Sun
Jan 27 2008
11:21 am
Republican worrying points
By: JPROF

A couple of things strike me as we have just gotten past the South Carolina primary and are heading toward Florida and Super Tuesday:

  • All of the Republican candidates have hardline antis. That is, there are folks who say, "I'll never vote for . . ." And these are Republicans, not Democrats. Mitt Romney, for instance, will never the get votes of some evangelicals; John McCain will never get the votes of some "social conservatives"; and Rudy and the Huck will never get the votes of some who want non-weird candidates. Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to be in that mode. Despite their current fussing, each candidate seems to be acceptable to most Democrats.
  • Every time Republicans get into a rhythm about targeting Hillary, guess who pops up: Obama. That must be very frustrating. Why can't the Democrats pick a front-runner and stick with him/her? That would make things so much nicer for the Republicans.
  • Republicans, we are told, are "salivating" at the prospect of having Hillary as the nominee. Maybe, but just why is unclear to me. When is the last time the Republicans have beaten a Clinton -- Bill or Hillary?
  • In South Carolina yesterday, more than 500,000 people voted in the Democratic primary. Last Saturday, the number of votes in the Republican primary was about 325,000. In New Hampshire, there were about 290,000 voters in the in the Democratic primary and a little more than 230,000 in the Republican primary. First Inning ArtworksIn the Iowa caucuses, reports were that there were far more people attending Democratic caucuses than Republican caucuses. There are many reasons for these differences, and they don't correlate directly to what will happen in November, but they have to be worrying to Republicans.

Finally, some SSP (shameless self-promotion): First Inning Artworks has a new gussied up new site with a nifty video from Animoto and some new pieces you might want to take a look at.

Everybody have a nice Sunday.

Topics:
Carole Borges's picture

Very enjoyable gallery

Submitted by Carole Borges on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 11:59am.

I especially liked the energy in the Christy Mathewson portrait.

JPROF's picture

Thanks, Carole

Submitted by JPROF on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 12:36pm.

Very much appreciated.

JaHu's picture

When is the last time the

Submitted by JaHu on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 12:26pm.

"When is the last time the Republicans have beaten a Clinton -- Bill or Hillary?"

This is one thing that bothers me about another Clinton presidency, If she is elected, it means that there's a possibility of having only two families in the White House for 24 straight years. I think it is time for someone else to be elected so they can corrupt it in another direction!

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

gonzone's picture

Only problem

Submitted by gonzone on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 2:34pm.

The only way that is a problem is that 12 of those years were Bush years and our country has many years to overcome them.

I mean, were the 8 years of Bill Clinton bad? I give a resounding NO.

Your point is a popular meme spread by the right wingers and has little value in being repeated in my view.

I say this as most here know that I am a supporter of Edwards, even if he continues to get only third in each state. At least he gets to influence the direction of our national conversation and if it were not fr him we'd probably hear little about issues important to me and many others.

For further study on what I'm saying research what is known as the Overton Window. No more triangulation is my biggest worry about who gets the nomination. I want someone who will fight the rightward movement of our politics.

Having said all that, I'll gladly vote for either of the three come November.

JaHu's picture

Your point is a popular meme

Submitted by JaHu on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 4:01pm.

Your point is a popular meme spread by the right wingers and has little value in being repeated in my view.

I'm also pulling for Edwards, and I will vote for Hillary if she gets the nod or even Obama for that matter, but don't you think the right wing media will hound this into the ground right before the election? I fear Hillary won't get any crossover votes from the Republicans, where as, Edwards would.

Tho Obama and Hillary are both great candidates, Republicans are a different breed than Democrats, they don't see the world as we do, they have tunnel vision with the illusion of money and Jerry Falwell at the end of that tunnel. Because of this it could cost the Democrats another election. Edwards looks like a Baptist preacher, which could pick up some votes from the Republicans!

The Republicans have it absolutely made, they control the media which picks our choices of candidates. Why else would the KNS, a Republican Paper, put two large photos of Hillary and Obama on the top of one of their previous issues with a small picture of Edwards on the lower half of the front page? I'd guess that they believe, that even if readers don't buy the paper, the images of Hillary and Obama will be embedded in the heads of Democratic voters just before the primary. Hey, commercialism works! Bet you won't see any of the Democrat's pictures on the front page right before the general election unless they find some dirt on that candidate.

The Republicans feel they have the best chance of beating Hillary and Obama. The people will vote more times than not for whomever they promote, but it's still in their best interest if they can pick their opposition.

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

captainkona's picture

Depends on who you ask

Submitted by captainkona on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 5:23pm.

Obviously you weren't a homeless person, or a family guy that got ten years in the pen for growing a couple of pot plants during the Clinton era.
Apparently none of your children were murdered at Waco.

JaHu is exactly right. Aside from all the dirty money, lies, the humiliating antics of the Clintons and the fact that Hillary could not win in '08 no matter who she ran against, a state of Oligarchy already exists and electing Hillary would only serve to further entrench the concept of rule by the few.

This could well be the very best reason NOT to elect the Clinton's that we have in the long run.


"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."

JaHu's picture

To be honest I don't know

Submitted by JaHu on Mon, 2008/01/28 - 12:59am.

To be honest I don't know enough about the Waco incident to judge, but as far as Bill Clinton's era, I don't see how anyone can deny that those were some of the most prosperous years the majority of people in this nation has seen for a while. I have a brother who is retired military and he feels Clinton did more for improving benefits for our servicemen than both Bush's and Reagan combined. You Republicans can keep putting down Clinton all you want but he's still ten times better than the one that's there now. Why don't you talk about GWB instead, and explain to me one good thing he's done since he's been in office. Every Republican Candidate running, with the exception of Paul, has rubber stamped every thing Bush has wanted and to me none of it has been for the good of the American people. "This could well be the very best reason NOT to elect the Clinton's Republicans that we have in the long run."

Even if it were to mean just two families have been in the White house for a possibility of 24 straight years. I'd still vote for Hillary over any Republican running. Who knows maybe it may even bring a balance back to the world again, 12 years of famish (Bush's) 12 years of plenty (Clinton's).

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

Brian A.'s picture

All of the Republican

Submitted by Brian A. on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 1:01pm.

All of the Republican candidates have hardline antis. That is, there are folks who say, "I'll never vote for . . ."

It may look that way now, but don't underestimate the ability of the GOP noise machine to unify and mobilize the Republican base come November, especially if Clinton is the nominee. No matter who their candidate is, they are going to show up. In that case, the election will hinge on which side the "swing voters" go for.

When is the last time the Republicans have beaten a Clinton -- Bill or Hillary?

Using that logic, when was the last time a female beat a male in a presidential election?

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

gonzone's picture

Either way

Submitted by gonzone on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 2:39pm.

Whoever gets the nomination will have to endure the right wing attack machine and their complicit media lackeys.
So it makes little difference whether Clinton or Barack gets the nod.

We have to be willing to fight that corrosive influence on our political process in any case, so why let that influence your vote in the primaries. We saw what the "electability" argument has gotten us in the past, so let's focus on issues that matter instead.

lovable liberal's picture

Absolutely right, but...

Submitted by lovable liberal on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 4:11pm.

Any Democrat will have to fight back against nasty, scurrilous Republican smears. The difference with Hillary Clinton is that there's already an entrenched media narrative that many Americans believe. With Obama or Edwards, the swiftboaters would be starting almost from scratch.

Liberty and justice for all.

My new home

gonzone's picture

Good points

Submitted by gonzone on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 4:25pm.

You and JaHu both make good points regarding the media's current Clinton narrative.
I would posit that it would take very little time to create a similar narrative for either other candidate.
As Edwards is haircut and Breck Girl and Obama is a scary black Muslim so the ground work has already been laid.
What we need are simple and easy arguments to deflate the hysterics sure to be put forward about any of them.
That is where we can constructively spend our time, identifying the memes and finding effective counters for each as they arise.
I gave an example above as to the "dynasty" argument in that the 8 years of Bill Clinton were excellent in comparison to Poppy and Dubya, where the real problem lies. Let them crucify their own with the dynasty argument you see. Or one could say, The US did pretty well under 15 years of FDR, correct?

captainkona's picture

That's a damn good point

Submitted by captainkona on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 5:38pm.

Neither Edwards or Obama have that much dirt. It's that simple. If Obama has a bad corporate tie or two that's not the same as being head first up Citigroup's ass or owned by Goldman-Sacs.
Obama's past drug use makes him even more favorable with Liberal white males like myself. ;-]_~
All they have on Edwards is a big front yard and an expensive hair cut. He has everything from Lies to Treason and beyond to hammer them with.

Clinton has dirt so far back many of her supporters weren't even born yet. Whitewater is just one.
Then there's her voting record, the flip-flops on the war, no-show for the most important SCHIP vote thus far...
Hillary is divisive. I've said it many times and I'll say it now, I will not vote for a Clinton any more than I'd vote for a Bush. No matter what the consequences.

We can do so much better as a party than the Clintons, and it seems we already are. At the moment anyway.


"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."

Pam Strickland's picture

Whitewater is just one. Wow.

Submitted by Pam Strickland on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 10:14pm.

Whitewater is just one.

Wow. I'm not saying the C's are perfect. They are far from it, but whitewater isn't one of their problems. All Kenneth Starr did in the investigation was bring sex out in the open and destroy a lot of very good people in Arkansas by making them pay unnecessary attorney fees. Be more specific, and accurate in your flame throwing.

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

KC's picture

Republican worries?

Submitted by KC on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 12:59pm.

1. The economy
2. The economy
3. Oh yeah, the economy

captainkona's picture

They should be worried

Submitted by captainkona on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 5:40pm.

They should be worried.
They're the ones that ruined it.

And fortunately for Democrats, Americans now know that Republicans couldn't balance a checkbook. Much less a budget.


"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."

Pam Strickland's picture

artwork

Submitted by Pam Strickland on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 5:04pm.

Jim,

You are a most mutli-talented man.

And while I love baseball, I think your wife might be right about the stilllifes. The roses are wonderful.

pgs

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

bizgrrl's picture

Obviously you weren't a

Submitted by bizgrrl on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 6:32pm.

Obviously you weren't a homeless person, or a family guy that got ten years in the pen for growing a couple of pot plants during the Clinton era.
Apparently none of your children were murdered at Waco.

Huh?!?!

gonzone's picture

Proof

Submitted by gonzone on Mon, 2008/01/28 - 9:42am.

Simply proof of the success the right wing noise machine in propagating their bull crackers talking points. People are gullible and that fact has been exploited to the maximum degree. No need debating these things once someone has swallowed the bait in my experience. Rush said it, it must be so.

Again, what we need is to move the conversation AWAY from the Mighty Wurlitzer of the right and towards real issues that really matter and REAL CRIMES of the GOP. In case someone missed it the first time, for further study (and there are people who need it in order to understand) read up about the Overton Window or read Lakoff's excellent books. Only when we can control the conversation can we then address the real issues instead of right wing diversions.

My biggest problem with the Clintons is the practice of "triangulation" which moved the political conversation way too far to the right and the Dem party with it.

Andy Axel's picture

With Obama or Edwards, the

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2008/01/27 - 6:34pm.

With Obama or Edwards, the swiftboaters would be starting almost from scratch.

As they did with Kerry, huh?

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

lovable liberal's picture

Yep, that's a real concern,

Submitted by lovable liberal on Wed, 2008/01/30 - 12:16am.

Yep, that's a real concern, though Kerry was a putz on the campaign trail. If he had run an ad like this (actually an adaptation of a Kerry ad I can't find that I proposed in 2004 while the original swiftboating was going on), he would have won, and we would have been spared some of what's happening now.

I don't see John Edwards lying down for any of this crap. Obama I'm less sure of - surely, he's smart enough to have figured out that you can't just take it, but then there are lots of things the Dems should have figured out that they just can't get their little Beltway heads around.

Liberty and justice for all.

My new home

redmondkr's picture

Mr. Bush's Legacy

Submitted by redmondkr on Mon, 2008/01/28 - 10:59am.

. . explain to me one good thing he's done since he's been in office.

His greatest contribution to America is probably the higher voter turnout at the elections to replace him.

But what a price!

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

redmondkr's picture

And Another Thing

Submitted by redmondkr on Mon, 2008/01/28 - 10:10pm.

I just thought of another feather in his crap. He was the first president in history to begin a State of the Union Address with the words "Madame Speaker".

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives