Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I think kep made the point. The left just isn't hung up on labels. They don't go around pronouncing themselves as liberals nearly the way conservatives do. Upon election, how many on the right referred to Obama as 'socialist'? Lots. How many on the left referred to W as a Nazi? Few. They're equally untrue...but the right somehow is drawn to labels whether accurate or not.

I almost let this one slide, but couldn't. Calling Obama a socialist is equally untrue to calling Bush a Nazi? Holy disequilibrium Batman! There are all sorts of shades of socialism, at least many of which are not viewed as being that bad (or bad at all). It's certainly within reason to see socialistic traits in certain things Obama does. And seeing such traits isn't necessarily ****ing, just an aspect of his approach to things that one can reasonably agree or disagree with. No such reasonable link can be tied between Bush and Nazism.

 

[geezer]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'm having trouble finding the largest number of seats gained by a party in past elections. Anyone have this? Like, when was the last time a party gained 60 seats?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Honestly very little. The top issues are jobs, debt, jobs, terrorism, and jobs. No matter how much crap people get for saying so, people are running scared this time around. They don't want to hear it, but it's true.

Considering heads of state, like quarterbacks and/or head coaches, get too much credit for successes and too much blame for failures, it's only Obama's fault to the extent that he picked a ****ty time to be President. Short of getting a 21st century New Deal/PWA through Congress (good luck with that), there's very little Obama can do about the jobs.

So in this instance, I think the blame is correctly falling on Congress. People gave the Dems a huge house advantage and a fillibuster proof Senate, and they couldn't get jack done. So the default of gridlock is going to be restored.

Correct and complete. The Dems did prove they can't get the job done. When confronted with the degree of obstructionism the GOP put up, a governing group would have figured out how to either buy off enough support with compromise or strong-arm their own agenda through. The Dems did neither and got stuck in the middle of the street with the truck bearing down on them. That's 100% their fault. To the degree that Obama was a part of that by being too soft up front and letting the opposition stonewall, he takes it, too. Reid is to that degree actually less at fault, I think, not just because he's fatally weak, but because the SML doesn't have the sort of power the president has to bust heads. A Reagan in the same position would have swept the field. Obama has only his timidity to blame for how this went down.

I don't see any incentive the GOP will have to do anything different. The Dems are never able to call them on it, and their own constituents will burn the building of anybody caught compromising with OsamaHitler!!!!11!1 Gingrich at least had authority and a vision, but the current GOP has no leadership other than whatever outrage is on the TeeVee that night. If they were to negotiate at all, which they don't seem inclined to, it would be like negotiating with a mob.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I almost let this one slide, but couldn't. Calling Obama a socialist is equally untrue to calling Bush a Nazi? Holy disequilibrium Batman! There are all sorts of shades of socialism, at least many of which are not viewed as being that bad (or bad at all). It's certainly within reason to see socialistic traits in certain things Obama does. And seeing such traits isn't necessarily ****ing, just an aspect of his approach to things that one can reasonably agree or disagree with. No such reasonable link can be tied between Bush and Nazism.

That's fine, Bob. And I don't disagree but I do. Calling anyone in this country a socialist is a gross mischaracterization. The government does NOT OWN the means of production in this country. Period. In fact this country right now is at a point where we're the most top heavy since circa 1928? How is that common ownership or equal allocation of resources?

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

The use of socialism and Obama is one of the stupidest analogies ever made.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'm having trouble finding the largest number of seats gained by a party in past elections. Anyone have this? Like, when was the last time a party gained 60 seats?

I couldn't find anything exact, however this makes it sound like it was 1894.

Before 1994, the largest party switches occurred with 55 seats in 1942 and 71 seats in 1938, long before state legislatures began redrawing congressional districts each decade to ensure incumbents' safe reelection, reducing such large swings.

Historically, the largest membership swing ever was in 1894, another time of economic uncertainty during another Democratic administration (Grover Cleveland).

That year Republicans went from 124 House seats to 254, a jump of 130 members in a total chamber membership then of 357. Only two presidents have gained House seats in their first midterms -- George W. Bush in 2002 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1934.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

That's fine, Bob. And I don't disagree but I do. Calling anyone in this country a socialist is a gross mischaracterization. The government does NOT OWN the means of production in this country. Period. In fact this country right now is at a point where we're the most top heavy since circa 1928? How is that common ownership or equal allocation of resources?

The use of socialism and Obama is one of the stupidest analogies ever made.

Well, of course Obama isn't the most hard-core form of socialism, or even near it. But that doesn't mean there aren't socialist leanings in how he approaches things. You are arguing black-and-white, when there are a lot of shades of gray you don't seem to recognize.

Oh, and there are people in this country who happily acknowledge they are socialists (there are even a number of socialist political parties, without arguing how socialist the Dems are or not), so your claim that calling anyone in this country a socialist is a gross mischaracterization is just silly.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The correct analog isn't Nazi (the historically-specific concrete instance) but fascist (the abstract political theory). Obama::Socialist as Cheney(let's be serious)::Fascist. You have to be insane to actually say the guy deliberately ascribes to the ideology, but there are some superficial similarities one could draw a line to if they really wanted to stretch the point.

Of course, that didn't stop Beck and his morons from calling Obama a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist whatever else you got, which is a fair analogy for Nazi. Oh, that's right, they also called Obama a Nazi... another fair analogy for Nazi.

Very few, if any, Dems called Bush a fascist. OTOH, calling Obama a socialist was Republican SOP. There is an Insanity Imbalance in our public discourse, and the attempts to say everybody does it and it's all the same is false equivalency.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Well, of course Obama isn't the most hard-core form of socialism, or even near it. But that doesn't mean there aren't socialist leanings in how he approaches things. You are arguing black-and-white, when there are a lot of shades of gray you don't seem to recognize.

Oh, and there are people in this country who happily acknowledge they are socialists (there are even a number of socialist political parties, without arguing how socialist the Dems are or not), so your claim that calling anyone in this country a socialist is a gross mischaracterization is just silly.

Leanings? Socialist political parties?

On leanings: The definition is the definition. It would take a complete overhaul of The Constitution of the United States of America to even approach a socialist tendency. Last time I checked Obama hasn't proposed any Constitutional Amendments. It's a lie and a gross micharacterization. The mere fact that level headed people like you even consider it is beyond sickening to me.

On socialist parties: How many have been elected, anywhere in the US? How many Amendments to the Constitution have they proposed in Congress?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The correct analog isn't Nazi (the historically-specific concrete instance) but fascist (the abstract political theory). Obama::Socialist as Cheney(let's be serious)::Fascist. You have to be insane to actually say the guy deliberately ascribes to the ideology, but there are some superficial similarities one could draw a line to if they really wanted to stretch the point.

Of course, that didn't stop Beck and his morons from calling Obama a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist whatever else you got, which is a fair analogy for Nazi. Oh, that's right, they also called Obama a Nazi... another fair analogy for Nazi.

Very few, if any, Dems called Bush a fascist. OTOH, calling Obama a socialist was Republican SOP. There is an Insanity Imbalance in our public discourse, and the attempts to say everybody does it and it's all the same is false equivalency.

Given 20th century history, calling someone a Nazi or a Fascist, has much harsher undertones than saying someone is in some way socialist. You say Nazi, people think of Hitler. You say Fascist, you think of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. Saying that calling someone either a Nazi or Fascist is much, much harsher criticism that saying someone has socialist leanings. When it comes down to it, most people would endorse some level of socialism, it just varies a good deal how much. Of course the term socialism has been used much more broadly than the other terms we're talking about, that have much more defined meanings. Now if you go calling someone a Marxist, Communist, or Stalinist, then that's in the same ballpark as calling someone a Nazi or Fascist.

 

[geezer]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Very few, if any, Dems called Bush a fascist. OTOH, calling Obama a socialist was Republican SOP. There is an Insanity Imbalance in our public discourse, and the attempts to say everybody does it and it's all the same is false equivalency.

That's not true. The extremists on both sides do do it, and have quite regularly since before Lincoln's detractors set the modern standard. The Obama-hate, while probably more widespread, still hasn't caught up to the outrageous rhetoric of the Bush-hate among the extreme left. If "fascist" really was used by "very few", it was probably too tame to fully describe the "retarded Nazi monkey" that was the image of President Bush. But I remember "fascist" being used quite often here and elsewhere when Bush was prez. Of course, these terms do more damage to the slingers than the targets.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Leanings? Socialist political parties?

On leanings: The definition is the definition. It would take a complete overhaul of The Constitution of the United States of America to even approach a socialist tendency. Last time I checked Obama hasn't proposed any Constitutional Amendments. It's a lie and a gross micharacterization. The mere fact that level headed people like you even consider it is beyond sickening to me.

On socialist parties: How many have been elected, anywhere in the US? How many Amendments to the Constitution have they proposed in Congress?

You took a selective definition that suited your purposes. Read a more comprehensive definition, and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Google socialist and you'll find socialist parties in the U.S. But hey, maybe my version of google just doesn't work right or something.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Isn't Bernie Sanders a Socialist? Weren't there a few Democrats to the left of him in the ratings of most liberal members of Congress?

*That doesn't take into account No votes from the left though I suppose.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

That's not true. The extremists on both sides do do it, and have quite regularly since before Lincoln's detractors set the modern standard. The Obama-hate, while probably more widespread, still hasn't caught up to the outrageous rhetoric of the Bush-hate among the extreme left. If "fascist" really was used by "very few", it was probably too tame to fully describe the "retarded Nazi monkey" that was the image of President Bush. But I remember "fascist" being used quite often here and elsewhere when Bush was prez. Of course, these terms do more damage to the slingers than the targets.

I'm not talking about the extremists, who are always wackjobs to be ignored. I'm talking about "official" guys like Newt saying "Obama is a socialist." Give me a Dem of equivalent stature who called Bush a fascist.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

That's not true. The extremists on both sides do do it, and have quite regularly since before Lincoln's detractors set the modern standard. The Obama-hate, while probably more widespread, still hasn't caught up to the outrageous rhetoric of the Bush-hate among the extreme left. If "fascist" really was used by "very few", it was probably too tame to fully describe the "retarded Nazi monkey" that was the image of President Bush. But I remember "fascist" being used quite often here and elsewhere when Bush was prez. Of course, these terms do more damage to the slingers than the targets.

You're correct. The angst against Obama isn't close to the vitriol that was poured on Bush. Quite frankly it's embarrassing that folks on either side of the ledger use such terms to describe our nation's elected leader. I didn't like it when it was Clinton or either Bush, and I don't like it when it's Obama. But, such is the level of political thinking and discourse our nation has sunk to. In all too many eyes, the ends justify the means.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'm not talking about the extremists, who are always wackjobs to be ignored. I'm talking about "official" guys like Newt saying "Obama is a socialist." Give me a Dem of equivalent stature who called Bush a fascist.

Those simply aren't equivalent terms. It's much harsher to call someone a Nazi or Fascist than it is to so someone is a socialist. Not even close.

Look at Europe today. There's a whole lot of socialism going on there. There are even political parties, such as the Social Democrats, that have it in their name and are considered pretty mainstream.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Isn't fascism the opposite of socialism?

If so since the Presidency gained power at pretty high levels over the course of Bush II can I then call him a fascist? Seems only fair if the righties can call Obama a socialist.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

You're correct. The angst against Obama isn't close to the vitriol that was poured on Bush.

Even if you're just restricting yourself to the group of extremists, this is categroically false. But if we actually just close the circle to the people who are uspposed to be taking this seriously -- the elected officials and the side's self-identified opinion makers -- there is no comparison to the GOP circle jerk about "socialism" during the summer or the right wing freaks who are invitged to speak at CPAC and spew their vileness.

There's a streak of authoritarianism in the righty Garden of Eden. It's not the mainstream, but it's there, and ignoring it all these years has strengthened it. You should stop pretending it isn't there, and that it isn't appealed to surrepticiously when convenient.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Those simply aren't equivalent terms. It's much harsher to call someone a Nazi or Fascist than it is to so someone is a socialist. Not even close.

Look at Europe today. There's a whole lot of socialism going on there. There are even political parties, such as the Social Democrats, that have it in their name and are considered pretty mainstream.

OK, I'll buy that, let me try to clean up the language a little.

Nazi is a specific term like Stalinist. Those are equivalent terms and they're way out of the ballpark.

If fascist with a small f (not Mussolini) is still too time-bound, then I'm looking at whatever you want to call a party like the National Front: authoritarian, nationalist, right wing populist, militarist. Whatever that is is the equivalent of socialist, and it inhabits that pseudo-sane verging into silly-scary ground on the right that socialist does on the left.

Here are some fun authoritarian parties of the European right. They have the usual far right slogans: anti-immigrant, anti-gay, strong military, "(Your Country Here) First," lots of guns and God.

The equivalent term for fascist is probably communist and Obama has certainly been called that.

 

[geezer]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'm not talking about the extremists, who are always wackjobs to be ignored. I'm talking about "official" guys like Newt saying "Obama is a socialist." Give me a Dem of equivalent stature who called Bush a fascist.

Oh. I took "very few, if any Dems" to be a defense of all liberals as being a superior breed of citizen.
um...Dem equivalent... Hugo Chavez?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Oh. I took "very few, if any Dems" to be a defense of all liberals as being a superior breed of citizen.
um...Dem equivalent... Hugo Chavez?

If you'll accept Ahmadinejad as a GOP equivalent. He's big on defense of marriage, I hear.

And Dems aren't superior. We aren't even smarter. We're just better educated and we've seen around the corners you guys are still stuck on. But hey, sometimes I need my tires rotated, so we're cool with you folks too.

Also, and this is hard to admit, your daughters tend to be prettier. And easier.