PDA

View Full Version : Obama as Dangerous Left Winger?


memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:13 PM
I see this guy running from his record to the right and think he's phony. This British journalist thinks he's a leftist who will ruin the US by making it go further left....

could I actually be wrong in my assessment of HIM? Perhaps could HE actually be more radical and leftist than I originally thought? And has HE moved right just to get elected only to become this stark raving leftist once in office and actually fooled all of these people who thought he'd go to the middle and stay there? Wouldn't that be a hoot? :doh!: Could I actually be so wrong and end up liking it that HE is a LWNJ put into office by CONS who thought HIM to be a possible pushover? ROFL


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3412540.ece

Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?
Listen to the rhetoric of Barack Obama ...
Gerard Baker

For most ordinary Americans, those not encumbered with an expensive education or infected by prolonged exposure to cosmopolitan heterodoxy, patriotism is a consequence of birth.

Their chests swell with pride every time they hear the national anthem at sporting events. They fill up with understandable emotion whenever they see a report on television about the tragic heroics of some soldier or Marine who gave his life in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Foreigners don't have to like America - and they've certainly exercised that freedom in the past few years. But most Americans can distinguish between the transience of policy failure and the permanence of the national ideal.

And surely even critics of the US could scarcely deny that there have been real causes for American pride in the past 25 years: the fall of the Berlin Wall; the victory in the first Gulf War in 1991; the nation's unity in grief and resolve after September 11. Heck, I suspect most Americans got a small buzz of patriotic pride this week when they heard that one of their multimillion-dollar missiles had shot a dead but dangerous satellite travelling at 17,000 miles per hour out of the sky so that it fell harmlessly to Earth.

But not, apparently, Michelle Obama, wife of the man who is now the putative Democratic candidate for US president, and at this point favourite to succeed to that job. In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country.

This, even by the astonishingly self-absorbed standards of politicians and their families, is a remarkably narrow view of what makes a country great. And though she later half-heartedly tried to retract the remark it was a statement pregnant with meaning for the presidential election campaign.

Now, to be fair to Mrs Obama, she would surely have a point if she had said that it was a source of incomparable pride to her and all African-Americans that in a country with a long and baleful history of racial discrimination, one of their own was within serious range of becoming president. All but the most irredeemably racist Americans would surely agree with that.

But that was not what she said. She said this was the only time in her adult life that she had felt pride in America.

It was instructive for two reasons. First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign. There's always been a Second Coming quality about Mr Obama's rhetoric. The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that America has achieved in its history can only add to that worry.

Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place.

There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations. ROFLROFLROFL

Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party.

This, I think, not his inexperience in public office, is the principal threat to Mr Obama's campaign. His increasingly desperate opponent, Hillary Clinton, keeps hammering away that his message is all talk and no substance - and she was joined this week by Mr Obama's likely Republican opponent in the November general election, John McCain.

But if you listen to Mr Obama's speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans. His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin this week was a case in point.

There was no shortage of proposals. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education. He wants to tax the rich more to pay for it. He is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US. He is vehemently protectionist. He continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq with the utmost dispatch.

While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.

Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics.

America is certainly moving left in the post-George Bush era. The long period of conservative ascendancy is clearly over, buried by a Republican Party of recent years that has preached intolerance and practised incompetence. PBJ That a new era in American politics is beginning is not in doubt. But are Americans really ready to leap all the way across in one go to embrace a European-style Left?

HolmeZz
02-22-2008, 09:16 PM
Stick with Hillary. You don't need to sink any more ships.

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:24 PM
Stick with Hillary. You don't need to sink any more ships.

I will find it hilarious if I am wrong and he ends up being this hard core leftist in sheep's clothing and he would have been put in place by the likes of folks like you, moderates, and CONS.

I mean, if I'm wrong then it means that he's exceeded my expectations and become the most liberal and left leaning president of our times...win/win

if you are wrong he becomes the most liberal and left leaning president of our times.

:doh!:

Cochise
02-22-2008, 09:25 PM
the Francification of America continues...

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:28 PM
Peggy Noonan voicing the same concerns.

Try a Little Tenderness
February 22, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Barack Obama's biggest draw is not his eloquence. When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That's good. He's compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him "impossibly eloquent" and say "he gave me thrills and chills." But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it--that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own--you see the speech wasn't all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate. (This was not true of John F. Kennedy's speeches, for instance, which could be read seriously as part of the literature of modern American politics, or Martin Luther King's work, which was powerful absent his voice.)

Mr. Obama is magnetic, interacts with the audience, leads a refrain: "Yes, we can." It's good, and compared with Hillary Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom seems really to enjoy giving speeches, it comes across as better than it is. But is it eloquence? No. Eloquence is deep thought expressed in clear words. With Mr. Obama the deep thought part is missing. What is present are sentiments.

Our country can be greater, it holds unachieved promise, our leaders have not led us well. "We struggle with our doubts, our fears, our cynicism." Fair enough and true enough, but he doesn't dig down to explain how to become a greater nation, what specific path to take--more power to the state, for instance, or more power to the individual. He doesn't unpack his thoughts, as they say. He asserts and keeps on walking.

So his draw is not literal eloquence but a reputation for eloquence that may, in time, become the real thing.

But his big draw is this. In a country that has throughout most of our lifetimes been tormented by, buffeted by, the question of race, a country that has endured real pain and paid in blood and treasure to work its way through and out of the mess, that for all that struggle we yielded this: a brilliant and accomplished young black man with a consensus temperament, a thoughtful and peaceful person who wishes to lead. That is his draw: "We made that." "It ended well."

People would love to be able to support that guy.

His job, in a way, is to let them, in part by not being just another operative, plaything or grievance-monger of the left-liberal establishment and left-liberal thinking. By standing, in fact, for real change.

Right now Mr. Obama is in an awkward moment. Each day he tries to nail down his party's leftist base, and take it from Mrs. Clinton. At the same time his victories have led the country as a whole to start seeing him as the probable Democratic nominee. They're looking at him in a new way, and wondering: Is he standard, old time and party line, or is he something new? Is he just a turning of the page, or is he the beginning of a new and helpful chapter?

Mr. Obama did not really have a good week, in spite of winning a primary and a caucus, and both resoundingly. I don't refer to charges that he'd plagiarized words from a Deval Patrick speech. He borrowed an argument that was in itself obvious--words matter--and used words in the public sphere. In any case Mrs. Clinton has lifted so many phrases and approaches from Mr. Obama, and other candidates, that her accusation was like the neighborhood kleptomaniac running through the street crying, "Thief! Thief!"

His problem was, is, his wife's words, not his, the speech in which she said that for the first time in her adult life she is proud of her country, because Obama is winning. She later repeated it, then tried to explain it, saying of course she loves her country. But damage was done. Why? Because her statement focused attention on what I suspect are some basic and elementary questions that were starting to bubble out there anyway.

* * *

Here are a few of them.

Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? Do they confuse patriotism with nationalism, or nativism? Are they more inspired by abstractions like "international justice" than by old visions of America as the city on a hill, which is how John Winthrop saw it, and Ronald Reagan and JFK spoke of it?

Have they been, throughout their adulthood, so pampered and praised--so raised in the liberal cocoon--that they are essentially unaware of what and how normal Americans think? And are they, in this, like those cosseted yuppies, the Clintons?

Why is all this actually not a distraction but a real issue? Because Americans have common sense and are bottom line. They think like this. If the president and his first lady are not loyal first to America and its interests, who will be? The president of France? But it's his job to love France, and protect its interests. If America's leaders don't love America tenderly, who will?
[The Obamas]

And there is a context. So many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out. They can see we are giving up our sovereignty, that our leaders will not control our borders, that we don't teach the young the old-fashioned love of America, that the government has taken to itself such power, and made things so complex, and at the end of the day when they count up sales tax, property tax, state tax, federal tax they are paying a lot of money to lose the place they loved.

And if you feel you're losing America, you really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?

* * *

Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.

That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family, and she apparently came from the privileged part of that divide. A lot of white working-class Americans didn't come up with those things. Some of them were raised by a TV and a microwave and love our country anyway, every day.

Does Mrs. Obama know this? I don't know. If she does, love and gratitude for the place that tries to give everyone an equal shot would seem to be in order.

HolmeZz
02-22-2008, 09:29 PM
It's nice to see you're already laying the ground work for when you have to come crawling to Obama.

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:30 PM
the Francification of America continues...

I could really be bummed out about this guy for no good reason. I could be wrong and really owe all the moderates and CONS a debt of gratitude when it's all said and done.

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:31 PM
It's nice to see you're already laying the ground work for when you have to come crawling to Obama.

I won't crawl to him. If he ends up being a progressive liberal leftist then I will scream thanks to the Heavens. It will not change my view that he was a phony who lied to get where he was though...

there will just be a whole new set of people who agree with me.

HolmeZz
02-22-2008, 09:33 PM
I could really be bummed out about this guy for no good reason. I could be wrong and really owe all the moderates and CONS a debt of gratitude when it's all said and done.

Well that's really all this was about. You being able to rub it in the face of somebody, no matter how his Presidency would play out.

HolmeZz
02-22-2008, 09:34 PM
It will not change my view that he was a phony who lied to get where he was though.

Proof.

noa
02-22-2008, 09:35 PM
Okay, so in this entire article devoted to showing how Obama is a a Euro style lefty, the writer only devotes ONE paragraph to Obama's actual policies, and he doesn't even care to analyze them. He spends most of his time complaining about Michelle Obama's statement. In that ONE paragraph on Obama's policies, he doesn't even care to analyze them, he just names them and snobbily assumes that we'll agree that yes indeed those are wacky far left ideas. Let's take a look:

For health care, its pretty clear the democrats are going to nominate a candidate who is going to devote a lot of resources to health care. Nothing unique about that from Obama. Same goes for education. I hardly thing these are far left wacky Euro style ideas, this is what the mainstream Dems want. Health care is clearly a big issue for Dem voters, not just Euro style wackos.

When he says that Obama wants to tax the rich, I assume he means that he wants to end GWB's tax cuts, which again, both Obama and Hillary support. Again, rolling back tax cuts is not Euro style wacky insane stuff, its acknowledging that we are in a time of war and maybe we should not be giving huge tax cuts to the richest people in the country. Now I don't actually believe this and I'd actually rather see the tax cuts stay in place, but I certainly understand the logic and don't think it takes a far left Euro liberal wacky to want to raise taxes during war time.

As for the American companies taking advantage of the free market, well whoopty doo. There are a lot of Democratic voters have lost their jobs due to outsourcing, so they are going to vote for a candidate who wants to end that stuff. I hear plenty of rhetoric about that from a lot of Democrats, not just the far left nut jobs. Again, not a wacky Euro leftist thing, its a populist American thing, which has always been around in our country and will always have a place among our voting population. When people are losing their jobs overseas, they will vote accordingly. Its kind of silly to ask a person to see the big picture and join us for this fantastic ride of global free markets when its their own job that's being lost.

And finally, on Iraq, again, I don't think only far left nut jobs want us to get out of Iraq soon. I think a lot of Americans want us out soon, not just the far left Euro wackys.

So basically, this is one of the lamest attack articles I've ever read. He doesn't care to back up his assertions at all. He just names policies, but gives me no reason to think those policies are any more dangerous than what I could expect from any other Dem candidate, and he all but concedes that the Dems are going to win anyway.

Finally, for that middle paragraph that meme bolded, that is pure crap and terrible journalism. Sure, some Americans want us to become more like France. Some Americans also want us to colonize Jupiter so they can raise cat colonies. Some Americans want anything. Saying that "some Americans think this" is the lamest assertion ever without even backing it up with facts or a single quote. Hardly a meaty part to an article. He just uses that as a scare tactic. Oooh look out, there are some Americans who want to be like France. AND THEY CAN VOTE!

Pretty piss poor job there.

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:40 PM
Proof.

Only time will tell.

HolmeZz
02-22-2008, 09:42 PM
Only time will tell.

You are the dumbest piece of shit walking this Earth.

Cochise
02-22-2008, 09:44 PM
I could really be bummed out about this guy for no good reason. I could be wrong and really owe all the moderates and CONS a debt of gratitude when it's all said and done.

I don't like when you cozy up to us. I would rather ride alone, lest I ride with Hitler.

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:47 PM
Well that's really all this was about. You being able to rub it in the face of somebody, no matter how his Presidency would play out.

I would much rather be wrong about him and happy that the country is going liberal and the pendulum is swinging back to the left than be right about HIM.

Cochise
02-22-2008, 09:48 PM
I would much rather be wrong about him and happy that the country is going liberal and the pendulum is swinging back to the left than be right about HIM.

shun the non-believer... shun... shun....

HolmeZz
02-22-2008, 09:49 PM
I would much rather be wrong about him and happy that the country is going liberal and the pendulum is swinging back to the left than be right about HIM.

That's why you're bashing him. You're skeptical by nature which is why you're accusing Obama of being a phony and a liar despite not having a reason to believe so, and it's why you're a rotten human being.

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:49 PM
I don't like when you cozy up to us. I would rather ride alone, lest I ride with Hitler.

But I could owe your friends a big :grouphug: if what these writers are describing actually happens.

Cochise
02-22-2008, 09:50 PM
shun the non-believer... shun... shun....

actually this might be an amusing metaphor for this topic :Poke:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JPONTneuaF4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JPONTneuaF4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 09:51 PM
shun the non-believer... shun... shun....

ROFL

Thanks, Charlie, er, Coch. :thumb:

Logical
02-22-2008, 09:55 PM
Oh my god, do you mean to tell me the Obama's are black. Thank goodness Peggy Noon points that out for us.

jAZ
02-22-2008, 09:58 PM
Seriously...

How hard is it to see Obama for what his record shows him to be. He's a strong progressive who's optimistic approach to politics inspires people across a range of ideologies.

(And as a side note: how hard is it to be suspcious about Reagan's speechwriter pushing the "The Dem is a RADICAL FAR LEFT LOON" meme in a presidential election.)

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 10:00 PM
This possible enlightenment has really boggled my brain. I think I'll sleep on it and see if it looks as promising in the morning. :ZZZ:

memyselfI
02-22-2008, 10:03 PM
Seriously...

How hard is it to see Obama for what his record shows him to be. He's a strong progressive who's optimistic approach to politics inspires people across a range of ideologies.

(And as a side note: how hard is it to be suspcious about Reagan's speechwriter pushing the "The Dem is a RADICAL FAR LEFT LOON" meme in a presidential election.)

I can GUARANTEE you the crossovers who are supporting him are not HEARING a progressive message. They are hearing a moderate one. At least they HOPE (that word again) that is what they are hearing.* It will be an interesting ride to see which Obama actually occupies the WH.





*Me thinks they are suspending/surpressing their doubts.

HolmeZz
02-22-2008, 10:13 PM
I can GUARANTEE you the crossovers who are supporting him are not HEARING a progressive message. They are hearing a moderate one. At least they HOPE (that word again) that is what they are hearing.* It will be an interesting ride to see which Obama actually occupies the WH.





*Me thinks they are suspending/surpressing their doubts.

It's clear you haven't been listening to his message. He's not lied about his record and he's not lied about the policies he wants to implement(they're reflective of his time in the Senate). He's drawn interest from moderates and Republicans because of his approach.

alanm
02-22-2008, 10:46 PM
I can GUARANTEE you the crossovers who are supporting him are not HEARING a progressive message. They are hearing a moderate one. At least they HOPE (that word again) that is what they are hearing.* It will be an interesting ride to see which Obama actually occupies the WH.





*Me thinks they are suspending/surpressing their doubts.
He's got 9 months to blow it.

NewChief
02-23-2008, 05:58 AM
I don't like when you cozy up to us. I would rather ride alone, lest I ride with Hitler.


ROFL No... seriously... you all can have her. I'm enjoying this "alliance."

BucEyedPea
02-23-2008, 07:13 AM
I do think he's a leftist, more so than Hillary.
It's that or a libertarian/paleo-con who are about the only two groups that will end Iraq and stop the nonsense with Iran. ( and maybe even newly emerging conflict in Serbia/Kosovo). Yep! Amazing that most of America sides with the two considered radical ends of the spectrum on the mismanaged WoT.

For other issues I think there are enough mod dems and pubs in the other branches to keep things balanced out, even with a some shifting to the left. I think that may just usher in a new mix in the House if he goes too far. Nothings gauranteed.

BTW this is one reason why I could consider Obama as he meets my top issue. (McCain is just too insanely militaristic and hot tempered.) But I do so with no illusions and I will await the final choices.

HonestChieffan
02-23-2008, 08:00 AM
When did you folks wake up to the fact he is a left winger?

memyselfI
02-23-2008, 08:36 AM
I do think he's a leftist, more so than Hillary.
It's that or a libertarian/paleo-con who are about the only two groups that will end Iraq and stop the nonsense with Iran. ( and maybe even newly emerging conflict in Serbia/Kosovo). Yep! Amazing that most of America sides with the two considered radical ends of the spectrum on the mismanaged WoT.

For other issues I think there are enough mod dems and pubs in the other branches to keep things balanced out, even with a some shifting to the left. I think that may just usher in a new mix in the House if he goes too far. Nothings gauranteed.

BTW this is one reason why I could consider Obama as he meets my top issue. (McCain is just too insanely militaristic and hot tempered.) But I do so with no illusions and I will await the final choices.

It sounds like you are going in with eyes wide open. I truly believe many of those who are considering him are not. They are listening to him and he sounds 'reasonable' but they are not really aware of how liberal he is. Which if he continues down that path would be FANTASTIC in my view.

My concern, fear, and trepidation about him is that he will move to the right because it's going to be safer. He will shun his previous progressive roots and become too moderate. But if the far right is right and he stays true to his leftist ideology then it will be a welcome surprise for people like myself who think he blows with the wind.

memyselfI
02-23-2008, 08:37 AM
When did you folks wake up to the fact he is a left winger?

I have known that he is liberal. I just believe that he's running as a moderate and will have to become one once he's in office. Hence, he's being a phony.

memyselfI
02-23-2008, 08:38 AM
It's clear you haven't been listening to his message. He's not lied about his record and he's not lied about the policies he wants to implement(they're reflective of his time in the Senate). He's drawn interest from moderates and Republicans because of his approach.

The approach that because he's such a smooth talker CONS and Mods can forget he's got horns??? :evil:

Give me a break. Someone is going to be in for a RUDE awakening and it's not going to be me or those of us who feel he's being disingenuous.

NewChief
02-23-2008, 08:44 AM
The approach that because he's such a smooth talker CONS and Mods can forget he's got horns??? :evil:

Give me a break. Someone is going to be in for a RUDE awakening and it's not going to be me or those of us who feel he's being disingenuous.

What you don't get is that the majority of Americans don't really know whether they're liberal or conservative from election to election. Oftentimes, they may think they want something, but once they get it, they aren't happy with it (Iraq War).

Most Americans want a decent economy, perception of good opportunity for their children, safety, decent schooling, and a decent relationship with the rest of the world. There are some hot button issues that divide us, but most Americans just want for things to be decent in the country. If a liberal can deliver on those things by instituting liberal policies, I don't think they're going to feel particularly betrayed. So if Obama comes in and delivers some liberal social programs that work and improve things, I don't think they're going to start whining and saying, "OH my god, he's so liberal!!!"

Yes, BEP and other hard core ideological cons who cross the aisle to vote for Obama might be dissapointed, but the average "moderate" American voter isn't going to care if the policies are liberal or conservative as long as the effects are positive.

Baby Lee
02-23-2008, 09:09 AM
I can GUARANTEE you the crossovers who are supporting him are not HEARING a progressive message. They are hearing a moderate one. At least they HOPE (that word again) that is what they are hearing.* It will be an interesting ride to see which Obama actually occupies the WH.





*Me thinks they are suspending/surpressing their doubts.

It is a fine line that Obama is treading, exuding a conservative temperment, with a record of very liberal stances.
His job is two-fold, remain unflappable against attacks [as he's done very very well thus far] and continue to sell his argument that he'll at least give alternative viewpoints honest consideration. Then he has to hope that conservative leaning independents are satisfied that an honest audience is enough, even if, when the rubber hits the road, he'll take the liberal option mostly.

But I'm 'spinning.'

Baby Lee
02-23-2008, 09:13 AM
What you don't get is that the majority of Americans don't really know whether they're liberal or conservative from election to election. Oftentimes, they may think they want something, but once they get it, they aren't happy with it (Iraq War).

Most Americans want a decent economy, perception of good opportunity for their children, safety, decent schooling, and a decent relationship with the rest of the world. There are some hot button issues that divide us, but most Americans just want for things to be decent in the country. If a liberal can deliver on those things by instituting liberal policies, I don't think they're going to feel particularly betrayed. So if Obama comes in and delivers some liberal social programs that work and improve things, I don't think they're going to start whining and saying, "OH my god, he's so liberal!!!"

Yes, BEP and other hard core ideological cons who cross the aisle to vote for Obama might be dissapointed, but the average "moderate" American voter isn't going to care if the policies are liberal or conservative as long as the effects are positive.

That's all well and good, then you wake up one morning and your Surgeon General is saying we need to teach kids to masturbate, or our president is saying we don't deserve to keep so much of our wages because we do stupid shit with too much money laying around.

BigChiefFan
02-23-2008, 09:32 AM
That's all well and good, then you wake up one morning and your Surgeon General is saying we need to teach kids to masturbate, or our president is saying we don't deserve to keep so much of our wages because we do stupid shit with too much money laying around.
Or we wake up one morning and found that our government has spent $500 billion of our money on a war that is meaningless. Did I mention this happened on a conservatives watch?

Mr. Laz
02-23-2008, 09:42 AM
well at least i can see now why so many Righties think DEnise is irritating as shit.





seriously DEnise and patteeu are opposite sides on the same clown coin

Baby Lee
02-23-2008, 09:49 AM
Or we wake up one morning and found that our government has spent $500 billion of our money on a war that is meaningless. Did I mention this happened on a conservatives watch?
Examples are out there for all stripes, my point wasn't 'liberals bad.' It was; while it's nice to think that most people aren't partisan so long as things are generally going good, there's actually a panoply of things big and small that remind people daily why they've chosen the stances they have.

jAZ
02-23-2008, 10:11 AM
well at least i can see now why so many Righties think DEnise is irritating as shit.





seriously DEnise and patteeu are opposite sides on the same clown coin
That's aweful harsh to clowns.

:p

j/k to you both.

NewChief
02-23-2008, 11:04 AM
That's all well and good, then you wake up one morning and your Surgeon General is saying we need to teach kids to masturbate, or our president is saying we don't deserve to keep so much of our wages because we do stupid shit with too much money laying around.

I said there were issues that people would get fired up about, right?

Baby Lee
02-23-2008, 11:17 AM
I said there were issues that people would get fired up about, right?
Indeed you did, but people have a longterm enough memory [or is it associative skills?] to piece together not only what riles them up, but who riles them up. So Big Bill's [for some] not 'the guy who got budget suplus' but 'the guy with the SG who wants kids to masturbate.'

There is a perfectly rational to think that when 'your side' wins or appears to be on the verge of winning, 'great everything's copacetic, we get along again.' But reflect on the bitterness of the losing side over the last several election cycles.

I guess, in short, I think people vote more on what riles them up than a general geniality and hope for a decent life regardless of the means.

Where you see people saying "meh, if I have to pay a little more in taxes, and face a little more micromanagement of my life choices, at least I'll have opportunity and health,' I see people saying 'that dude's gonna take my money and tell me what to do, eff that.'

alanm
02-23-2008, 11:31 AM
That's all well and good, then you wake up one morning and your Surgeon General is saying we need to teach kids to masturbate, or our president is saying we don't deserve to keep so much of our wages because we do stupid shit with too much money laying around.
Especially when they take my money in more taxes to give to those who are just laying around period. :#

tiptap
02-23-2008, 11:40 AM
Precisely the way Republicans talk about things all the time. And while things are going well with a growing economy that talk walks into the White House as it did in 2000 election. But my guess has always been that without 9/11 (and almost with it) Bush would have been a one term President. When people look at the amount of anxiety in their life about health care and the really lack of robust push in the economy they will be asking the government to lead to a place where they can enjoy life. But for a single, healthy guy, with a good job, I can see you voting that you keep more of your earnings. Too bad your elected officials didn't recruit more people to your success by their policies by the Republican led government. And until the White House no longer is occupied by people who don't want government to work, the Congress is blocked by Executive discretion that undermines the direction a Democratic Congress is seeking. People understand that now too.

HonestChieffan
02-23-2008, 11:47 AM
Democrats become Republicans when they have finally had success and no longer want to see their labors going to pay for ever slacker with a hand out.

|Zach|
02-23-2008, 12:44 PM
Democrats become Republicans when they have finally had success and no longer want to see their labors going to pay for ever slacker with a hand out.

False.

Bowser
02-23-2008, 12:50 PM
Democrats become Republicans when they have finally had success and no longer want to see their labors going to pay for ever slacker with a hand out.

'''

BucEyedPea
02-23-2008, 02:10 PM
Democrats become Republicans when they have finally had success and no longer want to see their labors going to pay for ever slacker with a hand out.
I had a cousin say that once. I think there's truth in this. It's true for me.
All four of us in my family growing up, grew up in a liberal democratic household. My mother grew up poor in the projects and on welfare for a bit.They were lucky to get out eventually. I believed in socialized medicine even. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd give out gobs of money to every loser though. The same is true for this cousin of mine who said this, who is a cop. All four of us now are or lean Republican. In fact my brother is a member of the NRA.

noa
02-23-2008, 02:53 PM
I had a cousin say that once. I think there's truth in this. It's true for me.
All four of us in my family growing up, grew up in a liberal democratic household. My mother grew up poor in the projects and on welfare for a bit.They were lucky to get out eventually. I believed in socialized medicine even. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd give out gobs of money to every loser though. The same is true for this cousin of mine who said this, who is a cop. All four of us now are or lean Republican. In fact my brother is a member of the NRA.

Here's an interesting page about income and voting trends. Basically, in some states, its absolutely true that as your income goes up, you are more likely to be Republican, but in other states, it doesn't matter much.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/11/income_matters.html

BucEyedPea
02-23-2008, 02:58 PM
Here's an interesting page about income and voting trends. Basically, in some states, its absolutely true that as your income goes up, you are more likely to be Republican, but in other states, it doesn't matter much.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/11/income_matters.html

I don't think it applies to everybody. But I also read there are also former 60's radicals that are now Republican too.

I have a wealthy cousin, who extols the virtues of Italian communism. The funny thing is she inherited and did not earn most of her wealth either. (Mises calls these types parlor socialists sipping tea while the industrial grandparents or parents toil away) BTW, her dad also taught her Mussolini was a good guy too. LMAO!

Anyhow, she's loaded, has a lot more than me including a gorgeous huge home. She votes liberal democrat only.

HolmeZz
02-23-2008, 02:59 PM
Democrats become Republicans when they have finally had success and no longer want to see their labors going to pay for ever slacker with a hand out.

That explains the wealthy states of Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi and the poor states of California, Connecticut, and New York.

BucEyedPea
02-23-2008, 03:14 PM
That explains the wealthy states of Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi and the poor states of California, Connecticut, and New York.

The south has been more conservative traditionally, including more pro-state's whereas the NE and Cali, or the coasts tend to be more liberal. Same with cities more than rural areas.

memyselfI
02-23-2008, 04:59 PM
Wow, maybe this is happening sooner than I even thought possible. He's so convinced he's invincible that he's now defending the liberal label. Damn, he's got people so in to believing him and supporting him that he's now going to convince them that liberal is good and good FOR them. ROFL

I can't wait to tell some of the conservatives I know that they are supporting a bona fide unapologetic LIBERAL.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/23/694036.aspx

Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2008 2:30 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Obama

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan
AUSTIN, Texas -- In the shadow of the state capitol that provided the United States with one of the most conservative presidents in recent history, Obama last night railed against the charge that being "liberal" was a bad thing.

"Oh, he's liberal,” he said. “He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home.”

Continuing on his riff: "There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should so something smarter with our health care system. Don't let them run that okie doke on you!"

Nearly 20,000 people came to see Obama speak at a chilly outdoor rally with the backdrop of the state capitol, bare trees and a plump moon rising in the night sky.

Obama told the crowd that he loved Austin and reminded them that he came here soon after he announced for the presidency. And his love may be for good reason. His chances in Texas appear to be looking brighter, per a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows him pulling even with Clinton.

Going on the offense against McCain and Clinton, Obama reprised his argument about negotiating with foreign dictators in what appeared to be an unnamed allusion to his statement in Thursday's Democratic debate that he would meet with Raul Castro without preconditions, something which McCain hammered him for Friday morning.

"I have said earlier in this campaign I would meet not just with leaders we liked,” Obama said, “but leaders we didn't. Not just our friends but with our enemies, and I was told by Washington, ‘Oh you can’t do that! You can’t do that. That would be naïve, that would be irresponsible.' John McCain’s been repeating this line over the last couple days, and I have to remind John McCain and Hillary Clinton of what John F. Kennedy said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.”

He also told the crowd that McCain was "lassoed" to the policies of George W. Bush. Explaining why he was "tough enough" to run against McCain, he delivered his winning line of the night.

"I wouldn't be here if I wasn't tough,” Obama said. “Nobody gave me…Listen I'm a black guy named Barack Obama running for president. You can’t tell me I ain't tough. Shoot!"

The crowd screamed loudly while Obama went on the attack against McCain, and he shouted out to them, "Settle down Austin!"

If the argument that a cult of personality has developed around Obama's campaign, tonight's event in Austin was a case in point. People in the crowd held up large cardboard signs with his face painted on them. The shops along the streets had posters with Obama's face and the word "HOPE" on them.

Obama acknowledged the criticism of the enthusiasm that's risen in recent weeks. "And ya know what? Well they make fun of you all too by the way,” Obama said. “They make fun of you guys. They say, ‘All these people who are following Obama they're delusional. They just like pretty words, they don't really understand what's going on.’ Lets get real.”

He started his remarks with an acknowledgment and moment of silence for the officer who was killed yesterday in Clinton's motorcade. Telling the crowd that he had taken a picture with the motorcycle detail that had also protected him just a day earlier.

Tonight's event wrapped up a three-day visit to Texas. Obama heads to Ohio tomorrow to try and close the lead Clinton enjoys there.

patteeu
02-24-2008, 12:09 PM
When did you folks wake up to the fact he is a left winger?

Really. I've never quite understood memyselfi's opposition to him, but I didn't see any reason to argue with her about it.

patteeu
02-24-2008, 12:14 PM
It sounds like you are going in with eyes wide open. I truly believe many of those who are considering him are not. They are listening to him and he sounds 'reasonable' but they are not really aware of how liberal he is. Which if he continues down that path would be FANTASTIC in my view.

My concern, fear, and trepidation about him is that he will move to the right because it's going to be safer. He will shun his previous progressive roots and become too moderate. But if the far right is right and he stays true to his leftist ideology then it will be a welcome surprise for people like myself who think he blows with the wind.

It will end up being somewhere in the middle, IMO. I believe he's ideologically a committed leftist/progressive, but to govern effectively he will have to moderate to some extent and I think he's pragmatic enough to do so. Having said that, he's not going to end up governing as far to the center as Bill Clinton did unless the Republicans are able to exploit something to bring back a Congressional majority or near-majority. Conservatives will be in for a rough stretch if Obama wins, IMO, but moveon.org freaks will still be somewhat disappointed because they have unrealistic hopes.

If he's elected, I just hope that aging conservative SCOTUS justices like Scalia can hang on long enough to wait for the next election.