Three, Not Two Possible Outcomes for Democrats
April 24, 2008 at 7:33 pm 6 comments
Mark Steyn writes over at The Corner that the stakes for the Dems are much higher in this election than for the Republicans:
What’s the best that could happen to the Democrats?
Obama wins. History is made. In the dazzling sheen of his Kennedyesque glamour, no-one will dare obstruct his transformative reforms.
What’s the worst?
Hillary manages to deny him the nomination, or he gets it but loses on a McGovernite scale. Traumatic meltdown, bitterness, civil war in the party, etc, leading perhaps to the sundering of key elements of the Dem coalition.
Whereas for the Republicans, whether we win or lose with McCain, the party itself will continue its gradual decline as it is all out of ideological gas.
Well, I don’t know if the GOP is out of gas or not, but I do think there is another possibility for the Dems:
Obama wins. History is made. In the dazzling sheen of his Kennedyesque glamour, no-one will dare obstruct his transformative reforms. He implements his policies. American people wake up to realize that they have signed up for domestic socialism coupled to voluntary international emasculation, all to benefit the unions, special interest groups, and the race industry. Iran finally develops nuclear weapons, the economy tanks under taxes and regulations not seen since the 70′s, and terrorists go on a rampage emboldened by the defeat of the Great Satan by Allah the Almighty. Dems suffer catastrophic electoral defeat in 2010 and are forever tainted in American politics.
So there is a third possible outcome after all.
-TS
1.
gasdocpol | April 24, 2008 at 8:56 pm
In 2000 there were those who thought that if GW Bush could be elected, the Neocons would be able to carry out the agenda of PNAC and the USA would become the undiputed dominant power in the 21st century.
It has not quite worked out that way.
I don’t suppose anyone is interested in knowing which persons thought that.
2.
TheSophist | April 25, 2008 at 9:55 am
Um, we’re not the undisputed dominant power of the 21st century?
-TS
3.
gasdocpol | April 25, 2008 at 10:40 am
Sophist
The Bush/Cheney invasion of an oil rich Arab country on the pretext thay it had something to do with 9/11 did not help the USA on the path to becoming the the undisputed power of the 21st century..
Hitler had a plan for Germany to become the undisputed power too.
Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland was eerily similar to the Busg/Cheney invasion of Iraq in 2003.
4.
TheSophist | April 25, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Do all leftists think throwing in words “Bush” “Cheney” and “Hitler” somehow constitute an argument of some sort?
Let’s use simple words and concepts. Either
(a) the U.S. is the dominant power; or
(b) the U.S. is not the dominant power
of the 21st century thus far.
If (a) is true, then none of the tripe you post matters one bit, because we already are the dominant power. If (b) is true, then you need to name some of the other “powers” that are more powerful than the U.S. or at the very least, equally powerful.
And what any of this has to do with Obama and Clinton and the upcoming civil war in the Democratic party is beyond my ken… but then, I guess I’m dealing with a seriously advanced case of BDS….
-TS
5.
gasdocpol | April 25, 2008 at 9:34 pm
You were projecting outcomes. I was observing that the present state of Iraq is not the outcome that was projected by Bush/Cheney as they lied us into the Iraq fiasco.
6.
gasdocpol | April 26, 2008 at 8:16 am
Bush/Cheney implicitely and explicitly used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, claiming that the USA was in imminent danger.
Hitler used Gleiwitz as a pretext for invading Poland in 1939, telling germans that Germany was in imminent danger
On the night of August 31, 1939 a small group of German operatives, dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources vary on the content on the message). The Germans’ goal was to make the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs..
In order to make the attack scene more convincing, the Germans brought in Franciszek Honiok, a German Silesian known for sympathizing with the Poles, who had been arrested the previous day by the Gestapo. Honiok was dressed to look like a saboteur; then killed by lethal injection, given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene, so that he appeared to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented as proof of the attack to the police and press.
Hitler wanted to make Germany the world’s dominant power as per Mein Kampf.
Bush/Cheney wanted to make the USA the world power as per PNAC.
How are the 2 cases basically any different?