PDA

View Full Version : Obama: A Page From Reagan's Playbook


Mr. Kotter
03-01-2008, 11:15 AM
And a good one, at that....IMO.

...Reagan won because he solicited the whole nation’s support at a time when lesser politicians mistook their parties’ battles for the country’s.

It's something many moonbats, including the likes of jAZ and penchief STILL don't understand....

:hmmm:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/725a1ace-e6e9-11dc-b5c3-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

What Obama owes to Reagan
By Christopher Caldwell

Published: February 29 2008 19:20 | Last updated: February 29 2008 19:20

There was a curious moment in Tuesday’s televised debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Mrs Clinton wanted to talk about healthcare and kept talking over the moderator when he tried to change the subject. Mr Obama professed to be mystified by the performance. “The same experts she cites,” he responded, “basically say there’s no real difference between our plans.” That was true, and the overlap extends to almost all their policies.

This is the most furiously contested nomination fight in more than a generation. The two candidates between them have raised $85m (43m) from supporters in the past month, and Mr Obama has more than a million donors. Americans, even non-Democrats, are riveted by the spectacle. And yet, except for the authorisation to go to war in Iraq (which Mrs Clinton voted for and Mr Obama assailed from his position in the Illinois senate), the positions and voting records of the two candidates are hard to distinguish.

Their campaign slogans are no help, either. Apart from what she has acquired through marriage, Mrs Clinton has no more “experience” than Mr Obama, and it is unclear that Mr Obama would “change” things more than Mrs Clinton. Their biggest difference is in their attitude towards the US electorate. Voters sense that that is everything. They are right. The non-ideological differences between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are vast, possibly greater than those between either of them and the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. Their administrations would bear little resemblance to one another.

Mrs Clinton views voters as either committed friends or foes. There are good people on one side. On the other, depending on the rhetorical mood she is in, is “the vast right-wing conspiracy” or “the special interests”.

She conveys to Americans who are not on her side that she relishes their enmity. This includes every last Republican and the majority of independents. She believes the way to win is to motivate one’s loyal allies to bury the opposition. That is why she gets the word “passion” or “passionate” into almost every televised performance. She is running as a “fighter”, a self-description she employed half a dozen times in Tuesday’s debate. The main television advertisement with which she hopes to sway voters in Ohio opens with Ted Strickland, the state governor, saying: “We need a president, first of all, who’s going to be a fighter.”

It is not obvious that Mr Strickland is correct. Fighting is a necessary skill when one is among enemies, or people who can conveniently be deemed enemies. Had Mrs Clinton managed to seal her party’s nomination after the first couple of primaries, her combative, polarising, Manichean style of campaigning might have been a useful weapon against the Republicans. But when the Democratic primaries turned out to be more than a rubber-stamp, this “fighter” strategy became a liability. If you are fighting people who believe as you do and back the same programmes, then you cannot be fighting for your beliefs – you are either deluded or fighting for personal advantage.

On Tuesday, when Mrs Clinton tried to accuse the debate moderators of favouring Mr Obama (“Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow ... I just find it curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues”), she sounded truculent.

Mr Obama views the electorate’s affections and affiliations as changeable – at least at certain pivotal times. He believes independents and Republicans will rally to his cause, and many have done so. For this, Mrs Clinton seeks to portray him as a naf and a sap. He believes that Mrs Clinton’s approach is an obstacle to the policies they agree on. “She had the view that what’s required is simply to fight,” he said on Tuesday, referring to the healthcare plan doomed by Mrs Clinton’s secretiveness and mismanagement in 1993. “And Senator Clinton ended up fighting not just the insurance companies and the drug companies, but also members of her own party.”

There is a precedent for what Mr Obama is trying to pull off: Ronald Reagan. Mrs Clinton accused him of “admiring” the late Republican president in January after he marvelled at Reagan’s ability to put the country “on a fundamentally different path”.

While Mr Obama passed off his remarks as a mere historical observation, Mrs Clinton had a point. To read Mr Obama’s political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, is to see an interest in Reagan that borders on fascination. “I understood his appeal,” Mr Obama writes.

It is easy to see why. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 by attracting disaffected Democrats in millions. They did not jump to Reagan because Mr Carter was a particularly leftwing Democrat. Nor did Reagan appeal by watering his positions down into centrist mush. He ran as an unapologetic conservative, just as Mr Obama has run as an unapologetic man of the left. But the revolutionary coalition that Reagan formed was less ideological than he was. Reagan won because he solicited the whole nation’s support at a time when lesser politicians mistook their parties’ battles for the country’s.

If Mr Obama wins, it will be in the same way. His appeal is not to be found in the nuances of trade or health or tax policy. Mr Obama wants to be president of the US. Mrs Clinton wants to capture the government for her faction. Her election would bring four or eight years more of the partisan venom that has prevailed in the past decade, and almost certainly intensify it. Mr Obama thinks the fighting has worn people out and that Americans are ready to unite around a new set of goals. This is a more optimistic vision of the electorate. Mr Obama will win only if it is the more accurate one.

The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard

FAX
03-01-2008, 12:00 PM
What a well-thought-out article. Great perspective. Thanks for posting, Mr. Mr. Kotter.

FAX

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2008, 12:07 PM
What a well-thought-out article. Great perspective. Thanks for posting, Mr. Mr. Kotter.

FAX

You're welcome, Mr. FAX.

I think most of us in the middle (independent/centrist/left leaning cons/right leaning libs) get what this guy is saying.

banyon
03-01-2008, 12:19 PM
The bolded part is particularly insightful as to his appeal across the aisle.

Probably will just infuriate Denise even more since it's so accurate.

BucEyedPea
03-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Everythings left today, and that includes centrists, indies and right leaning libs.

Bowser
03-01-2008, 05:02 PM
Everythings left today, and that includes centrists, indies and right leaning libs.

"If you were any more to the left, you'd be in the lake."

Adept Havelock
03-01-2008, 05:11 PM
Everythings left today, and that includes centrists, indies and right leaning libs.

Look at the bright side. Considering the curved nature of Space-Time, anything that moves sufficently far to the Left will eventually reappear on the far Right. :p

banyon
03-01-2008, 05:25 PM
Everythings left today, and that includes centrists, indies and right leaning libs.

No, your scale is just old.

I'm sure that people in the Middle Ages would have viewed the scale you'd like to use from 1800 as "mostly on the left" as well.

Taco John
03-01-2008, 05:45 PM
It's amusing watching a Zell Miller turned Fred Thompson turned Barack Obama fan presume to lecture Jaz on anything.

Good ole, "Cult of Personality" Kotter...

BucEyedPea
03-01-2008, 05:56 PM
Look at the bright side. Considering the curved nature of Space-Time, anything that moves sufficently far to the Left will eventually reappear on the far Right. :p

:thumb: Sounds good to me.

Bowser
03-01-2008, 06:01 PM
:thumb: Sounds good to me.

Oh god - Star Trek geeks!

Adept Havelock
03-01-2008, 06:21 PM
Oh god - Star Trek geeks!

I'll have you know I was a Science geek before I was a Star Trek geek! :cuss: :p

jAZ
03-01-2008, 06:29 PM
It is easy to see why. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 by attracting disaffected Democrats in millions. They did not jump to Reagan because Mr Carter was a particularly leftwing Democrat. Nor did Reagan appeal by watering his positions down into centrist mush.
This assertion is 180-degrees from all of your anti-liberal, anti-dem, the-Dems-moved-left-crap you've tried to spew for 5+ years.

But thanks for posting it, even if you STILL can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong all along.

jAZ
03-01-2008, 06:30 PM
You're welcome, Mr. FAX.

I think most of us in the middle (independent/centrist/left leaning cons/right leaning libs) get what this guy is saying.
He told you what I said 5 years ago, and now you like hearing it for some reason.

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2008, 11:23 AM
This assertion is 180-degrees from all of your anti-liberal, anti-dem, the-Dems-moved-left-crap you've tried to spew for 5+ years.

But thanks for posting it, even if you STILL can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong all along.

The only thing "wrong" about what I've said regarding was...that Fred Thompson would be the Republican nominee to meet this very challenge.

If you consider my pondering of whether to vote for Obama to be a "180 degree" reversal...you are delusional, again. I'm open to supporting him, if and only if in November I find myself in agreement with him on three or four issues over the next 7 months that he will make a priority as President.....more than I find myself in agreement with John McCain's top priorities.

Yes, Obama is a liberal; and I don't agree with a large chunk of his ideas. However, Presidents can only do so much--Congress will keep his more radical ideas from seeing the light of day. Truth is, I'm probably leaning to McCain due to national security/taxes/restrained government growth. I'm willing to listen to the coming campaign though. That's something you won't do --at least not in a sincere way.

The party is still full of knee-jerk moonbats like you and penchief who are nothing more than partisan shills and hacks....the likes of which Obama is in the process of marginalizing and pushing back to their proper spot along the lunatic fringe. Obama, like Reagan, seems to understand that despite personal political ideology....consensus, compromise, and focusing on centrist and moderate policies is what will unite the nation. Instead of the politics of division and partisan demagoguery that folks like you and penchief are so wed to---and that the American people are so sick of.

Obama gets it; you still don't.

He told you what I said 5 years ago, and now you like hearing it for some reason.

The only thing you've ever "told me" in this regard....is lip-service supporting compromise and unifying the country, while you simultaneously spew...ideologically motivated talking points and partisan hyperbole and denigration of anyone who dares to have an opinion different than the one sent out by the DNC and MoveOn.og types. Obama would distance himself from you, given the choice....as quickly as he did Farakahn and anyone else on the lunatic fringe.

Your charade of lip-service is transparent, if amusing....and it fools no one.

Taco John
03-02-2008, 11:36 AM
Since when is Jaz some sort of radical?

You sound like a moron.

Taco John
03-02-2008, 11:54 AM
The Kotter defiinition of "Radical" -

Anyone who disagrees with what I currently believe, except for the cool kids on the far right, who I'm too busy trying to make like me to bother challenging in any meaningful way.

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2008, 12:06 PM
Since when is Jaz some sort of radical?

You sound like a moron.

I'm shocked: a Ron Paul pimp/zealot/idealogue not accepting the notion of "radical" politics, and calling someone (anyone) else a moron....heh.

LMAO

Taco John
03-02-2008, 01:27 PM
Whatever dude. You're the biggest fake on this board, and everybody knows it.

BucEyedPea
03-02-2008, 03:25 PM
Well then our Constitution is radical to most folks today as are our founding ideals.
One man's radical is another's moderate. It's all relative and subjective, person to person era to era.

dirk digler
03-02-2008, 04:54 PM
You're welcome, Mr. FAX.

I think most of us in the middle (independent/centrist/left leaning cons/right leaning libs) get what this guy is saying.

Yep. That is why alot of people support him and I think why McCain is popular as well because they are neither ideologues like the terrorist c-u-n-t on this board

Logical
03-02-2008, 04:58 PM
You're welcome, Mr. FAX.

I think most of us in the middle (independent/centrist/left leaning cons/right leaning libs) get what this guy is saying.
I like what he is saying in many cases, which is why I am going to take HolmeZz's advice and read his book.

Logical
03-02-2008, 04:59 PM
The Kotter defiinition of "Radical" -

Anyone who disagrees with what I currently believe, except for the cool kids on the far right, who I'm too busy trying to make like me to bother challenging in any meaningful way.
Mucho truth in this post.

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2008, 09:52 PM
The Kotter defiinition of "Radical" -

Anyone who disagrees with what I currently believe, except for the cool kids on the far right, who I'm too busy trying to make like me to bother challenging in any meaningful way.


:spock:

Do you really think I give two shits what most people on this discussion board think? Seriously? :shrug:

I've said it numerous times....this BB is an escape; a place to let loose and be silly, sarcastic, and candid, like I want to in real life sometimes....but usually can't. Yeah, I enjoy socializing with folks, hanging with folks at tailgates, and I don't purposefully try to piss people off....but, for the ump-teenth time....it's a damn discussion silly-assed discussion board....I don't give two shits what you or some other assholes here "think" of my on-board persona.

Quit projecting, you little fraction of a real man, and then you'll begin to feel much better about yourself...and maybe introspection may lead you to change, though I doubt it. I've had my own "moments" here to be sure, but they have been just that--moments...; yours is a way of life....Freud would have had a hay-day with your twisted and pathetic existence.

Mr. Kotter
03-02-2008, 09:56 PM
Well then our Constitution is radical to most folks today as are our founding ideals.
One man's radical is another's moderate. It's all relative and subjective, person to person era to era.

They were radical then; it's silly to think they are radical now.

The problem is some libertarian leaning folks would like to wish away the welfare state and the living constitution, despite the fact both have been embraced enthusiastically by a majority of Americans in our republic....which makes them reality, whether you wish to accept them or not.

htismaqe
03-03-2008, 07:17 AM
Look at the bright side. Considering the curved nature of Space-Time, anything that moves sufficently far to the Left will eventually reappear on the far Right. :p

Some of us will be in concentration camps by then.

jAZ
03-03-2008, 07:21 AM
The only thing "wrong" about what I've said regarding was...that Fred Thompson would be the Republican nominee to meet this very challenge.

If you consider my pondering of whether to vote for Obama to be a "180 degree" reversal...you are delusional, again. I'm open to supporting him, if and only if in November I find myself in agreement with him on three or four issues over the next 7 months that he will make a priority as President.....more than I find myself in agreement with John McCain's top priorities.

Yes, Obama is a liberal; and I don't agree with a large chunk of his ideas. However, Presidents can only do so much--Congress will keep his more radical ideas from seeing the light of day. Truth is, I'm probably leaning to McCain due to national security/taxes/restrained government growth. I'm willing to listen to the coming campaign though. That's something you won't do --at least not in a sincere way.

The party is still full of knee-jerk moonbats like you and penchief who are nothing more than partisan shills and hacks....the likes of which Obama is in the process of marginalizing and pushing back to their proper spot along the lunatic fringe. Obama, like Reagan, seems to understand that despite personal political ideology....consensus, compromise, and focusing on centrist and moderate policies is what will unite the nation. Instead of the politics of division and partisan demagoguery that folks like you and penchief are so wed to---and that the American people are so sick of.

Obama gets it; you still don't.



The only thing you've ever "told me" in this regard....is lip-service supporting compromise and unifying the country, while you simultaneously spew...ideologically motivated talking points and partisan hyperbole and denigration of anyone who dares to have an opinion different than the one sent out by the DNC and MoveOn.og types. Obama would distance himself from you, given the choice....as quickly as he did Farakahn and anyone else on the lunatic fringe.

Your charade of lip-service is transparent, if amusing....and it fools no one.

I'm going to assume that you just missed the point, and that you aren't deliberately attempting to spin this discussion away from the point of my post. Because you reply here has NOTHING to do with what I said and what you are supposed to be responding to.

So one more time... and I'll try to be more clear and precise if possible.

1) You've claimed that the over your voting lifetime (since Jimmy Carter), the the Democratic Party has left you by moving left.

2) I've told you that you were completely wrong, that the Republican Party has moved strongly to the right, moving all of our politics that way in the process. I illustrated that fact by pointing out how the Dems moved RIGHT under Clinton in order to persue a centrist-triangulation strategy.

3) In the last 6-9 months, I've made the point (to gasps of horror) that Obama appears to have the makings of Democratic Ronald Reagan because his style of campaigning (optimistic "hope") combined with his strongly progressive platform seems to be attracting swing voters who wouldn't otherwise self identify as Progressive.

This article that you are championing makes BOTH of my points very clearly. You seem to welcome these facts when someone else makes the point. But you rejected them when I made them over the last 5 years and the last 9 months.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2008, 07:53 AM
I'm going to assume that you just missed the point, and that you aren't deliberately attempting to spin this discussion away from the point of my post. Because you reply here has NOTHING to do with what I said and what you are supposed to be responding to.

So one more time... and I'll try to be more clear and precise if possible.

1) You've claimed that the over your voting lifetime (since Jimmy Carter), the the Democratic Party has left you by moving left.

2) I've told you that you were completely wrong, that the Republican Party has moved strongly to the right, moving all of our politics that way in the process. I illustrated that fact by pointing out how the Dems moved RIGHT under Clinton in order to pursue a centrist-triangulation strategy.

3) In the last 6-9 months, I've made the point (to gasps of horror) that Obama appears to have the makings of Democratic Ronald Reagan because his style of campaigning (optimistic "hope") combined with his strongly progressive platform seems to be attracting swing voters who wouldn't otherwise self identify as Progressive.

This article that you are championing makes BOTH of my points very clearly. You seem to welcome these facts when someone else makes the point. But you rejected them when I made them over the last 5 years and the last 9 months.

You couldn't be "clear and precise" if your life depended on it....

1. The Dems have moved left; it's why they lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. Obama is trying to reverse that trend...by making Centrist appeals, on issues that are a priority to Americans (healthcare, special interest influence, forging consensus on top priorities.)

2. The Reps have moved right....but only since 1994, or so. OTOH, the country as a whole (not parties, but individual voters) have moved further to the right over the past 40 years....just not as far as the Rep party. Clinton met that rightward trend of voters with his "triangulation"--the Dem party as a whole, resisted though. (FWIW, we "could" be at the beginning of a pendulum swing back to the left....though I doubt it.)

3. I've certainly never discounted Obama's appeal. His optimism and charisma do resemble Reagan; certainly, I've never suggested otherwise. It's his biggest asset. However, his strongly "progressive" platform will undermine him in the general election, IF he makes too many of those issues a priority. If he is successfully outed as a real "progressive" (code for liberal, heh) he will lose. Period.

And Dems like you will be left scratching your heads, once again...."I just....I just....I just don't understand?!" :doh!:

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 07:57 AM
Kotter I'd agree that the Dems moved left, which is why they lost me. But I hardly think Obama is a centrist either. Those American priorities are mine too but I don't support much of how he'd handle them. I do however like him on FP, Iraq and Iran. The only way to not escalate those situations is to put a leftist in.

And the Reps have not moved right. Look at the spending. Prescription drug meds??? The Pubs keep moving left as well. If you check the overall record though it's actually the Pubs that do the most spending and have given us quite a bit of socialism.

Barack is NOT a centrist.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2008, 08:02 AM
Kotter I'd agree that the Dems moved left, which is why they lost me. But I hardly think Obama is a centrist either. Those American priorities are mine too but I don't support much of how he'd handle them. I do however like him on FP, Iraq and Iran. The only way to not escalate those situations is to put a leftist in.

And the Reps have not moved right. Look at the spending. Prescription drug meds??? The Pubs keep moving left as well. If you check the overall record though it's actually the Pubs that do the most spending and have given us quite a bit of socialism.

Barack is NOT a centrist.

I didn't say he IS a centrist; I said, he's making centrist appeals. He's packaging himself as a centrist. And he may be able to "sell it" if he focuses his priorities on the right issues. As for the Republicans, I agree they've drifted left on economic and spending issues; that's Bush's "compassionate conservative" rhetoric though....and I suspect it will fade with time.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 08:06 AM
They were radical then; it's silly to think they are radical now.
It is radical still. People who advocate those views are labelled extremists today. That's the problem with big govt and socialism: it conditions the people's minds to think we can't be free and they get used to it.

The problem is some libertarian leaning folks would like to wish away the welfare state and the living constitution, despite the fact both have been embraced enthusiastically by a majority of Americans in our republic....which makes them reality, whether you wish to accept them or not.

No we KNOW it can't be wished away. It requires education and will. But I wouldn't say a majority enthusiastically supported it when it was first going in...I'd say most didn't understand or know it was happening. For one it was made largely possible when the SC's Butler Case made the Hamiltonian view the "new deal" over the Jeffersonian one. Breaking down the Consititution's restraints gradually over time was a goal of the socialists. Fabianism. I hardly think a majority even knew what was even going on. Today most are conditioned and educated to think the govt runs our lives and solves our personal problems. If it had never had happened people today would be educated in how to survive and succeed in a different culture and would think nothing of it. It's just what we're all used to.

Taco John
03-03-2008, 11:03 AM
Do you really think I give two shits what most people on this discussion board think? Seriously? :shrug:




Yes. You prove it time and time again. You were practically in tears when you got busted for having multiple accounts to argue your political positions. It drove you to drink and post even. I imagine the salt water that filled your keyboard during that rough stretch was cause to go out and buy a new one.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2008, 11:13 AM
Yes. You prove it time and time again. You were practically in tears when you got busted for having multiple accounts to argue your political positions. It drove you to drink and post even. I imagine the salt water that filled your keyboard during that rough stretch was cause to go out and buy a new one.


LMAO LMAO LMAO

Cochise
03-03-2008, 11:16 AM
Yes. You prove it time and time again. You were practically in tears when you got busted for having multiple accounts to argue your political positions. It drove you to drink and post even. I imagine the salt water that filled your keyboard during that rough stretch was cause to go out and buy a new one.

The way he leaps around the political spectrum and creates great grand threads to explain himself in order to maintain credibility (such as it is) says to me that he cares what others here think probably more than anyone else.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2008, 12:45 PM
The way he leaps around the political spectrum and creates great grand threads to explain himself in order to maintain credibility (such as it is) says to me that he cares what others here think probably more than anyone else.

I considered it common courtesy. Guess I'll ignore patty's repeated requests for such next time. :rolleyes:

jAZ
03-03-2008, 01:27 PM
1. The Dems have moved left; it's why they lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. Obama is trying to reverse that trend...by making Centrist appeals, on issues that are a priority to Americans (healthcare, special interest influence, forging consensus on top priorities.)

2. The Reps have moved right....but only since 1994, or so. OTOH, the country as a whole (not parties, but individual voters) have moved further to the right over the past 40 years....just not as far as the Rep party. Clinton met that rightward trend of voters with his "triangulation"--the Dem party as a whole, resisted though. (FWIW, we "could" be at the beginning of a pendulum swing back to the left....though I doubt it.)

3. I've certainly never discounted Obama's appeal. His optimism and charisma do resemble Reagan; certainly, I've never suggested otherwise. It's his biggest asset. However, his strongly "progressive" platform will undermine him in the general election, IF he makes too many of those issues a priority. If he is successfully outed as a real "progressive" (code for liberal, heh) he will lose. Period.

And Dems like you will be left scratching your heads, once again...."I just....I just....I just don't understand?!" :doh!:
It's weird.

It's like you aren't even reading your own article.

The author points out that like the mirror of Reagan, Obama is using appealing rhetoric to bring many non-progressives to support him without "watering his positions down into centrist mush".

Obama holds a progressive agenda but wraps all of that in welcoming rhetoric, just like Reagan did.

And unlike Clinton (Bill) who triangluated his way to center by co-opting any number of Republican issues. He moved the party to the right in response to Reagan's moving his party to the right and in response to Newt Gingrich's rhetorical destruction of the term "liberal".

You can't seem to bring yourself to admit that Obama is progressive and if he is the Dems version of Reagan, he will govern from the left, even while making those progressive policies more appealing to the masses without moving to the right/center to govern like Clinton did.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2008, 10:03 PM
It's weird.

It's like you aren't even reading your own article.

The author points out that like the mirror of Reagan, Obama is using appealing rhetoric to bring many non-progressives to support him without "watering his positions down into centrist mush".

Obama holds a progressive agenda but wraps all of that in welcoming rhetoric, just like Reagan did.

And unlike Clinton (Bill) who triangluated his way to center by co-opting any number of Republican issues. He moved the party to the right in response to Reagan's moving his party to the right and in response to Newt Gingrich's rhetorical destruction of the term "liberal".

You can't seem to bring yourself to admit that Obama is progressive and if he is the Dems version of Reagan, he will govern from the left, even while making those progressive policies more appealing to the masses without moving to the right/center to govern like Clinton did.

You wanna know what is weird? Seriously?

That ANYONE, besides pinheads like (you) jAZ, penchief, ZachKC, TacoJohn/Jane/Fag and occasionally Ill-Logical or whatever the hell his name is this week....buy into your silly and pathethic bullshit.

Tomorrow will be "D-day" for the witch/bitch. If I were really smart....it would also be a very good beginning of the end for me in this silly and pathetic space.

:doh!:

Taco John
03-03-2008, 10:08 PM
How did Jaz's rational and sane response illicit such an irrational and strange response?

WHoever heard of a radical centrist anyway?

alnorth
03-03-2008, 10:28 PM
I have to agree with jAZ. Obama is a pretty extreme hard-core Liberal who is trying to disguise his politics in friendly non-threatening rhetoric that wont scare anyone off until its too late.

There is absolutely ***NOTHING*** centrist about Obama in any way, shape, or form. To him, "coming together" and "working with both parties" is almost certainly just a code-word for the GOP laying down and voluntarily surrendering. Anything else will be falsely characterised as stubborn obstructionism. The only candidate who can really be half-heartedly described as centrist is McCain (though he is in reality a fairly decent distance right of center).

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2008, 10:42 PM
How did Jaz's rational and sane response illicit such an irrational and strange response?

WHoever heard of a radical centrist anyway?

I've said his RHETORIC and presentation are centrist; but his IDEOLOGY is Progressive....which is why I'll probably vote McCain; nevertheless....


Okay...


Mr. 911 conspiracy theorist....


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135416


Okay, Mr. Federal Reserve conspiracist....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=171014&highlight=reserve

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=174565

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=169993

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=174565



Okay, Mr. I-suck-Ron-Paul-Dong-and-I-like-it...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=178091&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=177584&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=176196&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=175475&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=174503&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=173670&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=172502&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=172083&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=171845&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=169254&highlight=Paul

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=169306&highlight=Paul



and, THAT is less than half of them silly-assed suckers.... LMAO LMAO LMAO




Like anyone, who is rational here, cares even one scintilla about WTF U think (aside from shit-stirrers Jimbo, Zachy-poo, and Gerry and other lunatic fringe types) ??? :shrug:

Sorry....the truth hurts.... :shrug:


LMAO


;)

Taco John
03-03-2008, 11:57 PM
Kotter, you just said the same thing that Jaz said. Only you made it sound stupid.

And trust me, I'm not the least bit concerned about my standing here in comparison to you. Indeed, I have much stricter principles than you. I'm pretty well assured that makes me a much more interesting conversation than discussing what a radical centrist you are.