Ash Burton wrote:

This tactic really tired on the American voters and eventually caught up and bit the GOP in the ass. Hence the new president, who ran a pretty mud free campaign.

Obama didn't win because he ran a mudfree campaign- he won the election because 1) McCain picked Palin as his VP, 2) the GOP was in power for 8 years, and the political pendulum swings in the other direction after a group has been in power for too long (Clinton in power for 8 years before Bush, Bush and Reagan in power before Clinton, Carter before Bush and Reagan....), and 3) rather than sling mud, Obama ran his campaign on abstract and unmeasurable pies in the sky like "Hope" and "Change." Obama won mostly because McCain screwed up and because he blew rainbows up the voters' collective ass at a time that it was prime to have rainbows blown up it.

That said, mudslinging is contextual. It's polarizing. The people that originally agree with the position are usually reinforced, and the people who are not usually go in the other direction. There's a theory in communication called "psychological reactance theory" that says that if someone tries to convince you of something in an overtly persuasive way (e.g. mudslinging), then there is a real risk of pushing those that slightly disagree with you further in the other direction. That's what happens with political mudslinging I think. It's meant to rev up your constituency. That's also why the Swift Boat veterans were so effective. The Bush base was much larger than the Kerry base. The Swift Boat campaign wasn't meant to bring any Democrats to the right, it was meant to keep the right-leaning swing voters to the right. And it worked... if I remember right, Kerry didn't win the swing votes he needed and Bush maintained the votes of his constituency.

Obama didn't need to sling mud because once McCain picked Palin, he just had to keep the campaign in cruise control. As long as he kept being the anti-Bush and making vague, abstract assertions, he couldn't lose.

Ash Burton wrote:

It's amazing that you think Obama won because McCain messed up. I think you really underestimate the political climax that was created by the right. 8 years of fear mongering and trying to muzzle the opposition through cut throat political campaigning caught up.

Dude, did you read what I wrote? McCain's gaffe was one of three reasons that I listed Obama won. One of the other one was the swing of the political spectrum. In this particular instance, this version of the GOP lost its power because of what's been called fear-mongering. Judging by what I've seen from Obama so far, my guess will be that when it swings back to the right, it will be due to what will be called either appeasement/trying to do to much or failing to live up to promises. I didn't say Obama won ONLY because the McCain camp screwed up, but it certainly helped to move swing voters to the left last year.

Ash Burton wrote:

Obama has gotten himself into trouble during this presidency for actually trying to bring change and trying to work with republicans, while he needs to tell the GOP to shut the fuck up and take his policies. The republicans have made him out to be such a demon that now it's political suicide if they choose to work with him on anything. Maybe he's figured out now that there is no working together. If the GOP can force 2 wars, a patriot act, a bank bailout and the banning of buying foreign pharmaceuticals down our throat, then I think they can deal with some tax raises and some fucking healthcare reform.

Also, for Chrissakes... you're going on about how the Republicans have "demonized" Obama and how the poor, defenseless Democrats were pushed around and forced...

Two wars:
Iraq Resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.png

War in Afghanistan: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00064:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.j.res.00023:


The USA Patriot Act (WITH a Democrat President AND Congress):
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/obama-backs-expiring-patriot-act-spy-provisions/

The Bank Bailout:
Just check the date on when it occurred... and if you're trying to pin all the reasons for the banks' failures between the years 2001-2008, you should look back farther. The financial crisis was put into motion in at LEAST 1996, but probably as far back as the 1970s. Here's just one of the many reasons that went down (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html)

I don't know nearly enough about the pharmaceutical industry to provide any educated commentary on it, so I'll assume you're right about that one.

...the Democrats have had enough power to make some differences in the last decade, and they've done nothing. If the Republican Party has been the party of bad ideas for the last decade, then the Democratic Party has been the party of NO ideas in the past decade.


I have two points, really. One, which I made above, part of Obama's appeal was that he was the anti-Bush... at least that was his rhetoric. For all this talk of change, hope, sunshine, and rainbows, and smoke up your ass... ::looks around for change, doesn't see too much of it:: there's been little to show that he has changed anything.

Second, maybe you're right that the GOP could "handle" some tax raises and healthcare reform. Only problem is, you're talking as if higher taxes and healthcare reform are universally attractive things. For example, didn't the Affordable Health Care Act get shot the fuck down in the Senate not two months ago? And yet, Obama's back at it, trying to push it through? That's fine, and that's what his constituency expects him to do, and probably what he SHOULD do. That's what politics are. But still, you can't expect political opponents to lay down for the second coming of Jesus Christ in the Democratic Party.



"Obama has gotten himself into trouble during this presidency for actually trying to bring change and trying to work with republicans, while he needs to tell the GOP to shut the fuck up and take his policies"
That is, by definition, totalitarianism. That's why I like my government with checks and balances.

I never thought I'd feel like I'm feeding the troll on these forums, but here goes...

1) Bush was a pussy, he hid out in the National guard to avoid deployment, and still couldn't keep the candy out of his nose long enough to even show up for drill. This is what we call a shit-bag. But, like many turds, some float to the top.

These aren't arguments about Bush-administration policies... moving on.



2) Cheney was a bitch, and if I ever see him I will smack his monopoly man looking ass right in the mouth. Bastard took 5 deferments to stay out of the war, but has no problems starting them and then sending his company to get all the no bid contracts it can or can not handle. Fuck him.

These aren't arguments about Bush administration policies... moving on.



3) I'm not the biggest fan of Obama (I wanted Webb), but the man has brought change like it or not. We are actually talking to other nations instead of talking tough to them. He isn't dancing like a monkey on the white house steps while the country goes into financial collapse, he's actually working. The change is that our Presidency may be a punching bag, but no longer a punch line.

Out of curiosity, and possibly taking the role of devil's advocate: why should we talk to some other countries? North Korea for example. The Obama administration made a big point to say that we'd open dialogue with them. Why should we? Really- how is that nothing but an invitation for other countries to go: "Oh shit. NK didn't behave, now they get talks. Maybe we should do that."
I'm not saying that Obama isn't right. Truth is, I don't really know. But to unilaterally believe that having open talks with other countries for the sake of having open talks with other countries is fucking stupid. Sometimes sanctions and threats work. Ask Libya. Ask Japan. Ask the Soviet Union (if it still existed).

Also, while it's obviously not desirable for a government to be considered illegitimate or stupid (i.e. a "punchline" as you put it), it's equally, if not MORE undesirable for it to be considered weak or incompetent (i.e. a "punching bag" as you put it). While we can talk all day about how great it is that we're trying to hold hands and make peace with everyone... if that comes at the price of appearing capable of defend one's homeland, it's useless. I'm not saying we need to be war-mongering, but appearing weak in a world where there are countless countries and subnational organizations just waiting to kill LOTS of Americans is criminally stupid.



4) As for his mandate, the man was black, inexperienced and had a middle name of Hussein. Winning the presidency is his fucking mandate, period.

Come on, man. This is stupid. The fact that the dude is black has no bearing on anything. The fact that he's inexperienced means he should have anything BUT a mandate. Inexperience in any arena means that you should pretty much not be doing whatever the fuck you want. The fact that his middle name is Hussein has no bearing on anything.


5) I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

One of my favorite lines in all of movies. Both sides of the aisle can agree that he's a damn badass.