Attack the ignorant voters! (Democrats already making excuses for Obama November loss)

There seems to be a newly developing genre in 2012 of laying preemptive blame on Republicans. Preemptive to what, you ask?? Preemptive to President Obama's loss in November.

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, Ezra Klein and now Carter Eskew, Frank Rich and today Dana Milbank, are just a few who have signed on. They are laying the groundwork for an Obama defeat that will require no finding of fault on Obama's part. They are already placing the blame on Republicans and their dishonesty, brutal campaign tactics, abandonment of principles, obstinance and just plain gratuitous opposition for opposition's sake as the reasons for the sinking of the righteous Obama ship.

I'm used to Democrats rationalizing their defeats and not respecting the idea that the voters made an informed decision to remove them from office. But this self-serving condescension of the "ignorant voters" usually comes after the elections; I've never seen so much work done to prep for defeat. I guess so many on the left are so invested in the greatness and infallibility of Obama that they can't just say he has presided over a mess and made mistakes...

Does anyone else feel that the rats are simply walking away because the damage is already done and nothing can fix things before a crash now?

Wouldn't it be better if there's a GOP president in charge of the mess that can't be fixed for decades or resolved without a costly war?

Seems to me this whole thing is designed to collapse in October, we still get a mewling rino romney presidency and the country, along with the rino GOP collapses over the impossibility of ever repairing 4 years of obamunism.

“gratuitous opposition for opposition’s sake”

I don’t understand this criticism. Isn’t that the point of the two party system: for the parties to oppose eachother for opposition’s sake? Oh, okay, they’re also supposed to represent the prevailing ideologies, or coalitions of ideologies. But they do so by opposing eachother, and it’s easy to forget why you do what you do. I often sit at work and wonder why I’m there, except to make money. Politicians, I assume, forget why they there except to stay there, in government.

So naturally both parties become of , by, and for government office, sinecure, payolla, etc.. They argue instead of for more or less government, this or that kind of governance, merely for their bunch to be in government and the other bastards out. Which can serve your ideology, in certain circumstances. Usually, though, it’s mindless opposition for opposition’s sake. Which doesn’t count the times they accidentally act as human beings and feel ways about things, but the exception proves the rule.

What’s gratuitous about that, I ask? How can Republicans be especially in opposition for opposition’s sake? It can be more or less blatant, but basically all instances are of the same quality. You either oppose for opposition’s sake or you don’t. There is no good opposition for opposition’s sakle and bad opposition for opposition’s sake, only better or worse PR.

“Wouldn’t it be better if there’s a GOP president in charge of the mess that can’t be fixed for decades or resolved without a costly war?”

What would a costly war resolve, exactly? Thinking of the classic example, WWII, well, despite what lying historians/economists/politicians say it only made the depression worse and swapped the nazis for the commies. Big whoop.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.