Bush Supporters

President Obama has evidently not talked to any Israelis. They know that the religious fanatics do not respect anyone who does not believe in Allah.
The Israelis have learned the hard way. I hope that President Obama is not so naive that he trusts radical fundamentalist killers.

Re: genoves (Post 3544165)
possum
potes
potest
possumus
potéstis
possunt

My "worldview"? has not been particularly successful in solving the problems we are facing? What is my "worldview"?

I am aware that many commentators are saying that President Obama will lead s to a reprise of the NEW DEAL.

If they are correct, it is indeed possible that President Obama's legacy will be that of a Socialist who gave us eight years of high unemployment as FDR did.

As far as poor records of performance go( and I know they don't teach this at Berkeley) the early eighties were terrible years under the Democrat and One Worlder, Jimmy Carter. My entire city prospered during the Reagan and Bush years only to be met by a downturn when Slick Willie was elected. That downturn was turned into the best economy in recent memory when the Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in 1994.

Yes,the Economy has gotten hit hard under President G. . Bush. It was stalled by 9/11.

What nuclear device will stall President Obama's pipe dreams???

Re: blatham (Post 3544160)
... and the leftists will propagandize their own message ... as the US becomes a welfare state ... and the beat goes on ...

Well, Blatham, If President Obama had talked to Israelis, he would have found out that they know...

at least until somebody comes along (someone like Jindal perhaps) who can get your party to evolve into something worthy again.

Oralloy wrote:

I don't think any real damage was done. The party in power always gets unfairly blamed for a bad economy, and unfairly credited with a good economy. This was clearly a Democratic year, but there will be Republican years too in the future.

You are probably right that the Republicans are acting out of fear for the Republican brand name, but I think they are all worrying needlessly.

Sure, there's a cyclical phenomenon in play. But the cycle is hardly "yearly". We imagine that if the Dems, at the end of Carter's term, would have been able to peer into the future of WH occupancy, they'd have been a bit unhappy with their lot.

Oralloy wrote:

I know the pundits are all saying things like the only Republican voters in this election are old people who will by nature be dying off, while the more Democratic voters are young. But young people always tend to favor Democrats. As their generation becomes more middle-aged, some of them will become Republicans. And as the current middle-aged population grows old, even more will become Republicans. And while the moderates went to Obama in this election, that does not mean they won't go to a Republican in a future election.

You are smart enough to understand how this thesis might be an instance of whistling past the grave. The actual statistics show that young people, though somewhat malleable in affiliation, tend overall to support through life the party which initially gained their enthusiasms (by about two/thirds, I believe it is).

Further, Republicans have a very serious demographic problem (clearly recognized in the RNC and by the smarter less bigoted conservatives) with the changes in ethnic makeup of the country. Mehlman and Rove are bright enough on this, but the party and movement are now so thoroughly cleansed of moderates AND the influential propaganda mechanisms of the party/movement (talk radio particularly) are so ideologically extremist and their influence so pervasive that we can pretty confidently predict that the party/movement will continue to rip out its own guts...

After the way Obama and the DNC disenfranchised me in the Michigan primary

Forgot this bit...

Oralloy wrote:

It still amazes me that the public lets themselves be manipulated like that. I don't think any of these narratives are accurate or fair.

Not so helpful, perhaps? This is rather like saying "People are stupid" or "Cruelty is a feature of human behavior towards other humans" or "Rape is inevitable given its genetic advantages".

The salient issue/question here isn't the psychology of individuals or the dynamics of group mythology or other general human propensities. It is, rather, What might we do about them so as to ameliorate their negative effects? Our institutions - courts, laws, etc - are what serve such community purpose.

It seems, at the very least, that we each have a civic responsibility to weigh in against the sorts of misrepresentation and deceits which are purposive and which can only have a consequence of making members of the community stupider. Whether or not "blondes have more fun" is a matter of civic insignificance. Whether or not Rush Limbaugh, piped into the Green Zone twice daily (no Air America on Pentagon radio feeds) is misinforming American servicemen and women is rather more significant.

If one desires a well-informed citizenry, that is. Clearly, such a goal is contrary to certain interests.

oralloy wrote:

After the way Obama and the DNC disenfranchised me in the Michigan primary

How did Obama and the DNC disenfranchise you, Loy?

Are you another of the Michiganers who were rolled over by the Obama Acorn machine.

blatham