Originally Posted by herbal tee

I see.
He has or had so much potential. If the theory is proven over time he is likely to be a case study in what happens when a 4T era president is elected who as a joneser/Xer is tragically preseasonal.
S and H often praise preseasonal behavior while condemning postseasonal behavior in TFT.
But this appears to be one case in which being preseasonal is a bad thing.

Anyone who has ever gone outside in early December without a winter coat because it was such a mild morning should be aware of that one.

Oh, the year is nineteen-thirty-one
How I wish I was in the Fifties now!
We thought we could expand forever
With a place to stand and a mighty lever
God damn them all! I was told
We'd rule the world with American gold
--Now I'm a frightened Silent calming my fears
The last survivor of the halcyon years!

(TTO: Barrett's Privateers. Stan Rogers, I think, for those into Canadian folkies.

Originally Posted by millennialX

See I agree with what you are saying should happen. I'll clarify my previous post by saying that Obama is playing the "let's get ride of partisanship" role because the country was/is tired of the division that heightened during the Bush administration. Bush created the end of the world/ 4T atmosphere of "either you are with me or not" and Obama's "change" was going against that way of thinking.

He's trying to bring everyone together now but he can't because now it really is the 4T/ end of the world that requires folks to take a stand. The tea party folks are taking their stand and unfortunately Obama has not, yet. In an attempt to compromise, Obama is helping to maintain status quo.

I agree with you...that Ike politics should be saved for later.

I was amazed months ago when I wrote in terms of Obama selling out when it came to the health care reform bill and on other issues. There was a birage of posters saying that the centrist compromising positions were important and I was just a perfectionist.

As Herbel Tea and you indicate, now is not the time for middle of the road politics. Taking a stand is crucial if we are to come out of this a lot healthier on the other side. I might add that promoting centrist positions, be it politicians or citizens, may have been playing into this crisis. Centrist positions and fence sitting is not in the cards these days. It's time for sitting in front of government buildings.

I will take a lesson from my psychology teacher in college. She said that passivity is as dangerous as aggression. What is called for is assertiveness. Assertiveness is standing up for what we need without violence of word or deed.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Anyone who has ever gone outside in early December without a winter coat because it was such a mild morning should be aware of that one.

Anyone who has ever gone outside in early April in Michigan without a winter coat without having seen the weather forecast because it was such a mild morning should be aware of that one.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Oh, the year is nineteen-thirty-one
How I wish I was in the Fifties now!
We thought we could expand forever
With a place to stand and a mighty lever
God damn them all! I was told
We'd rule the world with American gold
--Now I'm a frightened Silent calming my fears
The last survivor of the halcyon years!

(TTO: Barrett's Privateers. Stan Rogers, I think, for those into Canadian folkies.

Very inspiring!

Makes me think of:

"Boy the way Glenn Miller played
Songs that made the hit parade
Guys like us, we had it made. ..
Those were the days.

"And you knew who you were then!
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mr. we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old Lasalle ran great.
Those were the days.

I'm inclined to agree with HT that Obama had a chance but he blew it and I'm doubtful there will be another one. I am staying right now with Janie Strauss, who is running for re-election yet again to the Fairfax County school board. She is very well aware of the Tea Party and is not aware, surprise surprise, of a gigantic progressive movement that the mainstream media are ignoring. She also agrees with me (and she makes up her own mind about things, believe me) that the Boomers' time is nearly over and that Gen X simply cannot lead any civic revival because most of them care only about their own families and themselves. Parents today want the best for their own kid, period.

I am amazed at the self-inflicted wound we are suffering from this afternoon and wondering how much worse it can get.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

She is very well aware of the Tea Party and is not aware, surprise surprise, of a gigantic progressive movement that the mainstream media are ignoring.

Probably because she has gotten into the habit of trusting in the mainstream media, too, and it hasn't sunk in for her yet, any more than you, that Walter Cronkite is dead.

Whatever the reason, you're both wrong.

So just heard Karl Rove say that "Obama is no Carter...but James Buchanan." Don't know what to think about that...

Well, I do know I'm not a Karl Rove fan.

Originally Posted by millennialX

So just heard Karl Rove say that "Obama is no Carter...but James Buchanan." Don't know what to think about that...

Well, I do know I'm not a Karl Rove fan.

He has a point, though. Obama is trying awfully hard to be James Buchanan. The only chance that he might not get that honor is the very real public distaste for the GOP. It's hard for them to capitalize on stupidity when they're guiltier of it than he is.

Let's see how Wisconsin plays-out. That will tell us a lot more than partisan punditry.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let's see how Wisconsin plays-out. That will tell us a lot more than partisan punditry.

It will indeed. If the Democrats win at least three of the six recall elections to be held tomorrow, they will take over one house of the Wisconsin legislature. Another effect will be to energize similar left-leaning populist movements in other states. The political infrastructure already exists to take the movement nationwide, and a victory in Wisconsin will light a fire under those efforts.

Originally Posted by millennialX

So just heard Karl Rove say that "Obama is no Carter...but James Buchanan." Don't know what to think about that...

Well, I do know I'm not a Karl Rove fan.

Corrupt operative that Karl Rogue is, he gladly twists history to fit his purposes, which most people do solely due to partisan bias. In fact James Buchanan had a long career of public service and was by objective standards one of the most qualified people to be President that we ever had. It's just that he was out of touch with the political realities of the time because he was too old to have the political allies that he needed to be an effective President. The times changed, and Buchanan could not. As an Adaptive (which Barack Obama decidedly isn't), Buchanan was just too trusting for his own good once the political scene filled with hot-heads and cut-throats. He might have been a better President than Taylor, Pierce, or Fillmore when there were still enough Compromise politicians to make a difference.

Rove fails to recognize that the Tea Party is a political fad and that its influence could be ephemeral in the House. The Senate? It won't be so ephemeral as some Hard Right Republicans now hold Senate seats in states that they would probably not win in 2012 or 2014 (Ayotte, NH; Toomey PA; Portman, OH; Kirk, IL; Johnson, WI) and are likely to be one-term-and-out in 2016. He fails to recognize how unpopular some Republican governors already are. But he has to be an optimist taking advantage of any opportunity that presents itself for consolidating or maintaining power for himself as a Party Boss.

...As I see it such Republican members of the Silent Generation as John McCain, Dick Cheney, and Pat Buchanan would be in deep political trouble if any of them were President.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Corrupt operative that Karl Rogue is, he gladly twists history to fit his purposes, which most people do solely due to partisan bias. In fact James Buchanan had a long career of public service and was by objective standards one of the most qualified people to be President that we ever had. It's just that he was out of touch with the political realities of the time because he was too old to have the political allies that he needed to be an effective President. The times changed, and Buchanan could not. As an Adaptive (which Barack Obama decidedly isn't), Buchanan was just too trusting for his own good once the political scene filled with hot-heads and cut-throats. He might have been a better President than Taylor, Pierce, or Fillmore when there were still enough Compromise politicians to make a difference.

Rove fails to recognize that the Tea Party is a political fad and that its influence could be ephemeral in the House. The Senate? It won't be so ephemeral as some Hard Right Republicans now hold Senate seats in states that they would probably not win in 2012 or 2014 (Ayotte, NH; Toomey PA; Portman, OH; Kirk, IL; Johnson, WI) and are likely to be one-term-and-out in 2016. He fails to recognize how unpopular some Republican governors already are. But he has to be an optimist taking advantage of any opportunity that presents itself for consolidating or maintaining power for himself as a Party Boss.

...As I see it such Republican members of the Silent Generation as John McCain, Dick Cheney, and Pat Buchanan would be in deep political trouble if any of them were President.

Thanks for the perspective Pbrower

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Corrupt operative that Karl Rogue is, he gladly twists history to fit his purposes, which most people do solely due to partisan bias. In fact James Buchanan had a long career of public service and was by objective standards one of the most qualified people to be President that we ever had. It's just that he was out of touch with the political realities of the time because he was too old to have the political allies that he needed to be an effective President. The times changed, and Buchanan could not. As an Adaptive (which Barack Obama decidedly isn't), Buchanan was just too trusting for his own good once the political scene filled with hot-heads and cut-throats. He might have been a better President than Taylor, Pierce, or Fillmore when there were still enough Compromise politicians to make a difference.

Rove fails to recognize that the Tea Party is a political fad and that its influence could be ephemeral in the House. The Senate? It won't be so ephemeral as some Hard Right Republicans now hold Senate seats in states that they would probably not win in 2012 or 2014 (Ayotte, NH; Toomey PA; Portman, OH; Kirk, IL; Johnson, WI) and are likely to be one-term-and-out in 2016. He fails to recognize how unpopular some Republican governors already are. But he has to be an optimist taking advantage of any opportunity that presents itself for consolidating or maintaining power for himself as a Party Boss.

...As I see it such Republican members of the Silent Generation as John McCain, Dick Cheney, and Pat Buchanan would be in deep political trouble if any of them were President.

I think this is rather frightening. I often thought during the Bush years that Rove was well aware of S & H and had cast his President in the GC mode. What this means is that he expects another round of Republican revolution after 2012. And with the economy very possibly tanking, it could happen. Of course he's wrong; as we have all realized, Obama wants to be Ike.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think this is rather frightening. I often thought during the Bush years that Rove was well aware of S & H and had cast his President in the GC mode. What this means is that he expects another round of Republican revolution after 2012. And with the economy very possibly tanking, it could happen. Of course he's wrong; as we have all realized, Obama wants to be Ike.

I think it's beside the point what Obama wants or doesn't want. He's shown no capacity to fight, so his proclivities are essentially ignored. Sure, he's trying to approach compromise from a pragmatic frame of reference, rather than merely for the sake of harmony. Does it matter? Right now, compromise isn't viable, and the intent behind it won't change that. In the end, it's fight of capitulate, and we've seen where that leads, haven't we?

So from a strictly results-based POV, Obama can easily be another Buchanan. He's not defining the game. He's not even defining himself. His only strong assets are the maniacal actions of his adversaries. If they learn to tone it down a notch, while remaining no less adamant in opposition, 2012 becomes theirs to lose. By 2013, will it matter that Obama was pre-seasonal rather than post-seasonal, if his only contribution was can-kicking and a healthcare program that will be repealed before it goes into effect? He'll still be a goat.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think this is rather frightening. I often thought during the Bush years that Rove was well aware of S & H and had cast his President in the GC mode. What this means is that he expects another round of Republican revolution after 2012. And with the economy very possibly tanking, it could happen. Of course he's wrong; as we have all realized, Obama wants to be Ike.

I am as contemptuous of the Machiavellian amorality of Karl Rove as anyone; I consider him a genuine danger to democracy as one who would rule as an unelected Party Boss through a series of stooges, the first of which was Dubya. I can see several Republicans as self-effacing, obedient and loyal successors to Dubya as puppets on a string. Rove is a master of supplying the infamous and almost-Orwellian "talking point" never to be analyzed; if a Republican expounds upon it he shows how empty it is and if a Democrat criticizes it he shows that he is disloyal to the concept.

Rove may see the S&H theory and see it as a sort of "Force" out of Star Wars whose mastery gives one great power... but as Darth Vader shows that Force can do consummate evil, and as Obi Wan Kenobe shows one must use it selflessly even with the sacrifice of one's life (let alone the possibility of material indulgence and bureaucratic power) and share it carefully with any acolyte who must be trained as much in human decency... becoming a gentleman showing self-control and incorruptibility... if the Force and the person who uses it are to do good. (Howe and Strauss make much of the Star Wars saga... and it is a good tale for expressing some historical themes).

The President need not be in the Gray Champion mode if the real leader is a Party Boss who can control everything -- including what everyone cherishes most. Josef Stalin ruled the Soviet Union as tyrannically as anyone ever ruled any country. Even the President was powerless against him. All had to show loyalty to him and his objectives just to survive and to be thankful to him for such little as they got. Not even the Armed Forces could protect their own. Real power in the Soviet Union came through control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

America is not vulnerable to a Hitler. We have elected someone as President who so demonstrates that fact. Nobody is ever going to become President or even be elected to the US Senate by prancing about in Nazi or KKK attire (or similar garb) and using racist rhetoric. Our Constitution well prevents a despotic executive (presumably the President, and we don't have a Prime Minister or King) from dictating that people who run afoul of him had better leave the country fast or die horribly, that property can be seized through a decree without costly compensation, that a war can start on a whim without some deliberation (in the absence of an overt act of war by an enemy). Our Constitution so states with no ambiguity.

The model of danger is that of Stalin... the Party Boss beyond any accounting except for the preservation of his 'power base'. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned of the danger of "faction"... power going to a Party boss ruthless enough to find the seams within our Constitution, someone who can control who gets the chance to be elected and who doesn't, someone who can exercise executive and legislative power... and perhaps judiciary and even police power without accountability. To some extent that has been possible with the machine bosses of large cities who have at least had to recognize that their power ends at a city limit (thus a partisan political boss of New York City has no control of anything in Westchester or Nassau County, let alone in Connecticut or New Jersey)... but just imagine a nationwide equivalent of Boss Tweed who chooses to stop somewhere beyond murder and expropriation.

Karl Rove seems amoral, egoistic, and ruthless enough that if he could do so he would try to give President Obama "an offer that he can't refuse" -- like offering a sure re-election if only he lets you-know-whom rally run things. Karl Rove is loyal to no principle beyond himself, so I can imagine him so trying.

Our Constitution has seams, but the best defense has been that even the most ambitious people have shown no desire to exploit those seams. Most Americans in previous times have either been too moral or too cautious to take the risk of giving power to a nationwide Party Boss except in the Constitutionally-restrained role of President. Some people would now sell out Constitutional government for the enhancement of their profits or the imposition of some moral agenda upon people who consider that agenda immoral in itself. We need beware such people.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think it's beside the point what Obama wants or doesn't want. He's shown no capacity to fight, so his proclivities are essentially ignored. Sure, he's trying to approach compromise from a pragmatic frame of reference, rather than merely for the sake of harmony. Does it matter? Right now, compromise isn't viable, and the intent behind it won't change that. In the end, it's fight of capitulate, and we've seen where that leads, haven't we?

I disagree. Compromise *is* very viable -- but only if both sides are willing to consider it. Right now they aren't, particularly on the "no tax hikes" Tea Party side. And welcome to the 4T, when compromise and pragmatism become dirty words.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think this is rather frightening. I often thought during the Bush years that Rove was well aware of S & H and had cast his President in the GC mode. What this means is that he expects another round of Republican revolution after 2012. And with the economy very possibly tanking, it could happen. Of course he's wrong; as we have all realized, Obama wants to be Ike.

I thought the same thing. IMO, President Bush's team tried to make him a 4T President.

Now THERE'S a thought that will place a buzzard on your bedpost ... Karl Rove as the GC.

Originally Posted by TnT

Now THERE'S a thought that will place a buzzard on your bedpost ... Karl Rove as the GC.

Carl Rove is a Boomer. He is therefore a GC. There is no the GC.

Originally Posted by TnT

Now THERE'S a thought that will place a buzzard on your bedpost ... Karl Rove as the GC.

Yes, but that is a sickening analogy if any.

1. Buzzard is a common synonym for "vulture", and we know what vultures eat. Stuff recently dead, and vultures don't do the killing.

2. Bedposts are usually on the inside of buildings, and the usual calamities that would expose the interior of a house are fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and air raids, all of which are supremely dangerous to the inhabitants of any buildings. America has plenty of fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes and has been fairly lucky to avoid air raids.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I thought the same thing. IMO, President Bush's team tried to make him a 4T President.

I've been saying for a year now that he may have succeeded.

I was not suggesting that Rove was the GC, merely that he understood 4T emotional forces and put them to work. He was well known for wanting the angriest voters on his side and he had contempt for people who pitched to the middle. He was constantly looking for new groups of angry voters (such as fundamentalist Christians) whom he could line up for his candidate. He would use anything against the opposition. All in all a very 4T approach. I wonder if Obama won so comfortably last time partly because he was up against a Silent, not a hard-core Republican Boomer.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I've been saying for a year now that he may have succeeded.

I was not suggesting that Rove was the GC, merely that he understood 4T emotional forces and put them to work. He was well known for wanting the angriest voters on his side and he had contempt for people who pitched to the middle. He was constantly looking for new groups of angry voters (such as fundamentalist Christians) whom he could line up for his candidate. He would use anything against the opposition. All in all a very 4T approach. I wonder if Obama won so comfortably last time partly because he was up against a Silent, not a hard-core Republican Boomer.

Well, Hilary of course is no Republican, but she is a hard core Boomer and that race was pretty ugly. This statement might be controversial to some, but IMO the only reason why she didn't win the nomination is because Obama appealed to voters who were tired of the name Bush and Clinton and the years associated with them. Otherwise, he might not have won against an older Boomer.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Well, Hilary of course is no Republican, but she is a hard core Boomer and that race was pretty ugly. This statement might be controversial to some, but IMO the only reason why she didn't win the nomination is because Obama appealed to voters who were tired of the name Bush and Clinton and the years associated with them. Otherwise, he might not have won against an older Boomer.

There was, imo, a real hesitation to start up some kind of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thingy, though it was improbable. I think just the idea of it cost Hilary support.

I think we're over that now. After Obama's lily-livered approach to the presidency, it could be interesting to see her take another run at it.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Well, Hilary of course is no Republican, but she is a hard core Boomer and that race was pretty ugly. This statement might be controversial to some, but IMO the only reason why she didn't win the nomination is because Obama appealed to voters who were tired of the name Bush and Clinton and the years associated with them. Otherwise, he might not have won against an older Boomer.

Hilary will never be president. She isn't the least bit likable and it's hard to get elected if nobody likes you. She is like the polar opposite of her husband.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I disagree. Compromise *is* very viable -- but only if both sides are willing to consider it. Right now they aren't, particularly on the "no tax hikes" Tea Party side. And welcome to the 4T, when compromise and pragmatism become dirty words.

Ask yourself, how would a creationist compromise with an evolutionist? There is no middle ground. Now, ask yourself how you compromise between Austerians, bound as they are the idea that the pain of austerity will wash us clean of our debts, and Keynesians who believe that cutting leads to collapse and spending leads to growth?

You have to choose one or the other. That's the essence of any 4T.