What Part Of "Yes We Can" Did You Not Understand?

The Future, as it must, has defeated The Past.

Obama winning is important. His presidency being both historic AND successful is important to the narrative of history. But, more immediately, American voters have – whether by intent or incident – protected the Supreme Court from anti-choice, anti-science nominees for another four years and maybe longer… NOTHING was more important than that.

However, other things of profound importance were either decided or are in the process of being decided tonight. Among them:

Puerto Rico has voted, for the first time, “YES” on a non-binding referendum stating that they wish to become the 51st full member-state of The United States of America. Both Obama and Romney were on record as saying that they support and would sign off on the change, but if this really does get to the U.S. Congress expect a massive fight from Republicans – the zealously anti-Hispanic Tea Party wing of the GOP will not support a predominantly-Latino Spanish-speaking territory becoming an American State. In a very real way, this could be the biggest thing that happened tonight.

Marijuana has been legalized or semi-legalized in at least three more states than before by solid margins. This is the beginning of the end for Marijuana prohibition.

When the next session begins, more Women will sit in the U.S. Senate than ever before.

One of those aforementioned women, Tammy Baldwin (Democrat, Wisconsin) is also the first openly-gay woman to be elected in U.S. Senate history.

Four states had gay marriage legalization ballot initiatives on their ballots. Previously, such initiatives have either lost or won AGAINST marriage-equality 30 times with no victories. Tonight, all four were affirmed. The tide is changing.

Here in Massachusetts, archetypal preening alpha-male bully Scott Brown was trounced by Progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren – kiss my actual working-class Boston guy ASS, Scotty.

The down side to all of this is that there will be no “wakeup call” to the Republican Party. The spin tomorrow morning will be that Romney lost because he was too moderate, not a “real” Christian and not a “real” conservative; and the push will be on to run a true believer next time. They will only become more intractable, more fundamentalist and more committed.

But, still, little by little we are improving. With each battle won over the forces of “tradition,” anachronism and superstition; persons of open-mind get one step closer to building the Superior America that we both need and – to be frank – deserve for the 21st Century.

127 thoughts on “What Part Of "Yes We Can" Did You Not Understand?

  1. Adam Meyers says:

    @ Roderick

    You say that, but every Republican I know has a very low tolerance for racists/sexists/etc. In fact, I've yet to meet a single racist/sexist republican. Maybe that's just geography, but I've yet to actually meet this 'conservative menace' I keep hearing about, so you must excuse me that I don't believe they're nearly as numerous as you claim.

    Instead, all the Republicans I know voted the way they did because they wanted economic reform, and bemoan Obama not for his social views, but for the fear of an America that continues to spiral into debt. Look up Larry Correia's blog to see what, at least in my neck of the woods, is the pretty typical Republican view and response to the election.


  2. Adam Meyers says:

    I understand that one person's “Class Warfare” is another person's “Help the Poor,” just like one person's “War on Women” is another person's “Personal Responsibility,” but still, I run into very few homophobic/sexist/racist Republicans, especially compared to the numbers I keep hearing are SUPPOSED to exist. For example, most of the ones I know couldn't care less how we define marriage as long as no one's threatening to sue Churches for teaching their doctrine. The vibe is actually quite Libertarian “Government shouldn't be telling anyone how to live their day-to-day lives, so I won't ask it to make you illegal if you don't ask it to make me illegal.”

    But again, maybe that's just Utah.


  3. Adam Meyers says:

    And, by the way, I really recommend Larry Correia. Think of him as the Republican version of Bob- an intelligent person with no tolerance for ineducation, idiocy, and bigotry, just coming from a different economic model. And no tolerance for people who inaccurately claim he's from the 'rape' party, and the prose of a best-selling SF writer to back up his points.


  4. Roderick says:

    You asked how people got the impression of Republicans that they have. That's how. When I turn on Fox News to get the other side's opinion, and I'm treated to a commentator telling me that brown people are having more babies than white people, and this is awful, and its my duty as a white person to have more white babies to save America from the brown menace, – which is exactly what happened, not even something I made up, I was just sitting there with my jaw hanging open listening to this guy – then yeah, “Racist” is the label that gets stamped on that commentator, that channel, and the demographic it serves.

    I'm not saying all Republicans are racist. I was raised Republican, my father is a Republican. I cast my first votes for Republican candidates. It's the values of tolerance and acceptance, of compassion and reciprocity, and yes even of personal responsibility that my Republican father taught me that have over the last decade driven me away from the Republican party.


  5. Adam Meyers says:

    I'd argue that's the problem with the system we have that drives the country into 2 groups, and two groups alone.

    Do I vote for the party that shares my economic views and work against the bigots inside it? Or do i vote for the party who's economics I fear and work against the bigots (different issues, same bigotry) on that side?

    Or do I vote for a third party with no chance of winning, but who shares my views that government is about economics and should stay out of regulating social issues at all?


  6. Nathan says:

    The best part of last night was when Karl Rove was losing his mind and tried CONVINCE FOX that there is a chance that Obama didn't win Ohio.


  7. Cyrus says:

    @Adam Meyers: I can sympathize to the extent that there needs to be a long overdue house cleaning in the GOP. By tomorrow, every one of these sane republicans you describe should stand up and proclaim: “Fuck Gingrich's stance on compromise! Fuck the Tea Party! Fuck the fundies! Fuck Fox and the pundits!”

    And if things work out the other way, well, I suppose we should at least get some entertainment out of the freak show that will be Palin/Santorum 2016, or whatever true believers the rotten remains of a once relevant party props up against Obama's successor.


  8. Roderick says:

    The republican party is still relevant. They expanded their control of the House, and the popular vote was split right down the middle.

    They're staring down the barrel of what Republican strategists should recognize as some very troubling demographic trends. With their poor showing among women, youth, and non-whites, they are teetering on the edge of losing an entire generation of voters.

    But even if they do, they're still a force to be reckoned with among the current generation, and their financial backing is absolutely huge. They may need to change gears to stay relevant in the future, but they're sure as hell still relevant now.

    Adam: I used to feel similarly to you, but the Bush presidency recent Republican budget proposals have convinced me that they're no better than the Democrats on financial responsibility. I may not be completely 'on board' with the whole Democrat deal, but there is basically nothing left in the Republican platform that I can still sympathize with.


  9. Watcher7689 says:

    Congradulations America! We did it! Hats off to the President. Whatever happens, I am excited about what the future will bring….

    I kinda also want to take this time, in the mist of the President's victory, to offer an apology/admit something. When I recently converted to Catholicism a few years ago, I thought that I had to “toe the line” on that Church's stnaces on various issues. In fact, in my attempt to defend the Church, I may I have even come to kinda see what I thought was the theoretical logic in their ideas. Since that time, I have come to see the error of my ways. On this very blog back many months ago, under a different screenmane, I tried to defend the positions of the “pro-life” movement. Unfourntaly, I came to see that I felt wrong and callous being inflexibly “pro-life”, and that my own views on how to try and make the pro-life dream not a disaster required things the conservatives pushing “pro-life” policies wont do. Looking back, after much reading and thought on all the claims the “pro-life” side makes, I dont feel proud of having supported that side. I never trolled anyone (though I was over sensitive to you, Moviebob, on at lesat two occastions), but the fact that I held the unflexible views I did makes me hope I did so because I tend to like black and white rules, rather than me having a darker, callous side. I have since changed my screenname out of embarrisment for having identified myself with those ideas. I will say this though, there are pro-lifers who are honestly not….well I highly recomend Libby Anne's article “How I lost Faith in the Pro-Life Movement”. While I had given up on that side before reading it, its a moving account that I identify with.

    I hope what I just did does not seen arrogant or full of myself. Since becoming one of those “liberal Catholics” who many “real, faithful Catholics” want to see driven out of the RCC, I have felt ashamed of my past actions, even if I never called anyone names or was dismissive of the arguments of people who disagreed with me. I also deeply respect you all, so I felt bad. In the wake of the President's victory, I kinda just felt like maybe this would be best/most relevant place on Moviebob's wall to speak. Please know that this ex-pro-lifer is not saddened by The Presidents win but overjoyed.


  10. James T says:

    Adam, I will look up Correia. As for the question about racism, sexism, etc., I would like to shed some potential light on the subject. Negative views of any particular 'other' are not the same as outright rejection. Think of a sexist man who dearly loves and cares for his wife. These men exist, they have existed, but on the surface examination they create a paradox. After all, how can a man who values his wife above all be sexist? There is a pervasive fear that I pick up on when talking to conservative relatives about politics and Obama in particular. Who is he /really/? This view isn't sharedin regards to other politicians, and if I ask what they mean, why Obama, why his background, they get flustered, confused, irritated. I think, just watching for such things with a more critical eye, I'm more able to see them. On the flip side, I have little doubt they are more attuned to see someone like me glaze over, say Obama's record on detainees. Our biases are most certainly there. It's effectively identifying them that's diffcult. The easiest example I have is gays. Several people I know have said they're not homophobic, the have gay friends (and do), but bristle at the mere mention of gay marriage and laugh at the idea of a man with another man.


  11. Matt says:

    I voted for rommney on economic principals, even if I had reservations about him in social matters. The reality is, no matter who won, they now face the biggest battle possible. Obama now has to acomplish what he promised, he already has I major controversy to battle, libya, and the east coast is stil a wreck. Add the economic struggle, and obama has his work cut out for him. Rommney would have had the same issues to fight, so little has changed.

    That being said, the democrats better pray that obama is succesful, cause if he fails, he may be the end of the democratic party.

    If he fails, in 2016, all the gop has to do is link obama and his failures to the dems, and the will sweep all three elections, house, senate,and president.

    And it will shatter any chance the dems have for at least 8, if not 16.

    Obama is already considered the most devisive pres ever, if he cant get this country together and back on track, his failure will be the end of the democratic party.


  12. Nixou says:

    If he fails, in 2016, all the gop has to do is link obama and his failures to the dems, and the will sweep all three elections, house, senate,and president.

    Yeah: that was the all idea behind the GOP obstructionism: let's sabotage everything Obama does so when the recovery fail to show up in 2012, we'll take back everything.
    Worked splendidly


  13. Andrew says:


    Libya is done with. Given the scale of presidential concerns, that was a non-issue.

    Also, the Democratic party is far, far more flexible than the GOP is, and is a lot less likely to go through a platform restructuring in the next 10 years or so. Its platform and appeal is based on multiculturalism (America is getting more multicultural), women's issues (women are becoming ever more prominent a voice in politics and the economy), and secularity (the country is growing more and more irreligious).

    You overstate what could happen if the GOP wins in four years, even if the economy doesn't recover and the moderate voters give the Republican a nod. And I still think the GOP has a good chance of winning in four years, if they play the next election intelligently and keep the firebrands and hopeless populists away from the party's core message. The Dems are far better suited to long-changing demographic and political conditions than the GOP are, and thus, they have a far better chance of surviving a disastrous election and being completely thrown out of power.


  14. Adam Meyers says:

    @James T.

    Alright. Larry is the author of Monster Hunter International, so there is a lot of personal and book-related posts as well. However, just like Bob, he can't resist going into politics at times, so there's plenty of those too.


  15. Zeno says:

    It is politically impossible for this nation's government to fix the economy, so don't feel bad if you voted for Romney anyways. The fact that the Ryan budget, while being hopelessly too timid to make even a dent in the debt, was called “extreme” should make that obvious.


  16. Matt says:

    To be honest, normally id agree, but whats set this secnario apart is expectations. Obama didnt beat rommney onhis accomplishments or economic ability, but on emotion and on rommney not being agressive enough when compared to obama.

    Obama didnt beat rommney, rommney being timid beat rommney.
    Now, the dems have a strong base but like it or not, its already erroding, and there media strangle hold is falling apart, as fox news still dominates the ratngs even as tradtional media declines, heck I said that in a video I made in rsspone to an american bob video recently.

    If obama fails, his failure wont just end the dems in 2016, but youll see reps, pundits, all his oppenents will pounce on it to make the dems look like fools and incompitents, and fox will make the other news media out to be democrat lackeys, not that it isnt true, but fox will simply have more justfication for the claim.

    In 2008, the midterms had the democrats running from obamas name as the reps and tea party closed on them to take the house and deadlock the senate. Now the dems are full commited to the next 4 years, no more blaming bush, no more excuses.

    They either deliver on the promises and secure dominance for 20 years, or fail, and get destroyed in 2016.

    Anyone with any understanding of history knows this to be true.


  17. Matt says:

    Also in regards to libya, 4 dead americans is never a none issue especially with the info fox news keep digging up. Some may hate them, but on libya, they led the way in finding the truth


  18. biomechanical923 says:

    The only reason Fox has higher ratings than anyone else is because they're the only Right-biased “news” channel that broadcasts nationwide. Meanwhile, neutral, moderate, and Left-biased news networks are fragmented among many different sources (CNN, MSN, HLN).

    Combine that with the fact that the average age of the Republicans is about 10-15 years older than the average Democrat, and this could explain why an older, less tech-savvy audience would be slightly more likely get their “news” from the TV, rather than the internet.

    In other words, just because Fox news got the biggest slice of the ratings pie, doesnt mean that Republicans own the majority of the entire pie.


  19. Anonymous says:

    Yo Bob, I know you're out there, so answer me: defend the drone strikes. You talk so much about the future, but the innocent people killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan don't HAVE a future. Answer, I want to know how much of a sociopath you really are.


  20. Andrew says:


    You're free to interpret the election results however you want. But claiming that “the other side” only won because your side just didn't try hard enough is silly. Over $1 billion dollars were spent trying to win it for the GOP, and Romney was only one cog of that massive machine. It's not his party, he was just the party's choice for front man. And if Romney was such a terrible candidate, why did he win the primaries? Where were the GOOD Republican candidates, the ones (I'm sure) you think would have beaten Obama handily? You can throw Romney under the bus if you want and claim it's all his fault, but doing so absolves the rest of the party – the Akins, the Limbaughs, the Arpaios – of any responsibility for tarnishing the GOP's appeal that they lost to a very vulnerable incumbent. And if you want to see the GOP win again, you should resist the urge to take that easy way out.

    Just where is the Democratic Party's base eroding?

    Your third paragraph, with respect, I'm not going to go too deeply into. You clearly have a very different idea (ideal?) of just how fragile the Democratic party is, and for some reason, you think that FOX News can still hurt the Dems' appeal. The people who watch FOX already think the Dems are incompetents and worse and always will; FNC has nowhere to go from there.

    And, again with respect, your last sentence is utterly meaningless without being placed in context. You can end any argument with “and anyone with any sense knows that I'm right”, and it doesn't make your argument any more true. It only makes it look like YOU aren't convinced yourself, so you fall back on a lazy, hazy statement of absolute fact that is supposedly incontrovertible and which supports you utterly.

    Democratic senators weren't running away from Obama this time, and they picked up several seats. The Republican party picked up a couple new seats in the House, but after losing ground in the Senate and failing to unseat a vulnerable president, they clearly lost this election. So where does that put the Tea Party, and the GOP in general?


  21. Anonymous says:

    @ Anon James

    I am afraid I shall require a source for these supposed drone strikes, my good sir.

    For as we all know, the onus of the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. You have been claiming Obama is 'as bad or worse' than Bush since time immemorial, but I have yet to see any sources cited for these diatribes.

    So please, indulge a rational skeptic and source dat shit.


  22. The Almighty Narf says:

    @ Bob

    “Obama winning is important.”

    No it wasn't. Obama's entire political career has been entirely inconsequential and will in all likely hood continue to be so.

    Congratulations. You've maintained the status quo.

    “…expect a massive fight from Republicans”

    ….Why? That doesn't even make sense.


  23. Anonymous says:

    @ James

    As somebody that knows little about libertarianism and sees you as an experienced political expert of the highest caliber, I have the following questions that demand your sage council:

    * Name the policies that Gary Johnson plans to implement without bringing up the supposed policies of Obama and Romney that he won't continue. From the way you talk, his platform one of sitting in the chair and preventing people from pushing the “send drone strike into civilian area” and “assassination” buttons, which means you could elect an ornery gorilla to do the same thing. What makes Johnson better than that gorilla?

    * You talk a lot about innocent people dying abroad, so I assume you hold a strong attachment to the life of others. At the same time, libertarian doctrine holds that the government should scale down or cut nearly all social support. There are millions of people too impoverished and disadvantaged to live without government support. Turning them away is as much a death sentence as a drone strike, but instead of being unintentional collateral damage, it is now a knowing, deliberate action. There is no sect of libertarianism that does not carry this doctrine. This means one of three things: you are not actually a libertarian, you selectively hold the lives of some higher than others, or you are throwing the accusation of drone strikes killing civilians in a cheap attempt at shock value. Which of these is it?

    * In cutting social support, the crime rate will rise exponentially due to the desperation of the disadvantaged masses. Explain to me how you plan to offset this without expanding government powers.

    * Explain to me your position about abortion. The libertarian handbook is vague in a way I assume is meant to be interpretive so neither side is alienated, so I want your interpretation. Is a blank slate of self-unaware cells a living being by your standards? If so, I will assume that makes you anti-abortion. Now, depending on how you define “life”, one could also argue that preventing the possibility of impregnation is just as much a death sentence for the hypothetical child as physically removing it from the fetus. Would you support a ban on contraceptives in order to not only preserve life, but also the possibility of life? Would forcing a mother incapable of caring for her child be acceptable even if it means the inevitable of one or both or would you support expanding government spending to provide orphanages?

    * Let's not forget there are plenty of medical conditions that make pregnancy a life-threatening situation, with many carrying a 100 percent certainty of death for the mother. Whose life do you prioritize and why? Do you choose the life of the mother because she has life experiences worth preserving or the life of the baby because it has more years to live? If the life of both is of importance to you, would you support expanding the governmental powers to ban sex among those with known medical conditions? How would you enforce that without expanding surveillance spending and police authority? How does that fit within your libertarian philosophy of smaller government and more personal freedom?

    * Define “fascism”. Explain at least three details that most fascist regimes have in common. Give me three examples of fascist regimes, of which only one can have ties to the Axis powers. After doing so, explain with citations how Obama's policies resemble them.

    * With most corporations guilty of exploiting the masses, how would a libertarian government with most of its powers scaled back prevent the resurgence of the 18th century robber baron?

    If you are pressed for time, answering just one of these questions is fine by me. Everybody else, please, do not answer these questions for him.


  24. Joey says:

    With all of these talks about drone strikes and what not, i gotta ask, who actually makes the decisions for drone strikes? I have little to no belief that the president is the final, arbitrary word on drone strikes.

    What about civilian casualties caused by drone strikes? Or civilian casualtes in general? Can these numbers be compared to numbers collected during the Bush Administration? I believe that the actual numbers are being blown out of proportion by James and others, but I and possibly James too, have no idea where to find a reliable and official source.


  25. Ralphael says:

    James, shut the fuck up already about the Drone strikes.

    Almost everyone who has commented so far are too fucking stupid to be helped.

    The fact that Obama hasn't been impeached for Benghazi or Fast in the Furious just proves how simple minded Obama Bots are.

    There is no hope for humanity.

    Fuck all.


  26. Megabyte says:

    @Matt You talk about these media pundits like they haven't shown their colors already.

    They have… and currently enjoy the lowest confidence ratings they have ever had. And it will only get worse for them.

    As for the Tea Party… Bob may be happy to see it's likely to dissolve now…. and oddly enough if it does, this election will have a big part of why. If what I heard is true, Pelosi won't be a leader in the Dem's much longer… and it was pretty much her actions that spawned the anger and the movement. If she's gone, it will die with her… mission accomplished.

    Course if Im wrong, expect the movement to still go on. And I wish them the best of luck. (Seriously, Im no Obama supporter, but Ill trade you a third term for her getting kicked out of office any day!)


  27. Andrew says:


    The Tea Party isn't going anywhere. It's not going to take over the GOP (the party establishment has the money, corporate connections, and all major Republican powerbrokers), or split into its own party, it's just gonna be a catch-all term for that wing of the Republican Party, to be trotted out whenever they feel like playing up their angry grassroots.


  28. Joey says:

    I am absolutely certain that the current president has not committed any crimes while in office, although if you can show me examples, as well as said documented laws that Obama has broken, I will be glad to retract my statement.


  29. Zeno says:

    >I am absolutely certain that the current president has not committed any crimes while in office, although if you can show me examples, as well as said documented laws that Obama has broken, I will be glad to retract my statement.

    It is the nature of governments to commit crimes.


  30. biomechanical923 says:

    @Anonymous 9:22

    I am not a Libertarian (although I do have some very Libertarian views when it comes to things like social freedoms), and I am definitely not defending James.

    However, I believe there is a logical flaw in your argument that denying social services is a “death sentence”.

    Denying social services is no more of a “death sentence” to beneficiaries than getting an abortion is a “death sentence” to an unborn child. That is to say, that it isn't one.

    Judith Jarvis Thomson's “A Defense of Abortion” is not only an ethical argument for why Third-Trimester Abortion should still be legal, but I personally believe it's an ethical argument for why Libertarianism in any subject is not inherently unethical.

    Heavily paraphrased, the basic idea is that if another human being has been attached to you as a form of life-support, you have no ethical obligation to remain attached to them.

    Removing somebody else's hooks from your body is not an act of violence or hatred against them, but rather an assertion of your own freedom.

    To me, I simply feel a great deal of dissonance in trying to believe that a woman has a right to detach herself from a fetus, (regardless of its biological dependence on her, as an expression of freedom), yet trying to believe that a person does not have a right to “detach” himself financially from dependent strangers as an expression of that same freedom.


  31. Omegalittlebob says:

    Bob, I love you, and I love what you do, and I'll NEVER EVER stop following what you, because you are a bad ass dude.

    But the way you look at Republicans is disturbing to me. As though they are all of the terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons. The way you see things is evidence of how I believe the two political parties have started acting towards each other.

    It's no longer “My party is better then your party” its become “My party will bring about a glorious new future where all good things will come to pass, and FUCK the other party because they will send us into a downward spiral, to an Event Horizon style Hell, from which there is no return.”

    Above all, I'm concerned for you, and the whole Nation.
    Love you Bob.


  32. Andrew says:


    That's their public message. Their unspoken message is “nothing will get done unless WE can take credit for it”. American politics is a zero-sum game now: anything good for you is bad for the enemy, anything good for the enemy is bad for you. There's still some room for compromise among the Democrats, due to their far more varied constituency and more vacillating natures (they haven't yet gone full hard-ass, and are lagging behind the GOP in embracing “modern” tactics), but give it time. They may catch up with the GOP if the latter make it clear that balanced compromise (as opposed to capitulation) is off the table and that wrecking the country is A-OK, as long as they think you can convince 51% of the country that the other party's responsible for it.

    Needless to say, winning elections is far more important to them than is governing the country. The means have become the ends. There's money in elections, and there's money in being in power. Actually accomplishing something while in power is incidental (Congressmen spend as much if not more time campaigning than they do in session, the filibuster is used on everything, and legislation is written by lobbyists). The permanent campaign will go the route of permanent revolution – stagnation, rot, then civil war.

    For the record, I hope I'm wrong. I am prone to melancholy on the subject of politics.


  33. Nixou says:

    As though they are all of the terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons.

    Of course all republicans are not terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons. A great many are merely terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons' lackeys.


  34. Cyrus says:

    @Jake: So Obama and this Bell guy said, “we should research every possible avenue” (while in the meantime not taking ANY action to actually limit vaccination), they get slammed by a special interest group for that and now they are anti-science?

    That's pretty weak tea, considering the crux (and beauty) of science: You can hardly ever claim to have reached a definitive, end-all conclusion or “truth”. Keep that in mind, in case any forrays into FTL travel are still made within our lifetime.


  35. Jake says:

    For the most part you're right, science does work that way, (although so far no evidence links vaccines and autism, the Andrew Wakefield paper that started the whole fiasco was discredited long ago).

    However, the fact that he appointed someone like that and himself holds doubts like that, legitimizes the anti-vaccine movement in some people's eye's, giving a little bit more rationalization to not vaccinate their kids.

    Also, Bob has gone on record as saying that people who say vaccines cause Autism should be arrested, so this should give him some pause, if he supports a man who appointed someone Bob thinks should be in prison.

    Full disclosure: I myself have high-functioning Autism and am sick of people spreading negligence in my name.


  36. Cyrus says:

    @Jake: I agree, it may indeed send a very wrong message. It would be good to have a more detailed timeline on this, i.e. did Obama or Bell continue to voice vaccine-related concerns after the Wakefield study was conclusively found to be a fraud in 2010?


  37. Matt says:

    @ Andrew

    Hey man, sorry for the slow response.

    Work and life dragged me away and I had other things to deal with.

    Now, I want to talk about some points you made.

    1st, Don't think of me being a mean or angry guy, Im just stating my view points as best I can with what limited time I have to put my thoughts together.

    Now then, I need to clarify my view on why Romney lost. I did not say, nor do I belive, that obama ran a bad campaign, or that Rommney was a BAD canidate.
    What I pointed out was that rommney, did not do things I felt he needed to do to maintain and push the momentum forward to win the election. Particulary in the third debate regarding libya, but also on economics, I feel had he pushed harder, and more forcesfully on those targets, he'd have beaten obama, not big, but he would have won.

    Now, your right, rommney was NOT the only reason he lost, there is Plenty of blame to go around in the Reps and they need to rethink how they will handle things and what battles they want to fight in the long run. On that, I agree 100 percent.

    My statement about the Democratic base was, poorly worded, which I apologize for.

    What I should have said is, the Massive, Popular support they had in 2008, has been erroding for the 4 years, bit by bit. Yes, Obama won big, yes, the dems still retain the senate. But 4 years ago, they were running the whole show. Now? they barely hold the senate and the house slips further into the Reps corner, and Obama has less popular support now then ever.

    Now, on the subject of fox news. Reality check.

    Fox news, doesnt beat 1 news network, or 2, or 3, but it beats them ALL!

    The first time in almost a year that CNN beat fox news, was the election. It took a fucking election for them to beat fox, and even then, in prime time and among young 18 to 25, they still LOST, onyl winning the over all night ratings.

    Thats not just Rightys, but independents, and dems who are not simply following the party line put out by CNN and MSNBC.

    Your right about my statment, about my last sentence. Lack of context made it ineffective. I will try to fix that here.

    When you look at every time there has been Major, major change in washington, it has always come on the heels of MAJOR, MAJOR failure.

    Reagan following carter, Clinton following Bush, Obama following BUSH 2, and thats just what in my life time.

    Every single time, those shifts occured due to Major events and over reach by the incumbent. Clinton with the gun ban and crime bill costing dems the house, the senate, and unseating the first speaker of the house in 130 years.

    Then bush jr taking clintons place after the democrats had run there good will to ground by overreaching and getting a surplus, but having no major plan to maintain it or continue to grow it.

    Bush came in with the promise of Big bussines growth and major jobs increases, and briefly, he had it going on, then it fell to pieces cause of bad policy and poor planning and to much de regulation, and we get the Dems sweeping into power in a mid term and then we get obama.

    All history repeats, and if obama doesn't keep his promises of stronger economy, less debt, ETC, the democratic party will fall apart as people reailze that High ideals, doesn't create jobs, or put food on the table, especially if the country is Bankrupt.
    Again, thats just how I view things. Im no pundit or Analyst, Im a tech, with 15 years of hard time tech work under his belt. I don't make this prediction based on emotion, but on my personal observations of history and politics.


  38. Matt says:

    Lastly, Your right, the Dems didn't run from obama this time as they did in 2010, and thats my other point. They aren't distancing themselves or keeping any seperation, they are fully complicit in the Presidents future, as were the media in his election campaign.

    So now, they all either prevail, or burn, together. If obama can turn things around and get this country on it's feet, reduce the debt, and solve the entitlment issues, then the dems will be the power for the next 20 years id say.

    if now, then by January 2017, the dems will be a shell of themselves, broken and cowed by the republicans after a Land fall 2016 victory.

    It has hapened before, and if obama fails, it will happen again. Only this time, it will be 10 times worse.

    Great expectations means that your Failures, are all the more damning to your reputation.

    Obama has four more years, and no election to worry about. If he fails, there is NO more excuse. No more blaming bush, no hiding behind the media shield he had this time.

    All eyes are on him and the dems.

    Failure. WILL. BREAK. THEM. ALL.


  39. Megabyte says:

    I hate to say it, but I think Andrew is right if we don't collectively stop this “team sports on crack” mentality. Hell, Nixou's latest entry alone is a PRIME example of what Im talking about. Bob is a walking example, but I figure if you couldn't see that after his last video on this blog…. you probably never will see the kind of mindset that will destroy this nation.


  40. Anonymous says:

    @ biomechanical923

    Regardless of the ethics of forcing people to “provide life support” for others or the inherent social Darwinist implication of “well, you should have been born in a rich family”, dropping it doesn't make those depending on them simply go away. It turns them to crime to make up the difference and causes significant losses in both a reduced bottom-level workforce and the damages caused by theft, mugging, and murder. It's also the kind of government attitude that leads to revolts, power vacuums, and brutal regimes. A libertarian politician needs an answer to this inevitability.

    James, answer my questions or we'll have to conclude you're a political moron that just wants a cause for his childish anger against some vague definition of The Man™ to liven up the ennui of his middle class suburbanite life.


  41. Nixou says:

    One thing too often ignored about “Social Darwinism” is that it is in fact older than Darwinism itself: the 'Screwing poor people is my birthright” idéology existed before Darwing published his Origins of Species: its proponants took the name “Social Darwinists” later because it sounded all sciencey and they thought it would help them look smarter than they really were.


  42. Andrew says:


    Thanks for your reply. There's no need to apologize for a short delay. Why should a blog's comment section be held above real life considerations?

    “What I should have said is, the Massive, Popular support they had in 2008, has been erroding for the 4 years, bit by bit.”

    Well yes, because a party is supposed to win big when the incumbent party screws up. Obama wasn't running against an unpopular incumbent this time, he WAS the unpopular incumbent. The natural trend is for parties to lose popularity over time, hence why we keep going back and forth with neither party having the White House for more than 12 years. There are many exceptions, of course, but as neither party tends to govern well, they don't tend to stay in office for too long.

    “Fox news, doesnt beat 1 news network, or 2, or 3, but it beats them ALL!

    The first time in almost a year that CNN beat fox news, was the election. It took a fucking election for them to beat fox, and even then, in prime time and among young 18 to 25, they still LOST, onyl winning the over all night ratings.

    Thats not just Rightys, but independents, and dems who are not simply following the party line put out by CNN and MSNBC.”

    Are you saying that FNC's ratings are regularly better than ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, and Univision/Telemundo's combined? FNC does a very comprehensive job of appealing to conservatives, I'll grant you, but I wouldn't real too much into that. That wouldn't come close to proving a point that FNC represents the typical American voter or anything, only that it may represent the typical American television news viewer. I would need to see some evidence that independents and moderates also disproportionately watch FNC. Right now, all I can see is that TV news viewer who want a conservative spin would go to FNC, and those wanting a liberal or moderate spin would go to one or more of the others. Like it or not, FNC is so deeply wedded to the GOP than it can't reasonably claim to be moderate, independent, or balanced.

    Its election night coverage is good, I'll grant you. I always flip between FNC and either MSNBC or CNN (which, for the record, always has the most insufferable coverage). For about 3.5 hours, I thought FNC did a good job at reporting the events without spinning them (O'Reilly notwithstanding), but once the election was called and Rove had his little moment, they immediately went back to their typical line of saying nothing but bad things about Obama and nothing but good things about Romney (I would have liked had O'Reilly stuck around).


  43. Andrew says:


    “Obama has four more years, and no election to worry about. If he fails, there is NO more excuse. No more blaming bush, no hiding behind the media shield he had this time.

    All eyes are on him and the dems”

    That's because the House Republicans refuse to compromise with the party in power. How would you feel if Congressional Democrats filibustered and obstructed everything Dubya tried to do, and refused to give him once inch on Afghanistan, Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, or EVERYTHING ELSE he tried to do.

    Yeah, it does appear to be up the Democrats to sort out the economy. They're the only party actually trying to do something. But it's not ALL up to the Democrats. The Republicans still have to play ball and respect the wishes of the American voters who now TWICE chose Obama over the Republicans. Twice now, the GOP has taken their case to the American people, and twice they were rejected and told that the people prefer that the Democrats set the agenda. Now, is the GOP going to finally respect that, or are they going to sit back and dare the Democrats to try to do something, then once again blame them for not doing anything? It's well in the power of the House Republicans (and those in the Senate as well) to paralyze the country for the next two years, and it would be 100% consistent for them to blame that all on Obama, since that's EXACTLY what they did this time.

    So let me ask you: What do YOU want the Republican party to do over the next two years? We don't sink or swim with the Dems only, we sink or swim together.


  44. biomechanical923 says:

    @Anonymous 11:49 and @Nixou

    Again, ethically speaking, I don't think there's anything inherently Darwininistic about preserving your own health and well-being.

    You're not “screwing over” poor people by refusing to help them. By the same token, you're not “screwing over” sick people by refusing to donate a kidney, or an eyeball, or some blood.

    I'm not arguing “NOBODY SHOULD PAY TAXES UNLESS THEY AGREE WHAT IT'S FOR” (Like I said, I'm not a Libertarian), I am saying there's a big difference between going out of your way to harm somebody, and somebody having harm come to them because you don't want to sacrifice yourself for them.

    Selfish? Sure. Unethical? No.


  45. Anonymous says:

    @ Above

    The ethics of how much social support the government should offer, how much taxation should go towards social support, and the obligation of the advantaged towards the disadvantaged don't have much bearing on the (im)practicality of libertarian doctrine.

    Most of the doctrine centers around three unspoken assumptions:

    1) Adherents are already financially secure for the foreseeable future or have convinced themselves their current status is temporary and they want the same benefits in place for when their yacht comes in.
    2) Adherents hate the idea of other people getting any kind of “free ride” off their success.
    3) As such, the government's role is in protecting those assets (police, legal, and military systems) and as little else as possible.

    By itself, this doctrine can only really work in very hypothetical situations that do not reflect the realities of human behavior or basic economics, so a libertarian needs to fill in the holes and bridge the gap from our current system to their ideal new one.

    One of those questions is crime: do you offset the crime with more police spending (which would, ironically enough, probably cost about 30 times more than just keeping our current welfare system and make the masses utterly loathe their government) or is the dramatic increase in crime and the damage it causes worth it in exchange for billionaires having higher numbers to throw around at their yacht parties? If you break it down to numbers, it pits the extremely minor inconvenience and moral outrage of a few thousand against the very real suffering of millions. The usual counter to this is “they'd rather invest that money into new business ventures”, but so very few do that. Money tends to find its way to the top and just sit there.

    This is the kind of question I never see libertarians answer with anything resembling coherence and that's because it's largely a fantasy scenario constructed to allow scum like the Koch Brothers to feel like victims for having to pay taxes.


  46. Zeno says:


    >One of those questions is crime:

    I reject the premise. We must abolish the institution of crime-punishment.

    “O poor mortals, how ye make this earth bitter for each other.”

    I don't see how anyone can still call themselves a libertarian after the Portland Massacre.


  47. Matt says:

    @ andrew

    Well andrew, I'll try to answer both your points as best I can.

    Fox is, as you say, right leaning, but in terms of overall performance, I'd still say that it's right leaning bias isn't as bad as the left leaning bias of other networks, though admittedly, some more then others. Fox doesn't have a massive Lib or indy base, but it gets millions of views every ngiht, and has audiance fiqures that show that it does get a large variety of viewers. On the other hand, Msnbc, CNN, and the big three, no almost always are Straight pure Liberal.

    So yes, Fox is right leaning, no doubt, but it has to be, as it's the ONLY balance left really. Thats not a good, it's just truth.

    OH, and oriely had a much better statement on the following show after the election, but your right, he had a meltdown during didnt he.

    now, on to your other question. your right, on that, you and I agree.

    Both parties are at fault, like it or not, and both need to get with reality. but, the party in power ALWAYS, take the brunt of the blame, historicly speaking. If the dems and obama fail in the next four years, regardless of if the REPS do anything or not, they will still take the blame, and the reps will likely sweep congress and the White house.

    now, as for what I want done?

    Both SIDES, and I mean this as honestly as I can, need to SOBER UP.

    Im not going party by party here, this is just what SHOULD be done, in my view, im sure your able to fiqure out which refers to which party though.

    Tax reform and revenue creation. Like it or not, taxs need to be fixed, as they have since the creation of the IRS. thats just reality, and if we see a bit of a tax increase, so be it. Im not for new taxes, I think they are economic poison, but tax reform, and even a possible flat tax? yeah, that could work. Maybe.

    Entitments, HAVE TO GO DOWN! Not be removed, not done away, but we need t move from a “GiVE ME” mentally to a “help me get back on my FEET” mentality. Cut back entitlements, focus on getting jobs created and placing people IN them, and this country will kick off again in no time.

    Defense spending. We need to change our usage of military power. We should not be the worlds policeman, we should instead focus military power on Protecting our borders, and our citizens over seas, nothing more.

    Regulation. We need to understand, that both over regulation, and to much Deregulation, are BAD THINGS. One causes the economy to break itself, the other Chokes the economy to death. You have to be smart about how you handle it. In this regard, while I didn't like him much, I think clinton understood that.

    Lastly, we need to Seperate the social Ideals of the left from the Economic realities of the right, and address them one at a time. its all well and good to have this vison of a some kind of perfect equality, but as other nations have shown, that Ideal , if not properly managed, CRUSHS economies. Greece says HI btw.

    Fix the Economy FIRST, Get unemployment UNDER 6 percent, get the debt down by at LEAST 30 percent, THEN, we can talk about the Social problems. THough if you FIX the economy, the social issues will be easier to handle as you have the resources and support to make it work.

    so, thats what I want done Andrew. Both sides have to get together to make it work, and put the Petty, Single issue shit aside to address the big issues first.

    Lemme know what you think.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s