Is The Liberal Moment Over ? (Democrats have badly misread their mandate)

Power Line ^ | October 01, 2009 | John Hinderaker

[potlatch]

[Term limits are required]

I think we all agree on that. Making it happen is another thing.

Someone wrote; I believe in two terms per person, one in office and one in prison......

[SuperLuminal]

"Is The Liberal Moment Over ?"

Sure is! It has now slid completely and openly under the umbrella of Marxism.

That reduces the number of "labels" we have to bandy about and target for extinction by one.

[potlatch]

Well.........maybe the dads will be happy when they go through the goodies bags.

[JasonC]

Correct, all of it. The election was about anybody but Bush, people sick of the war and the caterwauling it brought from the left, and about the financial crisis and the previous administration's seeming inability to do anything about it.

Obama read all of that in the campaign and ran as a safe centrist, to the extent of muting his conviction pacifism to support the Afghan war as cover for opposing the Iraq war. In office, the Dems have instead rolled out a radical expansion of government no one wanted, and one that is economic malpractice in its timing, even to Keynesians on the left.

This is a great way to please their base for about five seconds and then blow up. Which is approximately what is happening.

They can hope for the natural turn of the economic cycle to give them a second political life. But it will probably be too little and too late to save fallout in the congressional elections next fall.

[liberty or death]

Had a young “30’s” couple here at the lodge this weekend. Self employed and conservative minded. Both believed Obama meant what he said about bringing change to Washington and solving problems using both sides of the isle.

They hate him for fooling them and know now they were duped by a big government, big business con man. “Their words”.

[KrisKrinkle]

“[T]hat period of revulsion at Bush and Republicans from 2005 to 2008 left a legacy...”

“The voters elected Democrats because they were sick of Bush and Republicans.”

1. So, he’s saying it’s Bush’s fault—still.

2. I wonder how much of the “revulsion” and “sick” he writes about was real and sprung from the hearts of the general population, and how much was created or incited by the media.

[devolve]

.

Hoo moi?

[potlatch]

Yes, ewe!

[chris_bdba]

Judging by the things I hear people say around me, people are so fed up with what the Dems are doing that they really should start worrying about their safey! If normal everday people are this upset what about those who would act on their feelings?

[American Constitutionalist]

" Just remember: Democrat candidates spend their time trying to convince people that they are not liberals. "

Ain't that the truth.... not a real good vote of confidence.

[KarinG1]

[T]hat period of revulsion at Bush and Republicans from 2005 to 2008 was largely the result of the media treatment of President Bush and the Republicans by the media. I hate to sound egotistical so I will just point out that Freepers are too smart to buy into their propaganda. Imagine what zero's already dismal and rapidly dropping approval ratings would be if the media even reported fairly, much less attacked him on a daily basis.

[KarinG1]

I have a new tagline. I wish we could edit our posts here.

[The Wizard]

the only reason the “fools” turned against W was because of the 24/7 drumbeat of the media.....

That is the same bunch of assholes who have given us a scumbag who could never have been elected if they had done their job.....

I blame the media and I show my disapporval by never turning on NBCCBSABCCNNPMSNBC................ever

[SuziQ]

They hate him for fooling them and know now they were duped by a big government, big business con man. “Their words”.

I'm glad they learned their lesson. Here's hoping that in future elections, they'll pay as much attention to what a candidate has done in the past, as what he or she says they want to do in the future.