I said it in '08, and I believe I was right, now I'll say it again about 2012...

[Atman]

The Republicans are deliberately trying to throw the race. In 2007-8 they saw the BushCo-created shitstorm coming and didn't want to be in the White House when the bottom fell out. They nominated an unelectable crazy man who in turn nominated an even crazier running mate, assuring that Barrack Obama -- or any of the other Dem front runners -- could easily skate to the Presidency, and when the effects of the previous 8 years of GOP policy hit full force, the short-memory Americans would take their bait and blame the new Democratic president.

Now, with more doom and gloom of a global financial meltdown of historic proportions on the horizon, what is the GOP doing? Blocking any hopes of doing anything to fix it, deliberately acting like petulant children while their approval ratings tank, and backing another loser candidate even crazier than McCain or Palin could ever be. Why not let Obama have it for another four years? They've done just fine under his presidency. Their wealth is skyrocketing, they've blocked any plans to roll back Bush deregulation, their wars are still raging while Obama gives them new ones from which to profit... why would they actually WANT to be in the White House when the global economy collapses? They're long-range thinkers, and they're hoping to pin it all on the feckless president and waltz back into the charred remains of America in 2016, where their much-sought-after plans of a New World serfdom, free of all regulations, can finally be realized.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I wasn't in '08, and I don't think I am now. How else can you explain the Bizzarro World field of candidates they are presenting to the American people?

(Edited for typos)

[liberal N proud]

1. Then why are they destroying the economy in the name of defeating Obama

Mitch McConnell's number one priority.

I think they are overly confident that they will succeed that they are putting clowns on the ticket.

[nichomachus]

22. What makes you think they're trying to defeat Obama

The longstanding goal of the corporatists has been to destroy the middle class. In order to do this, they have to destroy the economy. If you haven't read it already, read Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." He lays out the plan in detail.

1. Put the country into debt
2. Impose "austerity measures"
3. Depress wages
4. Privatize the infrastructure
5. Destroy unions
6. Eliminate social programs in the name of austerity
7. Eliminate taxes on corporations and the wealthy

He wrote this something like 8 or 9 years ago, before any of us even dreamed of this economic "crisis." None of this is an accident.

Oh, and the last chapter in their playbook: "How to deal with the civil unrest that will follow." And we're now seeing that play out all over the country.

[Ikonoklast]

49. We should sell every public institution we own.

And after the 1% gets demolished by popular uprisings, nationalize every single thing they bought.

[MADem]

2. To answer your question

How else can you explain the Bizzarro World field of candidates they are presenting to the American people?

the answer is: That's all they've got.

Their voters haven't quite caught on that they are a failing enterprise.

[abelenkpe]

6. +1 they are a failing enterprise

Thirty years of following their prescription for economic prosperity and this is where we are! It is past time to try a different plan.

[HughBeaumont]

8. I mean, what are they gonnna do? Put JEB up? That camel's back broke long ago.

Voters are dumb, but they aren't batshit insane. All the Replugs have are weirdos who think this is 2004 and you can sell the indefensible position of the 99% accepting less and less while the rich deserve to accumulate more and more.

[babylonsister]

9. I think you're right-"that's all they've got".

I can't even think of a rethug comparable to Obama, who could provide honest competition.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. The Corporate Media is determined to shove Mitt Romney down our throats

They have already corronated him the winner

[babylonsister]

29. The conservatives certainly aren't happy about that, so he's not

a done deal yet, though I don't know which star might start shining this late in the game. :7

Edit to add this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2134492

As Mitt Romney’s star keeps rising, a sullen mood envelops conservatives

[BamaFanLee]

67. You are right

When Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are the best they got, President Obama will win reelection in a walk.

[Atman]

14. I disagree. They had proven GOP stalwarts.

Mitch Daniels for starters. There are plenty of GOP leaders who could have stepped to the fore. But they all backed out and let the loonies take over the asylum.

[Hutzpa]

3. I disagree

otherwise they would have allowed Palin to run, they would have also convinced The Donald that he is president
material, so I am not buying that line.

[Atman]

20. Why bother with those two self-agrandizing lunatics?

They'll do fine on their own, and besides, everyone knows they are just self-promoting bullshit artists. Herman Cain is like their Bill Clinton (at least in their feeble minds), in that he came out of nowhere. But he is a pure 100% Koch-owned bullshit artist. But he's not "the establishment," and anti-establishment is all the GOP is after these days.

[the other one]

4. Get ready for Jeb 2016

Bush v. Clinton II

[asjr]

7. I totally agree. Jeb is biding his time

because he knows he will run next time. He is known to have more sense than big brother and may get by with no trouble. I do not dream of a Bush dynasty. That is more of a nightmare.

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. I make this pledge in all sincerity.

If Jeb gets elected POTUS I will emigrate. That WILL be the last straw.

[Ter]

64. No worries, Rand Paul will get the nomination in 2012

Tea Party doesn't like the Bush's.

[rurallib]

5. I will agree. But what amazes me is that nearly half this country still voted

for crazy and the guv. And will next time also.
I have come to believe that Republicans could run a roasting chicken and a bag of horse manure and still get nearly half the votes.
I attribute this to media that has whipped such a hate and fear of democrats that borders on psychotic and voting machines that can't count

[OHdem10]

11. As I heard on TV just this morning, The GOP are most intense

about winning. This is interpreted to mean. The Republicans
want to win more than Democrats want to win. Therefore the
Republicans work harder to win. Just repeating what I heard.

I will say this. The Media values intensity and passion.

[saras]

15. Given the candidates I've seen in my life, I'd vote for a roasting chicken over any of them

Hell, I think a roasting chicken would actually do better in office than, say Bush I or II.

[Demit]

10. GOP= Glad Obama's President.

From free trade agreements to expanding the wars to asserting the right to kill Americans to making a deal with Big Pharma on the healthcare bill to not going after the bankstas to cracking down on medical marijuana, Obama's been a sweet deal for them. Why mess with success? I agree with all you said.

[PatSeg]

12. The republicans have gotten almost everything

they wanted and meanwhile can pass the buck to Obama for the economy that they trashed for eight years. Then with so much focus on national politics, they put most of their energy and money into state elections and we ended up with disasters like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Maine. You can't ever relax with such adversaries.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. Theory doesn't make sense, given the Republicans' #1 priority to destroy the economy...

Also:

- The attack on voter registration/election laws in the states
- Koch/KKKarl Rove money infused into elections

For these reasons, alone, the Republicans are confident that they will win in 2012. They're not trying to throw anything.

[GoCubsGo]

18. There was nothing to "throw" in 2008.

The country was so sick of GWB, that the GOP couldn't win, regardless of who they ran. But, I can see how they might throw the 2012 race for reasons you just stated. I definitely would not put that past them, although they are certainly doing everything they can to regain complete control of Congress. I guess they must gearing up for the take-over.

However, as to your last question, there IS the matter of their running out of their party every sane person. All they have left is the Bizzarro World faction. All the sane moderate types, like Jim Jeffords and Linc Chaffee are now Independents. They can't run anything but nutjobs, because the party is now comprised completely of nutjobs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Silly Analysis

How did they throw the economy in 08? The economy sucked and that was the # 1 issue. Are you arguing that they caused the economy to suck so they could lose the election. That makes even less sense.

"Some idea are so bizarre that only an intellectual or someone who fancies himself as an intellectual can believe them."

[Atman]

21. You're joking, right?

Either that, or profoundly ignorant of the effects of Bush policies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Don't Understand Your Argument

Is your argument the Republicans are so Machivellian and omnipotent that they manipulate elections to win when it suits them and lose elections when it doesn't but they are so feckless that they could lose the House, Senate, and presidency in a scant four years which is what they did from 04-08.

As I said "some ideas are so bizzare only an intellecual can believe them." I put them in quotations because my friend said that. He said he got it from Orwell but I can't find the official quotation.

[patrice]

23. Anyone who knew anything about it had to have also known it was going to come down, so the task was

to determine who would pick what time for that to happen.

[Atman]

25. No one has been "picked" yet.

I work in politics. There are "organizations" that pull the strings. The Republican National Committee has the final say on who gets nominated. Right now, they're still checking the pulse, seeing who is flying and who is tanking. In the end, Romney will be the pick because he is the most "normal" of all the loonies. But they know he can't win in the south or the swing states because of his baggage. So why would they pick him instead of bringing in a real, viable candidate? You are under the delusion that this is really a people-driven democratic process. It is just like any other fraternal organization: the guys at the top with all the money and power make the final decision of who is going to run. That decision hasn't been made yet, but since the filing deadlines are all but over, they're stuck with the clown posse presented to them. None of them, IMHO, can beat Obama short of outright cheating and vote theft. That is still and option, but I still contend that they don't actually want to be on watch when the global economy collapses. They just want to be there to profit off it when (not if) it finally does.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. If The Repubs Are So So Smart Why Did They "Throw" The 92 and 96 Elections?

Those were pretty good years for Americans.

[Atman]

37. All things are not equal.

Why do you bring up 92 and 96? What do they have to do with anything? I didn't say this was an on-going historic thing. I wrote specifically about 2008 and 2012, very different times, very different situations, and a very different Republican party, emboldened by new elections laws, new voting machines, and years and years of lessons learned. Everything isn't a zero sum game.

.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. So The Republicans Only Throw Elections When It Suits Your Argument

.

[Atman]

41. You're thinking too narrowly.

That is not at all what I said. You can find volumes written about the slow, steady advancement of the Republican machine built on lessons learned from previous defeats. Buying up the media was one of them. Buying the voting machine companies and switching America to e-voting was another. Appointing friendly SCOTUS judges was another. These things simply were not in place in 92 and 96, so they are irrelevant to the point my original post made.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. So You Are Arguing That The Only Time We Can Win Is When They Let Us

.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. "'92 and '96?" Don't you mean '96 and '98?

[patrice]

35. I was thinking about who amongst the international 1% would be the one(s) to pull the rug out

from under lesser-entities, what size that rug would be, and when to pull it out from others; not referring to the political employees of same, but the masters of the political operatives.

They all knew what they were doing, all of them, they were probably networking the investments to protect themselves and their buddies, but no one(s) in all of the systems could have known exactly what their competition was up to, nor what anyone else's actual assets were, so they kept spreading the network and pumping up the bubbles, until someone(s) decided to take their profits (real estate and other forms of "equity") and split from their game of Chicken/Russian-roulette/Musical Chairs or however you want to characterize it. These are the decisions I was referring to: who would head for the "exit" first, when would they do that, and how much "value" they were going to drag with them when they did.

[bvar22]

26. All According to Plan, My Pretties.

All according to plan.

The Republicans will be allowed back into the White House in 2016.
The Illusion of a Difference must be maintained.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Political Party.


Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tavalon]

28. You're probably right

I don't care, though. I'll cast my vote for what's his name but throw my lot with the 99%.

[phleshdef]

30. Republican primaries voters do not hold meetings and plan this sort of thing, ya know.

I could see your theory extending as far as top donors and party leadership. But the primary voters are going to support whoever they support. They don't all get together and discuss throwing elections.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Want To Know Why They Threw The 92 Election When The Economy Was Clearly Improving

.

[phleshdef]

32. They ran their incumbent and he lost to a much more charismatic candidate.

George HW Bush had spent the last 12 years in the White House by that point. I think people had grown tired of the same shit and wanted something new. It wasn't even all that much of an ideological election, really. You also have to compound that with the fact that Mondale and Dukakis were not very good candidates. They are great guys of course, but neither of them really knew how to inspire in a national campaign situation. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, oozes that kind of thing from his very pores. They didn't throw anything. They ran their incumbent, as parties tend to do whenever it seems reasonable. And the Democrats nominated someone that was able to attract more voters than their incumbent. Thers nothing complicated about it whatsoever.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Bingo

All this throwing elections stuff is silly. Any dispassionate observer with a working knowledge of politics can look at the economic and political climate the summer or maybe even spring of the presidential election and pick which party is going to win the White House. I know I have since 1968 when I was ten.

[Atman]

39. Naive.

The television gives the voters their choices. The media anoints the chosen ones. The primary voters pick from those they are presented. If they pick the wrong one, a la Palin or Bachmann, the media machine -- doing the bidding of their corporate masters -- destroys them, whittles down the field to an acceptable few, then finally picks who it wants us to vote for anyway. I have no doubt Romney will be the pick this time. He is the multi-millionaire whose turn it is. He's paid his dues, and he is totally expendable. Like McCain was. Of course the primary voters don't all get together to discuss throwing elections. That is absurd, I never suggested that. You need to think bigger.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. So Obama Won Because The Repubs Threw The Election And Not Because The Economy Was In The Shitter

on edit- in that economic and political environment they could have run Jesus and still lost.

And I will show you how much faith I have in my theory. If the economy is still in the shitter next November we will lose regardless of who the Repubs nominate.

Economics drive history.

[phleshdef]

47. Palin and Bachmann got destroyed because they are morons that can't fake being anything else.

You can't blame the media for that. At least those are cases where the media was giving those 2 the reaction they should have gotten.

[Atman]

50. Sorry for the repetitive sub lines, but you miss my point.

Bachmann was totally, 100% trumped up by the media for weeks. They let her play herself out. When I say "the media" it is important to understand what I am talking about. No one on TV goes on-air without a script. There are producers and editors and writers answering to the higher-up producers and editors. If you think any on-air "personality" is speaking off the cuff about their actual feelings pertaining to a certain issue, you don't know how "the media" works. MSNBC, for example, is owned by GE, which also is a major defense contractor and a major insurance provider. Ask yourself a simple question: why would the the GE board allow it's subsidiaries to go on air to a national audience spouting stuff that would decrees shareholder value? After all, their corporate charter doesn't say "We'll be wonderful people and do good things for life." It says that they'll return profit to their investors. Period. That is their goal. So when you hear corporate media touting one candidate over the other, it is because they have a goal. In the old days, maybe before you were born, the "NEWS" divisions of the media were separate from their entertainment divisions. No longer. So news is now just considered entertainment by GE, Fox and the others. It is all about profit, not facts.

Stop believing that anyone on any cable TV channel gives a shit about anyone but themselves.

[phleshdef]

51. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the media.

I just don't think it has end all, be all control over who wins elections as you seem to be suggesting.

If the Republicans lose this next election, its because they didn't have a candidate to run that was more appealing to a winning majority than Barack Obama, not because they wanted to lose in order to avoid having to take responsibility for possible future economic catastrophes. They are much more likely to try to win anytime they have a chance and blame anything that happens after the fact on Obama.

[Atman]

53. What if the Republicans didn't WANT a candidate who could win?

I'm not saying it is the media...they media is the GOP, they are only helping elevate the narrative. There are many capable Republicans who would make truly viable national candidates, and they've all choses not to run, to allow the Clown Posse to take center stage. Why does the RNC allow this? No national political organization wanting to win would allow any of these jackasses to step up to the debate podium. So why are they doing it now? I don't agree with you that they'd much rather just win. Some individuals might aspire to that, but the Republican National Party doesn't want it. That is my premise. THEY DON'T WANT THE BAGGAGE THAT WILL COME WITH THE TROPHY. Let the current dude suffer the inevitable economic firestorm resulting from their policies. But if they are in charge when the walls come down, they have to eat it. I don't see this as being all that difficult an argument to understand.

[phleshdef]

54. Its not difficult to understand. Its just insanely silly to believe.

The Republicans want the Whitehouse anytime they can get their hands on it. I highly doubt capturing the highest office is ever going to be trumped by the luxury of laziness that comes with not being in charge.

Look, I know you've convinced yourself that you possess some kind of higher political wisdom and that you are taking your time out to "explain" to me all this stuff I'm apparently too naive to understand on my own. But the reality is, what you are suggesting is just terribly ridiculous. Its not thats its at all complicated. Its just without merit.

[Atman]

56. "what you are suggesting is just terribly ridiculous."

The reality is, that is simply your opinion. And it holds no more weight than mine, no matter how snarky you phrase it.

I'm just posting my own theory about what is going on. Feel free to disprove it. You haven't proved your side of the argument any more than I have mine. I'm just making an observation based upon what I have seen going on. Of course, I could be wrong. I don't think so, even if you do.

That's how we play.

.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Unrec for piffle.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

63. +1

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

36. They also masterminded Occupy Wall Street......

Those Republicans are brilliant, and we're all a bunch of dumbasses! :patriot:



:sarcasm:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. From You

"Now, with more doom and gloom of a global financial meltdown of historic proportions on the horizon, what is the GOP doing? Blocking any hopes of doing anything to fix it."

If the Repubs want to throw the election why wouldn't they approve the president's job plan. Independent economists suggest it would increase rhe GDP by a bit and reduce unemployment by a bit. This would help Pres. obama. This would put him in a stronger electoral position and presumably make it easier for them to throw the election.

[Atman]

48. Because by doing nothing, it gets worse, and they'll still "lose."

Which is what they want.

They can't approve the President's jobs plan because it will give him an uptick running into the 2012 election, indicating a success which might well propel another Democrat into office in 2016. The strategy is to emphasize Democrats as failures. They need the Democratic president to fail on a monumental, global scale. They need to get America to hate Democrats and vote for Republicans in 2016. The global financial collapse is going to happen no matter who is in office, so why have a republican at the helm when we hit the iceberg?

:shrug:

It's just a theory, I admit...but I invite you to demonstrate the flaws.

[Ganja Ninja]

45. Bizarro world candidates for a Bizarro world party.

They are who they are. If you were a sane Republican or at least a semi lucid conservative would you even consider running? It's like boarding the bus from crazy town doused in gasoline and headed for a cliff. Only the crazy need apply. Show even a hint of sanity and they will look for any other candidate then you.

[BlueIris]

46. I started to have that feeling in the primaries of '08.

Of course, the Republicans weren't the only ones I had it about.

[quaker bill]

52. You actually believe they are thinking?

Have you watched these folks for the last decade?

[secondwind]

55. There are as many as 3 Supreme Court seats up for grabs... your argument is flawed.

[kickysnana]

57. Recent history says any USSCJ can be offed, framed or otherwise disposed of and

nobody will do anything about it. They have no law, personal moral limits or anything to stop them and the Dems "don't look back" which is abetting isn't it.?

[Autumn]

58. abetting ? I don't think so

more like accomplices.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Huh

Most justices retire.

[kickysnana]

62. I am sure Paul Wellstone expected to retire too. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Who Is The Last Supreme Court Justice To Die Under Mysterious Circumstances?

.

[kickysnana]

66. What SC selected a President. What I am saying is they will stop at nothing. n/t

[Myrina]

60. Agreed. Additionally ...

... the power elite haven't exactly suffered under this Administration, so they're in no particular hurry to replace Obama, either.

[Atman]

61. Pretty much the gist of my post, whether the nay-sayers see it or not.

Why replace Obama? The top tier has done extremely well under the current administration, and the economy is still headed for a free-fall. If there is a Republican president in place when it happens, we'll all say "SEE! IT'S THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS!" But if Obama is still in office, the finger-pointing is much, much -- MUCH -- easier. The Kenyan black communist whatever president did it! They know full well, as any thinking person does, that it was Bush's unfunded illegal warring and tax policies that got us to the edge of this precipice. What sane candidate would sign of to the helm of the Titanic? So let the wookie win.

[AverageJoe90]

68. If this ended up being their strategy I have a feeling it'd backfire BADLY on 'em. nt

[lunatica]

69. Except the OWS came along and changed everything for everyone in politics

Talk about throwing a wrench into the machine!