Maybe we should let the GOP win (on edit: the WH) in 2008. Hear me out...

Suppose that this dumbass Payday Loan bailout gets passed in some form or another.

Suppose that said bailout manages to keep the economy afloat until about the election.

Then, suppose one of the Corporate Dems gets in and the Depression arrives. There will be absolutely no financial levers left to pull, because this idiotic bailout scheme drains whatever possibility that anyone would ever loan money to this crooked government again.

The Corporate Media will:

1) say that the Dems are as responsible for this as the GOP, since they voted for the bailout.

2) say that the Dems must behave "responsibly" by slashing the social safety net.

The financial community will:

1) immediately stop covering up the mess, and let it all land on the Dems.

The Corporate Dem will assume the role of designated scapegoat, and all (corporate) history will record is that the 2nd Great Depression happened on the Democrats watch.

------

But, if we let the GOP stay (ON EDIT: in the White House), then its ALL their fault. And things will be so bad that they will probably spend all their time trying not to get killed by their own supporters.

The people with money in the world will recognize that America is too far gone to stop itself, and they will finally take responsiblity for stopping us. They will do so by cutting the remaining financial support off. America will rapidly tank, and the GOP will be disgraced.

------

All right. Its a stupid idea. It won't work. The GOP would just declare martial law and throw people in camps. Plus they would threaten with nukes; but the Russians would threaten back, and we would be in Cold War 2.

But it was more interesting than another candidate thread, wasn't it?

arendt

It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. This country is being bled dry, and the constitution is being flushed down the toilet. This can not continue.

it is only being kept afloat because a GOPer is in the WH.

(The following is a Stephen Colbert monologue (RW devil's advocate talking points):

Do you think for one minute that all financial hell won't break loose if a Dem is put in the WH?

Do you think for one minute that a Corporate Dem isn't going to do anything that Wall Street tells them to?

So, would you rather be selling apples on the corner with a slightly less intrusive police state? Or would you rather let the jerkoffs running this mess continue to disgrace themselves, while ever more completely exposing the total corruption of the system?

I think that 2008 is different than 2004 because, today, the majority of people gets that they have been screwed. And, they get that there isn't much difference between a Corporate Republican, like McCain, and a Corporate Dem, like Hillary. So, why should the Dems disgrace themsleves by taking over?

It would be like the way the Kaiser fled and left the German democrats holding the bag for losing WW1. Can you say "Stab in the Back"?

arendt

I live in the country and have no interest in going down with the ship just to prove the GOP's economic policies aren't sound.

way -- and why not let the actual evildoers, the pubs, get the actual blame? I confess I have harbored that thought many a time over the past 4 years myself, because I want to see the pubs tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail. I want them all to howl in the wilderness. At this late a date, the poor Dems aren't going to be able to save us, even if they had all the spine, will, and determination in the world. Which they don't, as evidenced by the last two years in Congress.

For what started out to be mockery, this thread has advanced my thinking. In spite of the fact that very few have recommended it (which I have no problem with).

arendt

but MSM and PTB will jump on Dems saying their policies were wrong to "fix" and that it will be "throw the Dems Out" and bring back the Repugs!

The Repugs have made this mess and things are dire. For a New AMERICA to RISE Like a Phoenix from the ASHES...mean we might have to look at BOTH PARTIES as being part of the same old Party. For a NEW DEM PARTY TO ARISE...we must allow the flaming house to go down...so the "Phoenix" has a chance of appearing that can RISE ABOVE...BOTH PARTIES as they are NOW Structured.

I think it makes sense. ..and Romney would probably be the one of choice who would do the least damage. The rest are idiots and warmongers and Bush Bots. Romney is clueless and you can make an "imprint on him"...but it depends on who the "Powers that Be" will foist on him as VP. That's the dilemna....

I know folks will say that putting a Repug in...means WAR ON IRAN..and MORE OF THE SAME... But, when we elected a Dem House and Senate...didn't we get MORE OF THE SAME? We know that IRAN is on the table...both parties leaders have sanctioned that Legislation giving Bushies another "CHECK" for the Unitary/Pre-Emptive Presidency."

No difference in this group between Repugs and Dems...so better to be with a Repug who might be forced to put some breaks on it all. if we ELECT MORE DEMS to CONGRESS AND SENATE! :shrug:

You make a good point: we voted for change in 2006 and got Reid and Pelosi. Who says we won't get hosed again?
What we need now is benevolent gridlock.

arendt

And a new Senate Leader and Speaker of the House.

Anyone know of some Dems with a spine?

Divided government. See post #15.

Let it fester a while. If the GOP president doesn't start doing sensible things, the majority can impeach him; and keep impeaching people until we get someone sane into the WH.

That would bring respectability back to the impeachment process.

----

What do you all think? Is this more fund than candidate bashing flamewars??

arendt

Level Politics and ignore this Media Presidential Whore Fest that's going on CNN NOW! We need to focus on LOCAL like the RW did..because the NATIONAL is already being "SET UP" as "DONE DEAL" for Americans who don't know what we here on DU know about how the "System" has worked against us...and the PUSH BACK is in it's final throes...... But, it will bite us in the butt...once again.

GO LOCAL...it's how the RW'ingers DID IT...we need to do this..

I think we're in for some seriously bad times, whether a Dem manages to win the WH or not.
If things start going south now--it may help Edwards' candidacy. If the economy holds on for another 6 months or longer and then tanks, we're gonna' wish we had Edwards in office.

n/t

I feel sorry for you.:( Geezus.

the powers that be will dump ALL the blame on ANY Democrat. They will paralyze that administration.

And, a Corporate (as opposed to a non-corporate) Dem administration will do everything the powers that be tell them to do ECONOMICALLY - and the PTB will still put the blame on the Dems.

And, later, after the Depression, voters will say: the Dems didn't save us. Sure the GOP were bad, but the Dems continued to screw us economically.

Most voters care a lot more about their pocketbook and their football team than their Constitution.

Do you get that?

arendt

letting them win if either of the MSM front runners get the nomination.

employer-based health care.

expose itself for what it is.

And, controlling ( > 2/3) Congress would prevent bad SCOTUS nominees.

The more I talk about this, the less crazy it sounds.

Stop me, before I speak again!

arendt

That would be some trick.

Given the current front-runners, its a case of GOP vs GOP-lite.

Hell, Joe Lieberman supports McCain. How is Hillary going to deal with that?

----

But, we can pick up seats in Congress, where candidates are less visibly compromised; and people vote more on party affiliation than on personality.

arendt

Lose the top, you lose the rest.

Given the current front-runners, its a case of GOP vs GOP-lite.

Hell, Joe Lieberman supports McCain. How is Hillary going to deal with that?

Oh, I see. What you really want is for Hillary to lose.

Well, why didn't you just say so, instead of building some completely unlikely scheme around it?

I could say the same about Obama - Lieberman is his former "mentor", whom he still speaks warmly of.

arendt

That's your problem? Apparently, you don't realize that 60%+ of the general public *already* blames the Bush Administration for most of our country's ills.

Your "solution" is let them screw it up even further - intentionally lose the presidency, but wave a magic wand and take over two-thirds of Congress.

I have now seen it all.

The problem that I was referring to was how do HRC and BO deal with Joe Lieberman and his support for McCain. How do they deal with the DLC support for the War in Iraq, with Joe Lieberman holding their feet to the fire?

Go ahead, tell me some words that HRC or BO might say when Joe mouths off that McCain is a straight-shooting pro-war guy, and the Dem is either an anti-war person who pretends to be pro-war or a pro-war person who is afraid to say so.

arendt

I expect they are well on their way to winning as it is. We do a really good job of shooting ourselves in the foot. With so many people saying they will only support thier specific candidate for the nomination, we're going to be hard-pressed to win in November as it is.

People seem to be so convinced that the Democratic party has November in the bag. Well, they were convinced in 2000, 2002, and 2004, too. They don't seem to be able to understand that there's huge numbers of people that vote Repub because they want to, and because they like the policies. If we don't treat this election seriously, we're in for a repeat of the the past 6 years.

I just don't get a lot of the attitude here. There's people that post every day how the country is barely hanging on by a thread, that if we don't fight tooth and nail to win the country will be doomed, some of them say the country is already a dictatorship, and then at the same time they turn around and say they won't support the Democratic nominee unless it's their candidate. If our situation is as dire as it is made out to be, how can anybody sit it out?

That's the solution? The candidates don't line up perfectly with their demands, so they let someone 1,000 times worse become president? Will the Repubs end Iraq?

Clinton and Obama might not provide the kind of transformational change we'd like to see, and Edwards at this point isn't looking too good for the nomination, but at this point I'd settle for someone who could just stop the bleeding so that perhaps their successor will have something to build on. Four or eight more years of Republican rule in this country and God help us.

People were yelling at him when he said he would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, because doing so would just allow a pub into the White House. He said he can't do it any longer, he's been voting for the lesser of evils for five or so elections and he personally can't do it any longer.

Then he laid out the idea of what would happen if the pubs got the White House but we retained Congress. What's coming down in terms of the economy and other facets most people have no idea. So let the pub get the blame. He would preside over a terrible but necessary time, and then finally, the Republican party would be dead

This is kind of a version of what Nader proclaimed in 2000- that the country needs to be broken before it can be fixed. I understand what he, and you, are saying. The public largely consists of people who have no idea what the hell is going on and are easily led. They WILL be led to the conclusion that the Dems are to blame for the problems coming up. It seems as if a Dem always has to clean up the mess. However, I think the country is broken enough. I don't think it can stand much more breaking.

sick of candidate threads. In an early response, I said I was channeling Stephen Colbert.

But, as I made up BS, it came too easily.

Well, maybe the country is already so broken, that we should leave this Pottery Barn problem to the assholes who broke it.

Maybe HRC or BO are fine candidates. But they are walking into a maelstrom, and taking the Dems with them. Neither one has proven themselves to be anything but an insider with a good PR department. Why not let the GOP continue to teach the country how dumb they are, while preventing the implementation of that dumbness.

arendt

Dem is better than any Con" hysteria. Whether it is practical, doable, whatever is debatable as well.

It would be a stupid idea IF there were a progressive democrat who got the nomination. But, as you say, what we are going to be stuck with is a DLC/DINO/ compromising corporate sell-out who will not push a liberal agenda. The minimal gains from a D in the White House will be offset by the continuation of the Bush* agenda, economic and foreign policy. We could get a couple of (social policy) crumbs but the main parts of the power structure will remain firmly in Wall Street's hands.

And the Democrats will get the blame for the continued deterioration of the country.

It's a damn shame.

My big reason is:

Let the GOP be ruined as a result of a disaster of their own making, not let the Dems take the fall for that.

The economic disaster is already here, we just haven't felt the pain yet. At this point, just stopping the train cold (rather than going in the correct direction) is about as progressive an agenda as could be gotten through the gridlock.

arendt

Try again...

And think this time....

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq

And they discussed this in the previous debates....

And you are reacting to a loaded question from Russert asking them to guarantee that all troops would be out by 2013, and no responsible person would do that because who knows what Bush does in Iran in the next year or whatever else happens. But If you choose to take this ONE QUESTION and be melodramatic about it and assume that the situation will be the same in 2013 as it is today, then you are clearly not thinking straight.

And he said there could be troops there to guard the embassy.

:shrug:

Nice illustration of changing the debate thou.

And, every embassy of every country in the world has guards. How is that an instance of hypocrisy?

arendt

Where are you getting this from?

You said:

"And you are reacting to a loaded question from Russert asking them to guarantee that all troops would be out by 2013, and no responsible person would do that because who knows what Bush does in Iran in the next year or whatever else happens."

But, John Edwards has made exactly such a guarantee. (I can't say if he made it in that event w Russert, because I do not watch the Horse Race crapola. But he sure has said he would get the troops out in a year.) Therefore, you have called him "no responsible person".

Note: I have endorsed no candidate at this point. I enjoy tormenting all supporters of the Horse Race equally.

arendt

----

So he could not guarantee that when Russert asked. I remember a thousand threads from everyone flaming the top 3 over this when the debate happened.

And I am glad you clarified your point.

Its still obvious that all 3 would end the war.

I'm going out in a blaze of glory or bitter defeat. Either way, I'm fighting until the BITTER FUCKING END, win or lose. :patriot:

of that there is no doubt, no doubt at all. We have let these miscreants drive the country into a ditch and it's going to hurt like hell when it happens, but it's already in motion there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop it.
I really don't know that it's going to make a big rat's ass whether you have a d or r next to your name whoever's lap this mess falls into is going to be made the patsy.

I really think that this election is going to be fractured, we've got six different varieties of repuke, some a little more religiously insane than others, some economic, some social conservative, but each group has a healthy hatred if the other.

The fundies don't like the mormons, the business pukes don't like the fundies of either stripe and our heartily sick of them. The libertarian pukes don't care for either the religious or business faction, they have the real potential of splitting into several different camps....as do we.

We, the liberal progressive arm of the party, are getting tired of being taken for granted, tired of holding our noses and voting for someone just because they call themself democratic. We have gop lite, dlcers, corprocrats, etc etc etc...

Someone has to stagger or fall across the finish line, I'm falling into the camp where I hope it's the greasiest sleaziest bastard out there go ahead get it done waiting for the inevitable is a bitch, if it means millions are going to die and myself along with them, then by dog let's just get it done.

I heard it in my head while reading your post, so I shall share:

Enjoy...and remember, there is nothing new under the sun: this is from his 1965 album "That Was the Year that Was"

National Brotherhood Week

(spoken:)
One week of every year is designated National Brotherhood Week. This is just one of many such weeks honoring various worthy causes. One of my favorites is National Make-fun-of-the-handicapped Week which Frank Fontaine and Jerry Lewis are in charge of as you know. During National Brotherhood Week various special events are arranged to drive home the message of brotherhood. This year, for example, on the first day of the week Malcolm X was killed which gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is. I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that. Here's a song about National Brotherhood Week.

(lyrics:)

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks.
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

:kick:

The revolution will not be televised.

I've had ENOUGH of the republicans, thank you!!!

The way to kill them is to put them in the hot seat, but kill their bad ideas.

If you put a Dem in with a nearly divided Congress (can you say Blue Dog Dem, DLC), the Dem will get the blame.

arendt

in office!!!!!!

honest, I don't know what the hell I'm going to do. The only thing I'm sure of is I won't be voting republican!! For the first time in my life I may not be voting.

and if he/she does, the fool will be laughed off the planet. Also we must keep always fresh in our minds that the next pres will probably appoint at least two Supreme Court judges.

OMFG THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER.

OK, sorry for yelling.