers, abandoning Israel, shunning Britain, cutting off new drilling for oil, imposing a freeze on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, 10% unemployment (5.6% was the worst under Bush, IIRC), worsening race relations, Rahm Emmanuel, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Van Jones, and a few other missteps.

Other than that, GW and Obama are pretty much indistinguishable.

longeyes · « **Reply #20 on:** May 26, 2011, 02:00:26 AM »

What they share is an enmity toward and betrayal of the American middle-class. But whereas Bush is a corporatist Obama represents the global underclass. Mr Inside and Mr Outside. Do they serve the same masters? Well, I guess we'll find that out, won't we?

Jamie B · « **Reply #21 on:** May 26, 2011, 07:42:06 AM »

Quote

Believe it or not, people were pretty excited about Trump.

I find this very sad, as folks succumbed to his ridiculous marketing ploy for his TV show.

He had no platform, no substance, and was a large vessel of hot air and BS.

Tallpine · « **Reply #22 on:** May 26, 2011, 08:21:44 AM »

Barack W. Obama vs. Mitt F. McDole

What could possibly go wrong

makattak · « **Reply #23 on:** May 26, 2011, 09:00:01 AM »

Quote from: De Selby on May 26, 2011, 01:02:25 AM

I do not understand conservative hatred of Obama - his policies are identical in every significant respect to GW Bush's. Literally.

Republicans should be pleased - they got their pick re-elected for a third term, and even got leftists to vote him in.

When historians review this period, they will have to deal with bush and obama in the same book - there's no rational basis for drawing a line between the two.

I do not understand liberal hatred of Bush- his policies are identical in every significant respect to Bill Clinton's. Literally.

Democrats should be pleased- they got their pick re-elected for a third and fourth term, and even got conservatives to vote for him.

When historians review this period, they will have to deal with clinton and bush in the same book - there's no rational basis for drawing a line between the two.

As support I give you: medicare part D, no child left behind (written by Ted Kennedy!!), continuing Clinton's policy of regime change in Iraq, massive government intervention in the markets in 2008, etc...

De Selby · « **Reply #24 on:** May 26, 2011, 09:31:39 AM »

Monkeyleg, you named policies that either were bush policies (bailing ou the autos - not the unions, which did not happen), or that arent obama policies (the trillion in stimulus was not a public sector union gift, that's absurd).

Makattak, you are on the money - precisely one of the things that drive me insane when bush haters got nostalgic for the Clinton days. Guantanamo had its origins in the Clinton admin, as did Iraq. So did the unregulated mess that led to the financial collapse - something monkelyeg should consider when he bemoans obamas unemployment figures. Of course Obama deserves no break, but that's because he's merely continuing the same failed policies.

News:

Author Topic: 2004 is here again (Read 6336 times)