The Right Wing's New Target: AARP

[MarxII]

Is there any hope that this will prove as blundering a misstep for the Bagger Brigade as it appears at first glance? Seems to me that a good many socially reactionary elder folks might find themselves torn between the governmental programs that allow them to live in relative comfort and safety, and the party that loudly espouses other among their views and has until recently courted their vote with gusto.

[lance]

I want to mention that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance.

[Tribun]

I want to mention that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance.

That's no secret, but in the mind of these right-wing nuts, medicare is the work of the devil, or something like that.

[Broomstick]

I want to mention that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance.

Single-payer universal health care like Canada or the UK or France or... well, really, almost any other developed country you care to name is more efficient than private insurance. So what? The Tea Party isn't listening. The average Republican isn't listening. They don't want to hear it, and not only that, they want to label it treason.

What's the worse that could happen? Breakdown of the US system, open armed violence in the streets, civil war.... Hey, it's happened before.

Do I think it will end that way?

Probably not. Most of the time things don't get that bad. They could, but usually don't.

A lot depends on how the next couple years play out. If Obama gets re-elected in 2012 then I say the Tea Party peters out. If the Republicans win, though, or worse yet, if a Tea Party president winds up in the Oval Office... things get MUCH worse for everyone but the rich and the US could turn into a frank and open oligarchy, much like a banana republic sort of thing although the details will differ from those seen in Latin America or the Middle East or Africa.

[Patrick Degan]

A lot depends on how the next couple years play out. If Obama gets re-elected in 2012 then I say the Tea Party peters out. If the Republicans win, though, or worse yet, if a Tea Party president winds up in the Oval Office... things get MUCH worse for everyone but the rich and the US could turn into a frank and open oligarchy, much like a banana republic sort of thing although the details will differ from those seen in Latin America or the Middle East or Africa.

A Teabagger president is extremely unlikely. For all the noise they make, the teabaggers don't constitute enough of a voting bloc to single-handedly elect a president and they can't really broaden their appeal beyond their core group. And the GOP seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot by putting up idiots or outright lunatics as candidates. Maybe they get Mitt Romney this time, maybe Yukon Barbie. Neither of these two will make it in the general election. Against Romney, all Obama has to do is accuse him of trying to personally buy his way into the White House. Against Yukon Barbie, all Obama has to do is appear sane and let the stupid bitch blather her way into the joke writing for Letterman, Leno, O'Brian and Stewart.

As for what a Repubican victory would mean... Gilded Age Mk. II, which will crash just like the last one did. As did the Roaring Twenties. I don't think a South American-style banana republic is in the cards. There would be far too large a disgruntled and impoverished population for a would-be oligarchy to handle —a problem not faced in places like Paraguay or Saudi Arabia.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

A lot depends on how the next couple years play out. If Obama gets re-elected in 2012 then I say the Tea Party peters out. If the Republicans win, though, or worse yet, if a Tea Party president winds up in the Oval Office... things get MUCH worse for everyone but the rich and the US could turn into a frank and open oligarchy, much like a banana republic sort of thing although the details will differ from those seen in Latin America or the Middle East or Africa.

A Teabagger president is extremely unlikely. For all the noise they make, the teabaggers don't constitute enough of a voting bloc to single-handedly elect a president and they can't really broaden their appeal beyond their core group. And the GOP seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot by putting up idiots or outright lunatics as candidates. Maybe they get Mitt Romney this time, maybe Yukon Barbie. Neither of these two will make it in the general election. Against Romney, all Obama has to do is accuse him of trying to personally buy his way into the White House.

Given that Obama's campaign hopes to raise a billion dollars between now and the election, this tactic is one he'll attempt at his own peril. Far better to point out his hypocrisy when he tries to convince people that he wasn't really the kinda-sorta progressive governor of Massachusetts who passed socialized health care. A Romney campaign is the GOP campaign that could credibly threaten Obama in a high-turnout 2012 election, since he's more palatable to the Mindless Middle than Gingrich, The Donald, or Shoots-Caribou-From-Helicopters Barbie put together.

Against Yukon Barbie, all Obama has to do is appear sane and let the stupid bitch blather her way into the joke writing for Letterman, Leno, O'Brian and Stewart.

The best Caribou Barbie can hope for in the 2012 GOP primary is to be adopted by someone who actually has a prayer of wining the nomination. Romney or the Donald can buy the nomination far more easily than she can, and Gingrich or Huckabee can sodomize her with a telephone pole when it comes to regurgitating Randroid talking points in a coherent manner.

[Patrick Degan]

A Teabagger president is extremely unlikely. For all the noise they make, the teabaggers don't constitute enough of a voting bloc to single-handedly elect a president and they can't really broaden their appeal beyond their core group. And the GOP seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot by putting up idiots or outright lunatics as candidates. Maybe they get Mitt Romney this time, maybe Yukon Barbie. Neither of these two will make it in the general election. Against Romney, all Obama has to do is accuse him of trying to personally buy his way into the White House.

Given that Obama's campaign hopes to raise a billion dollars between now and the election, this tactic is one he'll attempt at his own peril. Far better to point out his hypocrisy when he tries to convince people that he wasn't really the kinda-sorta progressive governor of Massachusetts who passed socialized health care. A Romney campaign is the GOP campaign that could credibly threaten Obama in a high-turnout 2012 election, since he's more palatable to the Mindless Middle than Gingrich, The Donald, or Shoots-Caribou-From-Helicopters Barbie put together.

It depends. Obama can claim his funding is coming from a large spectrum of grass-roots organisations while casting Romney as the bought-and-paid-for creature of the banksters and the corporate power structure and also shelling out very large sums from the family fortune. What the truth-value of those statements would be remains to be seen, but in politics, image is everything. I would expect that attacks on Romney's hypocricy on his politics would also figure significantly into any Obama strategy against him as you suggest. But I would think that Romney would have more of a chance in a low turnout race than a high turnout one. Even though he appears the sanest one of the bunch, the platform he'll be running on will be poison.

[Prannon]

I dunno, I think Romney is honestly the strongest candidate Republicans have, but that's probably my bias. I used to be strongly Republican and actually voted for the guy in the Republican primary in 2008 even after he bowed out. Then I went on to vote for Obama and we've all seen how that's turned out.

I think Romney might not be so hobbled by bankers and his own personal wealth as you might think. It's not gonna be a one line campaign by Obama: "You're bought and paid for by the corporatists. Yay! I win!" Romney, in a general election, would be able to point to his accomplishments in Massachusetts in making socialized health care work and also the fact that he's a successful businessman, and that still carries a lot of clout in the states.

"Ooooh...he's a BUSINESSMAN. That must mean he knows how to lead! He's a LEADER!" *swoon*

Consider also that Obama is a charismatic politician/speaker but not a charismatic leader. He hasn't captured the imagination of the country since he took office. Progressives are disappointed with him, and the Democratic party is going through a bit of a phase. Romney could probably make a strong campaign saying things like: "When we needed debt reduction, Obama gave us more spending, and weird and complicated health care reform that is breaking the bank, and a lot of uncertainty when we needed strong leadership. Look at my record; I can give you strong leadership, bridge the gap with Congress and our business leaders, and make things work again!"

I think that would be a strong campaign, the way things stand right now. Campaign on the debt, since that seems to be a fairly strong narrative among the public (whether Republicans are actually doing anything substantive about it is another matter). Now, Romney would probably not win the nomination without a serious, serious contest between the Tea Party-ists and the Corporatists, and that might end up with a lot of Republicans staying home because they don't like their man. Obama might be able to get out the vote then talking about Republican mismanagement from 2001-2009, Wisconsin, and the Tea Party crazies. If he can brand Romney with that label, then he could probably do it just like Kerry got branded with "liberal flip-flopper" in 2004.

[Patrick Degan]

I think Romney might not be so hobbled by bankers and his own personal wealth as you might think. It's not gonna be a one line campaign by Obama: "You're bought and paid for by the corporatists. Yay! I win!" Romney, in a general election, would be able to point to his accomplishments in Massachusetts in making socialized health care work and also the fact that he's a successful businessman, and that still carries a lot of clout in the states.

Naturally it would not be a one-line campaign, but it would constitute part of Obama's anti-Romney message and one which resonates with a population which right now does not hold the banksters in high regard. Especially those who've lost their homes to bank foreclosure.

Consider also that Obama is a charismatic politician/speaker but not a charismatic leader. He hasn't captured the imagination of the country since he took office. Progressives are disappointed with him, and the Democratic party is going through a bit of a phase. Romney could probably make a strong campaign saying things like: "When we needed debt reduction, Obama gave us more spending, and weird and complicated health care reform that is breaking the bank, and a lot of uncertainty when we needed strong leadership. Look at my record; I can give you strong leadership, bridge the gap with Congress and our business leaders, and make things work again!"

The problem with a Romney message like that is that the balance of the U.S. population are far more focussed on jobs than debt-reduction and they're now being treated to the spectacle of a Republican party which is obsessed with debt-reduction at the expense of everyone and everything else —except conspicuously Wall Street, the banksters, and the super-rich. Anyone who's lost his or her home or has or is about to lose his or her job and doesn't have health insurance of any kind doesn't give a flying fuck about the national debt.

I think that would be a strong campaign, the way things stand right now. Campaign on the debt, since that seems to be a fairly strong narrative among the public (whether Republicans are actually doing anything substantive about it is another matter). Now, Romney would probably not win the nomination without a serious, serious contest between the Tea Party-ists and the Corporatists, and that might end up with a lot of Republicans staying home because they don't like their man. Obama might be able to get out the vote then talking about Republican mismanagement from 2001-2009, Wisconsin, and the Tea Party crazies. If he can brand Romney with that label, then he could probably do it just like Kerry got branded with "liberal flip-flopper" in 2004.

The way the Republicans are acting at the national and state level, they're almost writing Obama's campaign script for him. And to reiterate: anybody who is now facing foreclosure, layoff, or lack of health insurance is not going to give a flying fuck about the national debt, they need help NOW. The one who's more likely to deliver it is the one who's going to get their votes —which means Romney either promises to deliver on things the teabaggers find anathema and thereby alienates the Republican base, who are just big enough to fuck up his chances by staying home or splitting the party, or he "holds to conservative principle" and alienates the rest of the country. The Romney campaign you suggest will play to well his base, but no Republican can win without either a) the rest of the country beyond their base or b) much of the rest of the country staying home on election day.