Ann Althouse dissects Obama’s speech yesterday.
You know, all that dissing of trucks (and truck drivers) isn’t going to play very well in southeast Michigan this fall. I can see a lot of campaign ad fodder arising from that speech. They don’t just drive trucks back where I come from — they build them. And the guy who’s running them down is the putative owner of the company who makes them. It’s truly amazing how politically tone deaf these people are. Now that the Bush derangement among the general populace (which was the prime driver for electing this cipher) is wearing off, they’re going to reap the whirlwind in November.
It is rather remarkable how much of the “Bush derangement” has worn off. There’s negative actually a reaction, even on the left, to Obama’s continual whining about how everything was “Bush’s fault.”
That is in contrast to Clinton, who invented a mythical President named Reaganbush, and blamed everything on twelve years of him. Clinton was able to keep that up through his entire presidency, and then halfway through George W. Bush’s, without the same backlash as Obama has managed to stir up in one year. Let’s hope it stays that way.
They’re bitter and clinging to their trucks.
The new sports car from Government Motors:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=24203
What do you expect with large trucks being Politically Incorrect?
Oops! Trying again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY
Jim’s right, I should spend time watching Obama speeches.
MfK;
Clinton managed that by saying how evil ReaganBush were while adopting their economic policies. After the 1994 collapse of the Democratic Party in Congress, Clinton tacked hard back to the center right (welfare reform, NAFTA, etc.). That got the economy back on track and after that people simply didn’t pay much attention.
Clinton (actually, America) also benefited by the abrupt end of the Cold War just before he took office. I was in the middle of ICBM development at the time, and nothing delighted me more than seeing the Small ICBM canceled as a reciprocal gesture (by George H.W. Bush) when the Berlin Wall fell.
Not many today remember the term “peace dividend,” but that was the only thing that allowed Clinton to take credit for a huge economic expansion. It was a post-war boom, plain and simple.
Rand, that assumes that the Repubs offer a clear choice this fall, rather than just Dem Lite. So far, I don’t see any sgns of this at a national level. Certainly the election today in MA doesn’t offer much of a choice between the two front runners. American Conservative’s blog ran an article noting Mr. Brown’s weakness on tax and spending.
Being a cynical person, I would not be surprised that if elected(a very big if, IMHO), Brown turned around and voted for all of the Dems’ agenda. After all, he won’t have to face the voters for 6 years.
American Conservative’s blog ran an article noting Mr. Brown’s weakness on tax and spending.
The kind of pol that American Conservative would like, wouldn’t win in Massachusetts. In other words, it’s not Brown that’s weak on tax and spending, it’s the Massachusetts voter.
Being a cynical person, I would not be surprised that if elected(a very big if, IMHO), Brown turned around and voted for all of the Dems’ agenda. After all, he won’t have to face the voters for 6 years
What would Brown get out of that? Not only will he have to face those voters in three years (not six), he’ll be subject to the considerable wrath of the Republican party. If he plays ball with the GOP, he’s got a shot at higher office. A photogenic, youngish senator who might just deepsix Obamacare? That can be parlayed into a bid at the Presidency or a cabinet seat.