Me and Obama: changing minds (Part II)
In the final months of the 2008 presidential campaign, my concern about Obama increased. This time the subject was economics. His remark to Joe the Plumber was important because it was spoken in an unguarded moment, something rare with Obama. Off the cuff remarks tend to be far more revealing than scripted ones, and Obama’s carefully constructed mask had slipped for just a moment to reveal the income redistributionist underneath. At the time I wrote:
…I believe that by his seemingly casual words Obama revealed his deep commitment to a philosophy of redistribution of wealth in order to further equality of outcome, and that he either doesn’t think equality of opportunity is enough or he believes this country doesn’t offer it.
As a direct result of the “aha” moment of the Joe the Plumber encounter, I began to use the term “soft socialist” to describe Obama. “Socialist” still seemed too far-fetched, although it was gaining in my mind as well (and by the way, for anyone who says I was blind to these possibilities until recently, my words at the time contradict that notion, although it’s true that I did surround my musings with qualifying “I thinks” and “somewhats”):
Obama, of course, would be a statist, of the “soft socialism” type. Look to Europe for the template. And look to the British or Canadian health care systems for a preview of just how well it works…
I think it’s even worse than that, however: I’ve noticed Obama showing signs of being at least somewhat simpatico with hard socialism, of the Hugo Chavez type.
Around the same time I noticed (and was outraged by) card check, and then a few weeks later I became aware of Obama’s older (and originally overlooked) interview from January 2008, in which he said his proposal for cap and trade would “bankrupt” new coal plants and send America’s energy costs “skyrocketing.”
This was worrisome on so many levels, not the least of which was that by that time we were just a few days from the election and Obama was ahead in the polls, and the press was not taking this and running with it (a fact that no longer surprised me, but it still outraged me). Also, these statements of Obama’s concerned, not some shady association in the past, or even some way in which he was handling his present campaign (like the aforementioned broken promise about campaign financing, or the shenanigans about foreign contributions on his website), but policy proposals for the future. These were his stated intentions. They were concrete, they were detailed, and they were alarming.
But when I tried to speak to a few friends about card check or cap and trade, only my two lone conservative buddies had even heard of them; the others looked at me blankly. Attempts to explain to a couple of the more receptive of them were met with a thoughtful “hmm, that’s interesting.” But clearly, the revelations were far from a vote-changer for them.
As I said at the time to one friend, who had originally been a Clinton-supporter but now planned to vote for Obama (although she admitted she’d been paying little attention to anything except an uplifting speech or two), it would take me many hours to put before her the evidence I’d amassed that made me believe that this man just might be the most dangerous major party candidate for president that I could recall in my lifetime. For her to listen to and to read that evidence and weigh it would require time and energy on her part.
I think of this particular friend as an fair-minded Democrat who was willing to at least consider that what I said might be true. But she simply did not have that sort of time, and/or was unwilling to expend that amount of energy, to find out.
Was she afraid of what she might discover? She’d seen me walk down that path, and knew it had caused social problems for me. Or did I already appear to her as though I’d gone off some sort of deep end? Did I sound too frazzled, too driven; did I look too wild-eyed? Did she, in the final analysis, want to believe in Obama, because it made the world a kindler, gentler place?
I’m not sure. I know that I sent her a few articles, and I think she even read them. But she voted for Obama anyway (at least I’m pretty sure she did; I did not go into the voting booth with her). Most of my other friends were starry-eyed over Obama, and so I knew I’d be wasting my time by even talking to them.
The day after the election—and the expected Obama win—I decided it was time to accept the situation and hope for the best. This did not mean I was blind to the possibilities. But, as I wrote in Part I, it was time for watchful waiting; Obama would reveal himself soon enough, by his actions.
As for the rest, my blog tells the tale, or at least some of it: first a lull, and then increasing evidence (and increasing concern) on almost every front. The stimulus. The budget. The census. Card check. Cap and trade. Insulting Britain. Apologies for America around the globe. Drumming up class war at every opportunity. Rewarding the unions. Bowing to the Saudis—literally. Expensive and inefficient health care proposals. Israel. Iran. Honduras. Korea. Weakness. Appeasement.
When I look at politics and world events, I try to be a person of reason and restraint as well as fairness. I don’t feature knee-jerk demonizing, and I like to back up everything I say with solid evidence. But that takes time; it can’t be done in sound bites.
But at this point the jury is no longer out on Obama—he has revealed enough of himself that we can conclude that what he’s doing is bad for America and even for the world, although we’re still not entirely sure of his motivations. But his reasons matter less than the damage he is causing, and the need to figure out how best to counter it and to prevent more and even greater damage in the future.
Unfortunately, as events progress, we who oppose Obama sound increasingly shrill, and the gap between us and those who support him (even feebly, like my friend) has widened to something approximating the size of the Grand Canyon. How can that be bridged?
The problem we face is the same one I faced with my friends back in October/November of 2008. In some ways it’s worse, because there’s more to say. But in some ways it’s better, because I sense some doubt in all but the most extreme Obama supporters.
However, they are still not paying attention, and attention is required. They’re not reading about this in the mainstream media. So, what is my role? I need time and a receptive willing audience to make an argument that could be persuasive, and if people aren’t willing to give the issues the energy necessary, then I run the risk of sounding to them like a raving maniac if I do bring it up, someone easy to put in the category of 9/11-truthers or Holocaust deniers. And now that Obama is in office until 2012, it has also become even more threatening for people who once supported him to even consider that what I’m trying to say may in fact be true: there’s the guilt, plus the fear that the hand on the tiller is purposely steering us in the wrong direction.
So there’s even more reason for them to reject what I say. I can’t bridge the gulf; it requires flooding people with information, which they don’t wish to receive. In my email “drafts” box are several notes with titles like “please read, very important,” that contain lists of links to well-reasoned and informative articles. But I haven’t sent them, except for one time—and that one only featured a meager two links, as I recall. I got not a single response to it, and I doubt that the recipients (a few good friends) even read the links. Now I’ve become even more reluctant to nag them by bringing it up again or sending more links; I think it would only be counterproductive.
This is an urgent matter. But becoming a pest can’t be the answer. And on this blog I fear I’m only preaching to the choir. The comments section here is great, but we are talking mostly to each other, and the rare troll (who’ve become more numerous again lately).
How can we reach the greater community? Do you speak to Obama supporters you know? What is the response if you try to explain what you think has been happening?
Churchill was thought to be crazy during the 30s, obsessed with his warnings about Hitler, who didn’t appear to most of the rest of Parliament to be such an awful fellow. Maybe the nature of the beast is that such warnings cannot be heard, that they seem excessive until the most dire things actually occur. Most people almost instinctively reject what seems like an extreme point of view unless they’ve arrived at it themselves through personal awareness, step by painful step, or through a dramatic and possibly life-shattering single event.
We’ve had experience with incompetent presidents and/or deceptive presidents before. But I submit that we’ve never before had a president with such malignant and radical designs who also was so deceptive in such a profound way. Nixon, for example, was deceptive about many things as well as malignant towards his “enemies,” but he was still well within the mainstream of American political thought regarding defending freedom around the globe, keeping America strong, and the economy. Also, Tricky Dick seemed tricky; we knew about this characteristic of his even before he was elected.
Obama does not seem deceptive on the surface—at least, he doesn’t to many people, and that’s what’s important. And yet he has been deceptive about something far more basic than Nixon ever was: who he is, and his underlying vision for America.
To Obama’s credit, over time he has become more honest about all of that. Perhaps not so much in his rhetoric, but in his deeds.
And by his deeds ye shall know him.
Rasmussen’s presidential support polls over the past week suggest that Obama’s glow may be fading, and Colin Powell is beginning to have second thoughts. There may be hope for us.
I don’t talk to them and they don’t talk to me. When they do converse it usually ends up with them damn close to 9/11 Truthers. And I don’t want to waste my time on any more of their BS.
Neo,we all share your frustration. We’re jumping down, screaming and pointing at the iceberg, and our friends just keep going dum-di-dum-di-dum. But may I suggest an little experiment?
You’re some short of shrink, right? Try expressing your doubts about this guy in the language of psycho therapy. Libberuls, especially libberul women of a certain age, lap that stuff up. Your profession has a million circumlocutions, which you should use to your friends, but since we’re among friends, I’ll speak bluntly: The president isn’t dealing with a full deck, got screws ratting in his head, is wacko.
Well reasoning people who carefully read BHO’s book “Audacity of Hope” pretty much knew what he is and where he would want to take the country. The book screams socialism.
Even though he hides his academic history, Barack has been fairly honest for a politician, and sometimes too candid as he was in San Francisco with his “clinging to guns and religion” remark.
He played the race card and the electorate fell for it. Combined with media BDS, and the economic debacle that unfolded just before the election, it is a miracle that he did not win the election by a much wider margin.
Many people are beginning to lose hope for “change that they can believe in” because harsh reality is finally wearing them down.
The question of BHO losing support is not question of if, but when. All but the most diehard emotional liberals now see him as far more radical than wise. His actions have not inspired confidence that he is truly a man of the people, a world class statesman, or an economically savvy leader. He has proved to most people that he is just a non-detailed power hungry politician that will do what it takes to press his social engineering agenda regardless of cost or consequences, casting those who to not help him to his wolves. Unless he cheats he will not be reelected, and he will drag his party down with him. If he cheats, the electorate may mobilize to correct the situation.
Like Cappy, I don’t talk to them. A friend of long standing (over 16 years) keep sending me what he thinks are “uplifting jokes”, mostly of deranged and abusive liberal variety. I kept silent way too long for him not to notice, but he kept sending them – until I told him straight not to – and why. He was astounded. I’m probably one of three people in his vast network, to my knowledge, who’s not a lefty. Two others being his nephew (just left for a second tour in Iraq) and a guy from his amateur rock band.
Silent treatment only works on us, Neo, we understand it They do not.
Pingback:Bookworm Room » Taking off liberal blinders
But I submit that we’ve never before had a president with such malignant and radical designs who also was so deceptive in such a profound way.
Well put. That’s a clear and measured description of Obama.
Last night when I said I am now wondering whether Obama is evil, that is what I had in mind.
When I read descriptions of Obama as a socialist, a Marxist, a Carter, or a Nixon, those fail to capture for me the full horror of Obama.
Colin Powell is beginning to have second thoughts… oh lordy… I am not comforted.
Neo wrote, “This is an urgent matter.”
I agree. And we are preaching to the choir. The Obama supporters I know are ever so uninformed making idiotic statement after idiotic statement. They see nothing wrong with Obama at all !@!
With almost all of my liberal friends, family, and acquaintances I have a conscious or tacit agreement not to discuss politics anymore.
Part of the problem is that these people were so out of their minds about Bush and the Iraq War that if I do raise concerns about Obama, they just say it’s your turn now.
Nice.
More on point: got a happy holiday greeting today from my sister. She cannot bring herself to name the holiday.
I agree with Armchair Pessimist that find the right psychologist terms may help with some of your friends. I also think that pointing out how much he’s like the Daley Machine will help with others. (Daley is not popular in Chicago right now because his parking meter policy has made parking a daily chore for thousands of shopkeepers, baristas, and customers. It’s often the little things that get to people who are apolitical.)
I too believe that Obama is out to wreck the U.S.A., and I hope that his corrupt acorn voting minions can be stopped before we’ve become a one-party society.
As far as what we can do…..you Neo-neocon should keep doing what you’ve been doing, even though you are preaching to the choir. Slowly the number of people who turn to your site and who benefit from your writings will expand.
The rest of us should do what we can do in our various circumstances. Some, like me, are relatively isolated, while others will be in a position to be leaders in their own circles.
The reason I don’t despair quite yet is because Obama is trying to change the laws of nature. His programs will not produce wealth and happiness.
All the free college scholarships in the world, to take one example, will not make jobs available for the so-called underprivileged students who pick the wrong field or refuse to study hard. Most school systems, I’m willing to bet, cannot afford to hire more administrators and teachers. People will be laid off in California when the state runs out of money. Pension systems will begin to collapse everywhere. When the U.S. currency collapses, as it will with Obama in charge, socialism will not bring us out of the woods. Etc. etc.
Obama is not the only demagogue who will arise. He will have competition from all sides. We need to have sane sites like Neo-neocon where we can talk to each other. I don’t think Obama can shut down the internet quite yet.
I couldn’t agree more with Neo (whose comments I have frequently forwarded to others) and most of the commenters, but unfortunately I think we are in fact preaching to a fairly small choir. I am a Canadian professional who fears for the future of our planet, and have experienced the same kinds of reactions as Neo, have had people stare at me as though I had horns growing out the side of my head, and have recently typed a number of emails with attached articles, only to ultimately leave them languishing in “Drafts”.
In case you aren’t aware of it, the progressives rule Canada to a much greater degree than in the US. Mind-bogglingly, I think it was between 75 and 80% of Canadians that would have voted for the Obaminator. They will NOT listen to us. The MSM will NOT admit it’s errors and sins. The disapproval rating for O will not grow indefinitely and will always be countered by the MSM, the blue state urbanites, the intelligentsia – all of the hard core progressives.
So, read a novel, live and laugh a little. We are likely witnessing the final victory of Statism, what some old fashioned political theorists might call fascism, and I’m afraid efforts to counter its rise, while morally laudable, will have an exceedingly small chance of success. Patience, stoicism and a sense of humour will be required.
Liberals so wished for a historical black President. God apparently thought they meant a hysterical black President.
Didn’t we have to get to this point? A McCain win would have only postponed and increased the size of this progressive bubble on its road to bursting.
How and how soon it burst is the question.
SteveH — I have to agree. With the defeat of the black JFK combined with the bad economy, I believe the Dems, the media, and progressives would have shifted into McCain Derangement Syndrome just as demented, perhaps more so.
I doubt McCain could have gotten anything done. By 2012 Republican party would be even more exhausted then they are today.
I believe that even if Obama is voted out, he will be set for life. The vast amount of money the DNC collected, the political favors to foreign powers… this has to have some sort of payback.
As for talking to libs, I do all the time, but I don’t bring up the president. I read about and bring up things like Cap and Trade, mention specifics about bills, situations in the news (Honduras), etc. Then I ask “What do you think about this?”
I keep Obama out of it, so they can’t turn it into a “teen dream scene”. (You know, when you’re accused of not having any Obama Spirit because you’re just jealous because the DNC didn’t take YOU to the prom and have its way with you in a hotel room afterwards.)
During the primaries, when I managed to discuss politics without ruining dinner with a classic liberal and a progressive friend. When it came to health care, the progressive heated up because she knew I’m against it. But I asked her if any particular candidate’s ideas had addressed how we could nationalize health care without increasing the bureocracy and red tape that already exist. She admitted she knew nothing except that our health care system was broken. My other friend was a lot more receptive to talking about issues and I suspect voted for McCain after Clinton was dropped.
and now close up we know how herr AH did his thing with a bunch of help. you dont prevent this kind of thing because you dont believe this kind of thing.
the question is how far will it go. its already gone pretty far, and in the other thread on how to change the constitution they left out one way. destroy the state and rewrite it from scratch. note how everyone was arguing within the framework,while all of whats being done is outside the framework.
SteveH is onto something. McCain is such a tepid defender of free enterprise that we may be better off in the long run to hit Barack bottom. Then there will be opportunity to consciously reject statism and choose capitalism.
Would Reagan have been able to buy freedom so much more time if Carter lost to Ford? Would the House Republicans have been able put the breaks on socialized medicine if Bush 41 beat Clinton? If elected, would not McCain be signing cap and trade and piecemeal installments of socialized medicine?
Unless the Republican party conjures a principled defense of freedom like the “Contract with America” – and there no signs of it – the political question is whether Sarah Palin can live up to Ronald Reagan’s intellectual strengths. He earned first-hand understanding of important principles by thinking and writing about them over many years. He was able to talk over the heads of the media/liberal elites and rally a defense of liberty among the people. Palin is impressive. Maybe she, like Reagan, can muster conservatism without help from the leadership of the Republican party.
McCain is such a tepid defender of free enterprise that we may be better off in the long run to hit Barack bottom.
Indeed. Where is McCain now?
America, its principles and its economy, are under attack as never before, and John McCain is MIA. McCain has little to lose at this point. He won’t be making another presidential run. I doubt he can be dislodged from the Senate for however long he wishes to remain there.
McCain could make a difference with a spirited defense of everything Obama is trying to subvert, but McCain is not. I’m ever so grateful that Cheney is stepping into the breach, but damn it, it’s McCain’s fight too, or at least it should be.
For whatever reasons, it’s clear that McCain is part of the problem and not the solution.
I’m afraid that our only hope may lie with blue dog Democrats. The Republicans are pompous, incompent fools, and the media will never admit they were wrong. If any Democrats have a shred of sense or patriotism left, they need to go to work…
Thanks for the downer.
Cappy,
“More on point: got a happy holiday greeting today from my sister. She cannot bring herself to name the holiday.”
That’s far out. Liberals have done that with Christmas for years, to the point where decent people are embarrassed to wish anyone a Merry Christmas any more. Now it starts with July 4th, American Independence Day. Happy holiday, everyone.
We are in a terrible mess. Neo is the only person I know of in the blogosphere or elsewhere who I believe is grasping the actual evil of what we’re facing. I don’t know what we’re going to end up doing about it, but knowing it for what it is is a a good start. I don’t know the most–or even an–effective way to address these matters with liberal and/or Obama-supporting friends. I tend to be pretty outspoken, myself, and usually don’t mince words much. I’m starting to try to remind myself to be careful, though, and not only because it causes animosity and gains me an unfortunate reputation. I’m doing it because of something I learned during my hippie days in Houston in the ’70s. We had a saying: “Never say anything over the phone you wouldn’t tell a cop.” We also learned the value of not doing anything to attract anyone’s attention: In those days, of course, you could get sent up for 10 years if you got caught with a single joint. Well, that may have been good training for the times we’re embarking on now. I think conservatives are going to be driven underground–not sure how soon, but I don’t think it’ll be long. I’ve been saying for quite a while that by the time these guys are finished we are going to be wishing for the European-style social democracy some people on our side think Obama wants to set up. Neo is the only blogger I know of who seems to be seeing that.
Well. So. It gets interesting.
More on point: got a happy holiday greeting today from my sister. She cannot bring herself to name the holiday.
Well, Barack Hussein Obama II’s birthday is only a month later, so a happy solution presents itself: Celebrate the Fourth of August instead!
We need to get off our selfish, nationalistic pride. Obama is a Citizen of the World, not just President of our swollen ego of a nation. It would be good for us and good for the world.
It’s the least we can do.
For starters Alinsky’s tactics can be used against liberals as well as conservatives. This needs to be done now.
The secret is to seed ridicule of Obama’s events as they happen, combined with a subtle prognostication of future events that are more probable than not to reveal themselves, thus the “I told you so” attention getter.
Call me crazy! yes do so please, but I see him setting us up for a national catastrophe that will make 911 look small in comparison. Its all in the timing.
OBAMA THE PUPPET IMPLEMENTS GOVERNMENT DOMINATION OF ITS CITIZENS and THE FIRST PARTITION OF THE UNITED STATES.I believe Los Angeles will be the target.
The huge concentration of illegals and Hispanic working poor has not been by accident and they will be sacrificed. After the catastrophe as a result of severe shortages and already depression era economic conditions in the west and California riots and worse will break out giving reason to declare Marshall Law and suspend the Constitution.
The 7 western states will be electronically cordoned off and all movement will be controlled. A declaration of secession will be made by those left within this region and Obama will state that it is an act of war against the nation. He will consider the west a region of hostility but allow Mexico to come to the aid of the survivors under the auspices of Mexico’s national responsibility and sanctioned by the U.N. under human rights treaties. He will continue in office without an election avoiding any possibility of being a one term president. Obama will have allowed to be created the conditions to destroy this country as we know it.
The country will become severely entrenched in a pseudo home war. Obama will have succeeded in creating a racial split while calling for unity. War on many fronts will break out world wide giving rise to a need for dependence upon U.N. troops here at home. People will be put to work in the factories to support the governments effort abroad in order to be eligible for government assistance and show allegiance and gain favor.
Obama will dominate the populous by fear mongering and intimidation.
Travel outside of the U.S. for citizens will be put to a halt, chips in passports will track those who need to be brought back. Comments to Congressmen or Senators via electronic means will be monitored (NSA beginning test program now) later all internet communication as in China and Russia will be censored and tracked. and dissent will not be tolerated. Movement among states will be monitored with the new national identification card called “smart license”. Schools will become increasingly like re-education centers for the youth, and malleable candidates will be picked for molding to future governmental ambitions.
It only takes a concerted effort by a small controlled press to instill mass hysteria and fear into the people and then the domino effect. As has been already demonstrated Obama is testing the loyalty of selected media candidates and corporations and vetting those who may be disloyal to him.
National and State parks will be closed to restrict militia groups from forming and training off the grid.
The conditions have been building for “a coup de grace” for decades and the time has come.
Obama is the candidate chosen to lead this charge.
If for some reason the plot is foiled, a revelation that Obama was not actually a natural born citizen after all, can be used to negate everything he has done, thus placing the blame on the puppet and avoiding disclosure of puppeteers.
Yes call me crazy! I hope I am wrong. I hope this is all just a bad dream.
Didn’t we have to get to this point? A McCain win would have only postponed and increased the size of this progressive bubble on its road to bursting. How and how soon it burst is the question.
McCain is such a tepid defender of free enterprise that we may be better off in the long run to hit Barack bottom.
I couldn’t disagree more. Anything would have been better than an Obama victory. And so the bubble bursts. I assume you are referring to an economic “bursting.” And so it pops — then what? I’ll tell you what. Obama, the Democrats, the intellectuals, the academics and the MSM will blame anyone but Obama.
And I’m not so sure the bubble will burst in exactly the way you imagine or that the bursting will be as dramatic as you seem to think. True, Obama is taking us much further down the road to socialism but that will not necessarily be a game changer — it will not necessarily catapult the GOP(or the social conservatives) back into the driving seat.
Look at most of Europe — more socialist than the US and has been since the end of WW2 — around 75 years now. Yet those nations manage to function well enough for their citizens to be fairly content — I see no broad outcry against socialism and demand for classic capitalism among the inhabitants of Europe. Do you? When was the bubble for them? Why didn’t it burst and blow away all those nasty socialists and put classic capitalism in its place?
The European economic systems are not what I would want for the US and I believe the same sort of socialist system for the US is going to eventually consign the US to the tier of second rate powers(where most of Europe is now) but let’s be real — more socialism in the USA isn’t going to burst any bubbles. Sure, it’s probably going to hurt the economy but such effects are difficult to prove one way or another.
And how would people know? Economists rarely agree on anything. The profession is just as tainted by partisan politics as any of the other socials sciences. And the fact is we’ve got quite a bit of socialism already, compared to a hundred years ago, yet there has been no “bursting” that would dramatically reveal without a doubt to all and sundry that socialism is a terrible thing. You have to read history to know that, and history written before the 60’s at that, and how many friends do you have that read history?
Conservatives and the GOP need to grab hold of reality instead of wistfully wishing for burst bubbles that are not likely to happen in the way they want them to happen. And finally, to all the McCain haters, you childishly angry “I’m mad and I’m going to take my toys and go home and not play anymore and that will show you RINOS!” (Waah, sniff, sniff, rubbing tears from eyes, stomping tiny feet) If you want to lose you deserve to lose. The only problem is you take the rest of us down with you in your self-destructive tantrums, your misplaced anger. Wake up, Republicans! Open your eyes and see reality, conservatives!
If we’re going to speak in concise ways which can be understood, we must fight on our ground: principle.
We must not accept the underlying assumptions of Barack’s arguments, because then we have to argue our way out of Barack’s argument, and that takes a long time.
Instead, we flatly reject the underlying assumptions/premises of Barack’s argument – especially the premise that man is good instead of evil; especially the premise that smart people in government are somehow good (as opposed to evil/corrupt), and will somehow make better decisions than a diversified populace which is on the ground at the decision point. We destroy Barack’s premise with a concise and memorable parable/story. We don’t get bogged in the part of Barack’s argument which extends beyond his false premise. Everything beyond his premise is invalid, and here’s an easy parable to illustrate it.
I know you tire of Reagan, yet this is closer to what Reagan did. He went over the media’s heads, and directly to the American people with his principles.
Reagan thus avoided being bogged in false media premises and the resulting blind alleys of media fantasy which flowed from same.
For instance: the stimulus depends on believing government is honest and efficient. We know that is a lie. Man is inherently evil. Government is made of men.
Budget: same.
The census is Chicago style blatant corruption. Man is inherently evil, and it is on display here.
Card check is same: “We won”, and we get the graft. Barack is announcing his own evil inclinations.
Apologies for America around the globe are dependent on foreign citizens being victims. God gave foreign citizens free will. Adults do not believe they are helpless victims. We are adults, and we do not believe it.
Drumming up class war also depends on believing American citizens are victims. We are not victims, and we know we are not victims. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Expensive and inefficient health care proposals again depends on believing government is honest and efficient. We KNOW government is not honest and efficient. Such a premise is a lie. Barack is basing a policy upon the lie that government deciders are good instead of evil.
Best You Tube ever: 2 min 24 secs of Milton Friedman with Phil Donahue, w/ Friedman speaking about Donahue’s characterization of “Greed”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Grackle said:
“Look at most of Europe — more socialist than the US and has been since the end of WW2 — around 75 years now. Yet those nations manage to function well enough for their citizens to be fairly content — I see no broad outcry against socialism and demand for classic capitalism among the inhabitants of Europe.”
This is PRECISELY why I’ve been saying for months now to some who will listen (and to many who won’t) that, when these guys are finished, we are going to wish we could GET a European-style social democracy. What we will have, instead, will be a police state, with all its attendant horrors. Anyone who thinks it is not so is not paying attention, in my opinion. The Europeans are at least still able to vote themselves some modest changes around the margins, and perhaps even some actual new directions–such as those that Merkel may manage to effect. Our recent budgetary appropriations with respect to ACORN, just for example, are intended (and are probably going) to rule this out for the US. No, we’re looking at something far more transformative and, yes, revolutionary here. Obama himself as stated it: Change has come to America. He intends to shred our existing Constitution–how can you possibly fail to see this?–and replace it. Negative rights, statements of what the government may not do to you–as enshrined in the Bill of Rights–are to be eliminated and replaced with positive rights–statements of what the government must do FOR you. He has SAID it, for crying out loud, and more than once (although these statements have received the scantest attention from our Constitutionally protected–ironic, that, in these times–“free” press). That will have been a bubble worth the bursting. I’m not sure what reality it is that Grackle wants us all to wake up and see, he’s not clear. But I know this: In Obama’s November 2, 2008 victory speech, he said, quite simply: “Change has come to America.”
Well, yes. It has. And it will not be gentle, this journey into that good night.
cgotharn–You speak of Man as inherently evil. I assume you speak of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin.
I would say, rather, that man has in him both good and evil, and that it is up to the individual man to decide what the ratio of that good to evil will be in his thought, word and deed. It is up to society to arrange things so that weak men have as little chance to do evil as possible, and that if they do so they will be punished.
I do agree that as the belief in the existence of good and evil, and in a fixed moral code declines, the ratio of evil to good generally increases, as we see demonstrated all around us.
From the outside looking in it was easy to spot what Obambi was from the beginning. It started with just a gut feeling that this guy was not right and was easily backed up by freely available information on the Web especially all the information that was being deliberately hidden by the candidate. That spoke volumes both about him and his supporters.
So how did America make this fatal mistake well America has been getting everything ars* about face for a long time now Why well you have been getting brainwashed by your media for decades. Just look at TV or Hollywoodland if an alien came down after getting his information on the USA from TV and Hollywood he would be astounded. He would have thought that Blacks and Hispanics were the dominant , most highly educated and intelligent groups in the USA. After all the boss, the computer expert, the team leader, the Mayor, the super scientist and the hero’s bestest, longest most true friend ever is ALWAYS black or hispanic and the criminals always white especially foreign Brits and French. This despite reallity where 89% of the violent crimes in the USA are committed by blacks and hispanics.
They would also see Black Supremacist leaders , the MSM and the STUPID populace making absolute fools of themselves in orgasmic grief over a black singer who turned himself in to a paedophilic ugly white drug addicted white woman who BOUGHT WHITE children as playthings. While behind their backs Obambi and his men imposed the most destructive legislation he made since his last destructive legislation.
They would see that 96% of Blacks in the USA voted in a totally RACIST way for the LIAR Messiah the Mohammedan BOGUS POTUS Barrack HUSSEIN Obama as did 80% of American Jews out of sheer emotional STUPIDITY.
They would see that this BOGUS POTUS has set the USA on a path to third world poverty by his idiotic inexperienced financial mismanagement yet STILL more than 50% of the population is too STUPID to wake up and smell the coffee.
This was supposed to be the century of the USA but Americans have blown it and it is only 2009. Why through sheer left wing Moonbat, multi culti, PC, affirmative action RACISM, Green NAZI control and just STUPIDITY and lack of knowledge or desire for knowledge.
Wolla D,
I believe, when man is good, he is inspired by God. But that never lasts as a constant condition. All of us, left strictly to our own devices, fall to evil. None of us are strong enough to resist evil without the help of God.
After I left that comment, I wondered if there was a way I could have communicated the same thing in a more secular fashion. Nothing comes immediately to mind. Will consider the problem for future.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, always. The only place we disagree, I think, however, is a big place: you believe you can resist evil on your own. I used to believe that. Events have proven, to my satisfaction, that I am hopelessly outmatched against evil, and God’s grace is my only refuge.
I think the best answers to the problem of ‘how to discuss’ are in the details. Avoid the figureheads who are targets for immutable hate and love, and focus on the details of each step. ‘This step is wrong because it decreases freedom, and increases government power – which essentially never works, and will cost you both in freedom AND in money.’ If someone is capable of hearing any argument, it might be one like this. We live in a divided culture. Many in my circles see nothing wrong with socialism, with communism – instead they see these as necessary and good next steps. Our frustrations with the limitations, loss of freedom, life and other problems of these systems are drowned out in their minds by the comfort of knowing that everyone is going to get about the same, and that there is no need to struggle any more. “Lie back… Go to sleep… Let’s let our governments handle this…” say comfortable sonorous voices. I think our only hope is to struggle with the steps, with clear reasons why they are wrong and will cost and limit. Reagan once said we should all write our representatives regularly, and I think he was right. How can my representative represent me if he doesn’t hear from me regularly. And similarly, our friends. We can’t overwhelm them with tons of information. One bit at a time. One bad bill we think needs to be opposed, one issue that needs to be raised… I think we have gotten very far from the kind of liberty and freedom that our founding fathers had in mind, and it will take a long time to get to something approximating a present-day implementation of their values, hopes and dreams, but we must do what we can with what we have. One step at a time.
Some may ask how I know about Obambi being a MUSLIM/ Well I know Indonesia from having lived there for about 10 years and had previously visited many times a t-year since the late 80’s. I have had two Indonesian wives my second and my current wife both Muslim and in the intervening period between marriages a long term girlfriend who was an Indonesian Christian . So I know both sides of the story and have indeed witnessed many Christian/Muslim riots ( although they try to pretend these are just ethnic disputes not religious its just coincidental one side is Christian and the other Muslim LOL) on the streets in Jakarta on much more flimsy excuses than children being brainwashed by Muslims. I also know the school system having two children educated there and knowing some of the many foreign teachers who teach there. So when I tell you that Obambi MUST have been a practicing Muslim while he was in Indonesia I know what I am talking about.
Gcotharn,
Thank you for concisely wording what needs to be said…
“If we’re going to speak in concise ways which can be understood, we must fight on our ground: principle.
We must not accept the underlying assumptions of Barack’s arguments, because then we have to argue our way out of Barack’s argument, and that takes a long time.”
We do not need to adopt Alinsky’s tactics. To adopt your enemies method is to admit defeat and the weakness of your own ideas. Maneuvering for short term tactical advantage (as the democrats and left only know how to do) is not what will get our message through in the long run. Only the truth of our principles, articulated time after time, until they start to sink in will prevail in the long term.
Obama and the hard left democrats are bad for this nation, in my opinion and the opinion of an ever increasing number.
I suspect that much of the liberal reluctance to engage in honest dialogue, be it about Obama, global warming, Iraq, or what have you stems from the reluctance to face the fact that they have been played for chumps. Useful idiots, if you will.
I’ve done my share of bitching about Obama and democrats on this forum and on others. But I sense with the rising shrillness and invective on the left, an increasing desperation to avoid the unpleasant truth, about Obama, the left, and most of all about themselves.
The left’s open references to Alinsky tactics, the election antics of ACORN, the all too obvious MSM cheerleading of allies and ignoring of opponents (unless the news is bad, or can be spun that way), the stating of “never letting a crisis go to waste”, or “I won”, of calling skeptics of global warming deniers. This is not the talk of victory, it is the talk of desperation.
Despite the wall to wall Nina Burleigh media coverage the polls are beginning to fade for Obama. As the economy tanks, the obvious truth of his preferred course will be obvious to all but the die-hards and the stupid. Now is not the time to act like those we disagree with and detest.
Some historical perspective. If you want a dishonest presidential election where the winner was clearly put over the top by fraud, look to 1960 and Kennedy. If you want a media so worshipful that they looked the other way even when a woman was drowned, look again to Kennedy, who profited off of the so called Camelot myth, which still lingers to this day! Look to Nixon’s being hounded out of office. Was what he did so much worse than what Clinton did?
If you want depressed times, look no further back than the 1970’s. THe result of the continual conflict was Nixon forced to resign in ’73 and an overwhelmingly democrat Congress elected in ’74, followed by Carter in ’76. In the meantime, Congress de-funded our Vietnamese allies and made defeat inevitable. All while we had high unemployment, inflation and sky high fuel prices.
I was pretty down this past winter, but events are leading me to believe that these clowns will be swept from office. However, not if we adopt our enemies (yes enemies) tactics and make ourselves indistinguishable from them.
“How can we reach the greater community?”
I don’t, the economy is doing that. I will occasionally send informative articles on say, global warming, the economy, etc. though.
“Do you speak to Obama supporters you know?” I do if they will listen, but I find many to be totally unreasonable. It’s more of a faith than a considered position with them. Besides, never argue with idiots or crazy people, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
“What is the response if you try to explain what you think has been happening?”
I’ve had folks get mad, walk away, stick their fingers in their ears and shout “la-la-la, literally. Or mostly just be ignored, if it’s e-mail or quickly switch to another topic if in person. But then I enjoy making these types of complacent hypocrites uncomfortable.
But I try to do it with calm reason and logical arguments based on my principles.
Now is time for contacting our representatives and attending tea-parties. No is the time to stand up and be counted. Now is the time to write sponsors of people like Letterman, Olbermann, et al that their type of personal destruction will not be tolerated and we vote with our dollars. Now is the time to marshal your arguments, logical, not emotional, to explain to those who will listen why you think the way you do.
We’re all busy, we have jobs and lives, but we must make time or there will be no time left. I think that 2012 will not be too late to turn things around, economically. 2016 might be.
It wouldn’t hurt to downplay Obama and talk about the role of Congress. They are Obama’s enablers and they continue to pass expensive bills they haven’t read. The Ricci case and Colin Powell’s concern about debt are the kind of issues we should raise, emphasizing the duty of Congress to pursue these types of issues. If any Obama supporter utters a skeptical word about a policy, use that as a basis for your own skepticism.
I’ve seen a lot of dumping on Powell for his remarks on the debt after supporting BO. That is the wrong tactic. Use him for cover.
Obama received 53% in 2008. We don’t have to take down the whole statist structure in 2010- just change or shift about 5% of the voting public’s choices. As for Obama, he will not have the over the top enthusiasm working for him in 2010, so he may lose a few percentage points there, and a changed vote is worth 2 votes for our side (they lose one, we gain it- net 2). We are still at the tipping point, and Obama has lost his momentum and is sliding downhill. Unanimous Republican voting against the Stimulus Bill will leave voters with a clear and stark choice in 2010 and 2012.
Perhaps Sarah Palin is making herself available as a scale tipper for the 2010 and 2012 races. She could just show up and completely activate 10 or 20 thousand people in a metropolis. Obama- not so much anymore. He has been massively overexposed. Furthermore, about a million Tea Partiers hit the streets on April 15th. That movement has still not been formally factored into the ballot box.
What if inevitability is not why the statists are in office right now? What if they are in office because they are finishing out their final term?
Before the election, I thought I knew the dangers of Obama pretty well. However, I didn’t even come close. I could never have predicted the speed and the recklessness with which he’s pushed his policies forward. I could never have predicted the disastrous spending. I knew about his ties to Alinsky’s methods, but could never have predicted the thuggishness of his Chicago pol ways. I feared he knew nothing about foreign policy (I was right), and I used to scoff at his experience as a community organizer, as if that were preparation for the presidency. Now I see that community organizing is how he conducts the presidency — fine training for what he’s doing now.
The worst part is that I’d never have guessed he’d deliberately try to crash the economy. This sounds far-fetched, but it’s what I’ve come to believe.
Neo, I understand why you’re frustrated with preaching to the choir. I think we’re all frustrated by not knowing what more we can do. I listen to talk radio frequently, and I’m struck by the number of callers who are anxious to find out what they can do. They make calls to their elected officials but feel they are not being heard. There’s a lot of fear and desperation around the country.
Neo, you help any one of us who otherwise might feel we’re lone crazies out here. We know that what we see happening is also witnessed by others. We benefit from the comments of your readers.
I think it would help to have a way to signal to like-minded others that they have company. Perhaps if we all had buttons to wear that said simply WAKE UP! we could thus recognize one another. At the same time we would be subtly proselytizing without having to make haranguing speeches. If the apathetic began to notice the WAKE UP buttons, certainly they’d be curious about what it meant. If it became obvious that more and more people were wearing them, some of those people might wake up and actually care. Any thoughts? Any other suggestions?
“”but let’s be real — more socialism in the USA isn’t going to burst any bubbles.””
“”The only problem is you take the rest of us down with you in your self-destructive tantrums, your misplaced anger.
Grackle””
Herein lies the problem with the McCain lovers. A defeatist like acceptance of liberalism’s premise. A premise that surmizes stagnation and mediocrity are inevitable and even neccessary for America’s future. After all, peoples feelings get hurt when some people outshine others.
What a grotesque view of humanity’s potential. This isn’t conservatism. As a matter of fact, its worse than straight up liberalism in its sheer cowardice to even fight, much less defeat the forces that demand the normal everyday individual be enslaved by incompetent elites, for his own good of course.
I’m not sure what reality it is that Grackle wants us all to wake up and see, he’s not clear.
I want the social conservatives to quit their whining when a centrist like McCain wins the Republican nomination. I want them to act like grown-ups and enthusiastically campaign for the GOP’s choice and enthusiastically vote for the GOP’s slate of candidates instead of childishly withholding their approval and assuring the Democrats a victory.
I want Republicans to stop listening to destructive defeatist celebrities such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham who bad-mouthed the Republican nominee incessantly. In order to win ratings and sell books they will drag you down to defeat and elevate Obama to a second term. You are being led around by the nose by these idiots! Republicans must realize that if Michael Steele has to apologize to Rush Limbaugh that the tail is wagging the dog and you cannot be considered a viable political party if this sort of thing continues. Potential converts to the GOP will not vote with you if your party is run by un-elected, unofficial opportunists like Limbaugh and the rest — not a one of them who has ever run for office themselves.
I want key Republican leaders such as Sen. Cornyn to quit demagoging on the immigration issue, a behavior which has alienated the fastest growing voting bloc in the US. Latinos are tailor-made to be Republicans. They are family oriented, have religious values, have always been patriotic(look up the number of Latino medal winners during war-time) and in the past have voted Republican more often than not but this demagoging on the immigration issue for short-term political gain is driving them solidly into the Democratic camp. Republicans — without the Latino vote you are doomed! You will never win another Presidential election without their vote, no matter what you do.
I want social conservatives to stop insisting that every potential Republican candidate for an important office must agree with them on every single item on the social conservative agenda. You are assuring Democratic victories with this unrealistic litmus test.
I want social conservatives to stop wishing for economic catastrophe(as in “hit Barack bottom” and “progressive bubble” bursting) in order that the country will somehow wake up to their infinite financial wisdom. First of all, if disaster happens IT WILL PROBABLY NOT BE BLAMED ON OBAMA. Secondly, I don’t think the bubble will burst for many years. I think it will just slowly get bigger and bigger without really bursting. Meanwhile Obama will consolidate his power while you are in the corner with your thumb you know where wishing for something bad to happen. The European economic model should show you that this is more likely than what you envision. Their bubble has been getting bigger for 75 years and does not look to be in any danger of bursting anytime soon. There has been no rioting in the European streets in order to reinstate classic capitalism, no widespread calls for the elimination of socialism — just the opposite, in fact.
Am I “clear” enough? Are you seeing “reality” now?
We don’t have to take down the whole statist structure in 2010- just change or shift about 5% of the voting public’s choices.
Give this commentator a cigar and a Kewpie doll.
Herein lies the problem with the McCain lovers. A defeatist like acceptance of liberalism’s premise.
If you equate McCain with Obama then you are so far from reality that there is no hope for you. If you can’t see the difference between those two men and folks who think like you remain a force in the GOP then the GOP is doomed to sure defeat. You are evidently happy that Obama won. How sad, how bereft of imagination, how lacking in judgement.
I want the GOP to win, to NOT be defeated, even if the GOP candidate does not agree with me on every issue. Tell us all how that desire is “defeatist.” You, on the other hand, would rather the GOP be defeated if you disagree with the GOP nominee on some issues. It’s all or nothing with you. You would rather Obama prevail if you don’t get your way on everything.
A premise that surmises stagnation and mediocrity are inevitable and even necessary for America’s future. After all, peoples feelings get hurt when some people outshine others.
I’m not sure what the writer means with the above. My “feelings” are not “hurt.” I didn’t agree with McCain on every issue — I’m not even a Republican — but I gave money to his campaign, promoted McCain among my friends and family, and enthusiastically voted for the GOP ticket because I saw the danger in Obama and the ultimate harm the Progressive foreign policy would cause the nation. I usually vote Republican because the alternative is so wrongheaded even though I don’t agree with the GOP on every single issue. I would like the writer to explain the “outshine” reference, if he is able. I’m not for “stagnation” or “mediocrity.” I’m for winning.
What a grotesque view of humanity’s potential. This isn’t conservatism.
I’m not a conservative and have never claimed to be a conservative. I am a classic liberal with some conservative traits. For instance, I own 4 handguns and am a fair marksman. My interpretation of the Constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment, is strict constructionism. I believe in a Bush-like, proactive foreign policy. I was for the deposing of Saddam. I am a veteran of the US Navy.
As a matter of fact, its worse than straight up liberalism in its sheer cowardice to even fight, much less defeat the forces that demand the normal everyday individual be enslaved by incompetent elites, for his own good of course.
If you believe that if McCain would have won that THAT would have led to enslavement by some sort of elite group then you are just loony tunes. Where do you folks get this? On what basis do you make this sort of spurious claim? Please try to explain. I’m in the mood for a good laugh.
I loved this post. Of course, the answer is you can’t do anything. If Obama supporters can’t see the truth by now, nothing will change their minds. Rest assured, if things keep going in the same direction, except for the most ardent Obama supporters, the rest will see the error of their ways.
I liked the idea of using Alinsky tactics against Obama with the use of ridicule. I love making up ridiculous bumper slogans to use against the One.
I’ll list some of them:
Obamosaurus Wrecks
Barry the Empty Leisure Suit
Chains You Can Believe In â˜
Climate BHOax
Dreams From My Bomber
NoMoObama
Obamageddon
Obamalaise
Obamartini- Made with Absolut YellowBarry
The Flim-Flam Obaman
The Won Term Wonder
I still don’t believe McCain truly wanted to win. I still can’t figure out how he, of all the available individuals at the onset, won the nomination. Of course, I voted for him, but to be honest, I was voting for governor Palin with my eye on 2012. The left was evidently seeing it in the same manner, as she was torn to shreds in comparison to McCain.
McCain was “popular” with the left as a left of center republican type, until he ran for office of the president.
I would love to sit down with Bush 43 over coffee, for about a week, and listen to him, to hear what he knows and what he was up against, in his 8 years inside the beltway. He was – and still is – way too silent.
Those who live and work in and around the beltway are well off individuals for the most part.
But like a well marbled, expensive cut of beef, there are also low income people everywhere around them. Although they appear to be sensitive to them, want the best for them, and want to help them up because these people “cannot help themselves”, the truth of the matter is, they fear them. They wish to throw my money at them, to appease them. You see, they don’t fear the likes of me, they spew vicious and vile statements, without regard. They do what they do and accuse those like me of the very things they are doing. The balance is achieved by taking as much as they can from me, even themselves, to appease those who can’t – or won’t – make it on their own, to keep them at bay – while not taking too much from me (in one bite) so as to cause me to rise up.
The frog in the pot of water, an analogy we have been hearing a lot lately.
That is, until Obama. He believes the time is right. He believes he can push this thing right on through, and end up with what he truly wants this nation to become. Trouble is, he will end up deserting both his followers and his detractors to be able to pull it off. Katy bar the door.
Janice another catchy one is
Obambi LIED and Democracy DIED
It has the added cache of being true.
Neo, you’ve expressed perfectly the frustration (really whatever lies beyond frustration) I felt before the election when I tried to talk to friends about why I believed Obama was such a bad idea and since January when I’ve tried to point to problems with the policies Obama (and the Congress) were pursuing. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when you talked about the emails languishing in your “drafts” folder. I cannot tell you how many times I composed an email consisting of a link or links, saved them for a while, then deleted them in resignation.
If I might slip into AlAnon jargon, I hit bottom a week ago – Waxman-Markey struck me as so terribly sad it forced me to acknowledge that what’s done it done. I’ve finally been able to move to detachment: the people I care about who voted for Obama made their choice. I think it was a mistake – perhaps even a catastrophic mistake – but it was their choice to make. I’ve also come to terms with the fact that the more I try to convince them how wrong they were the more I block their ability to come to their own realization of the problem.
I won’t enable: if someone praises a policy or stance I disagree with, I’ll say I disagree. But I won’t go into details unless asked to do so and I definitely will no longer initiate such discussions or send unsolicited links. It’s tough – sometimes I feel like I need to hide my keyboard – but I firmly believe I will accomplish more by giving my friends the space to come to their own conclusions than I will by continuing to bombard them and thereby force them into a defensive posture. If Obama is as disastrous as I fear, eventually the consequences will be impossible to deny.
As for preaching to the choir, not always. I first found your blog when I was adrift at the “no longer a liberal but not sure what I was” point. Your change story helped a lot in sorting out what had happened to me and your stories of your struggles with friends and relatives still on the “other side” helped me deal with a situation where I was beginning to take positions my friends found not just wrong but utterly incomprehensible and very nearly evil.
If nothing else, just knowing someone who is intelligent, logical, and reasonable doesn’t think I’m crazy for not voting for Obama is reassuring. If that someone has a background in mental health, so much the better.
Thanks “Janice” I am going to begin using your ideas for bumper stickers as quickly as I can get them printed up.
Sometimes a bit of insanity goes a long way. The reason Alinsky would work at this point is based on the premise that the fools have already been conditioned to the method for years.
It is not about principal or ideal at this point it is about saving the country and some of us will have to get our hands dirty to do so. Wars have never been won with diplomacy they have merely been delayed from beginning. This one has already been started.
Just listen to the crazy’s around you! Their political philosophy consists of sound bites from CNN. And years of repetitious brain washing;” global warming,” politically correct! feminists! affirmative action!undocumented immigrants! “corporate greed” The word “hate”,” green this green that”
The left has no real itellectual dialogue that is why conservatives cannot reason with them. They are “adult children” with “emotionally arrested personalities” who prefer to watch animated cartoon shows as their social connection to the real world.
They have been raised in an environment in which for most of their lives they have been told to “act like an adult” rather than “be more responsible”, and thus they see Hollywood types as role models, because they are notable “actors”. Liberals have no real feel for reality, thus their “idealistic” perspective.
They can only see how it “should be” and how they “want it” not how it is.
Alinsky would work. Just look at what liberals see as comedic .” Cynicism not satire” sicko’s like Al Franken, John Stewart, Bill Maher who ridicules anyone who chooses to believe in religion.
The communists turned this country by joining the ranks of the working class and then swaying them toward their way of thinking.
Psychologist’s cause people to see different perspectives by first finding common ground with their subjects,(getting down on their subjects level) then redirecting the thinking process by asking pointed questions.
To win this war we need to get down in the trenches, and then say “follow me”.
The “Tea Parties” scared the hell out of liberals because it was depicted as something they might have done themselves, to draw attention to their cause. And they literally failed to see that conservatives could act like them before it happened.
They didn’t like it because it was a reflection of themselves and how they are.
“Grackle” is a “wanter” not a “doer”, he confirms my point on idealism. He “wants” conservatives to stop watching Limbaugh etc. He wants conservatives to “act” like grownups. He wants, he wants, he wants.
He needs!, to remain with his liberal cause where he belongs. Its time for action for those who not afraid to get a little dirty. Its time to out dance those who are dancing to the Pied Pipers tune and turn this parade around.
Your blog is more than just preaching to the choir, neo. It gives coherent expression to what many of us think and feel. After I moved from left to right in the early 90’s, I eventually lost all the friends with whom I tried to explain the reasons for my change. I have since practiced near silence about politics unless I know that the person with whom I am speaking shares common values with me. But I still believe it will be the economy that catches up with Obama. He thinks Americans will give him the time they gave FDR. He is mistaken.
“Grackle” is a “wanter” not a “doer”, he confirms my point on idealism. He “wants” conservatives to stop watching Limbaugh etc. He wants conservatives to “act” like grownups. He wants, he wants, he wants. He needs!, to remain with his liberal cause where he belongs.
I see. I’m against Obama and vote for the Republican ticket but I am not pure enough for you — so you don’t want my vote. You need to be looking for allies anywhere you can find them — that is if you want to win an election or two instead of posturing in the glory of your social conservative purity. You should welcome me and those like me into the fold. We have votes you need badly. You need to realize that people you may not like can nevertheless help your cause. You prattle about “action” but folks like you helped Obama to attain our highest office and the irony is that you are probably going to do it again, three years hence. No wonder Obama spanked you like a baby.
And now a few words to our hostess. Neoneocon — do not give up! Obama can be beaten. He may be frightening but he is just a man and he is very capable of making mistakes — in fact, he has already made some.
He made a mistake in not siding with the dissenters in Iran. Although he has suffered no apparent harm so far from his perfidy I believe many people, even some of his enthusiastic supporters, took note of it and will not forget it.
He should not have came down so heavy-handed on GM. He could have accomplished the same outcome without such draconian methods. And he has been much too open in his stacking of the deck for the unions. This is bound to be sending up red flags in the minds of at least some of his middle class(and above) supporters.
His bowing to the Saudis, both literally and figuratively, is also going to cost him dearly. No one, neither on the Left or Right, wants their President to bow to anyone.
His abject apologies overseas when no apologies were called for earned him points in the US only among the most ardent of American America-haters.
If he gets the US into a quagmire in Afghanistan — which I believe may happen unless his policy is simply a sham and he is not really going to do what he seems about to do, which is to commit much treasure and soldiers to the war there — it has the potential to be a major factor in his downfall.
Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has never had a centralized government. Afghanistan has no strategic value to the US. There are few other countries in that part of the world that are so fragmented and so filled with competing factions, even for a region known for that sort of thing. Our policy there, other than to insure that al Qaeda is not allowed to use the region as a haven, should be to leave those tribes more or less alone.
He may know this himself but I think he may yearn for a military victory to brag about and Afghanistan is the only war he can wage at this time. If he continues and it goes sour, as I think it may, we may see Hillary turn on him like the consummate bitch she is. She has GOT to be stewing about being made a mere figurehead by someone she probably harbors resentments for going back to their fight for the nomination. He has already made some enemies on the Left and in the MSM with his arrogant and underhanded methods — even to those who bought him to power.
If the Republican Party comes to its senses and some of the cooler heads, such as Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, prevail and the GOP manages to nominate someone who has a chance to appeal to the centrist voters and the GOP stops alienating the Latino vote I think we could see Obama turned out of office.
(apologies for cross-posting, but I had left this at the bottom of part 1 in error…)
neo, I just plowed through both of your posts, and your thoughts parallel mine in so many ways. I still find the deeper implications of your thinking difficult to accept, however. I really have too deep an “it can’t happen here” persona ingrained in my own makeup, I guess.
I really don’t listen to anything that the President says, but I pay close attention to what he does. I’ve been happy about the positioning re Guantanamo (I expected them to just cut these thugs loose, actually) and our responsibilities in Iraq/Afghanistan, compared to what I had expected. However, there are too many tells, and you’ve hit on many of them. The clearest was the Honduras situation. Almost as if the primary goal is to stay in power a long time and not let the events of the rest of the world get in the way of that. Leverage the organs of the state to provide the maximum long term benefit to the base, and to hell with the rest. Hmmm… More cynical than even I had imagined. Very much a “big man” approach, with the purpose of making more people dependent on the state for their daily bread, which can then be withheld for asking the wrong kinds of questions. Keep a close eye on the second and twenty-second amendments to the Constitution.
More or less on point.
Evan Thomas of Newsweek said a couple of years ago that the press gives the dems a 15% advantage.
Bill Whittle of Pajamas Media did the math. Taking away Thomas’ 15% in the last election gives zero Vermont and DC, a total of six electoral votes.
Thomas later amended his statement to 5% advantage.
Sooner or later I’m going to do that math and see how zero would do with only 5% advantage.
One tactic would be to reduce the impact of the media. But what influence the so-called journalists are losing is made up for in entertainment shows such as SNL and Colbert. I think. Maybe the aggregate is shrinking? One can hope.
If it were my choice for the mind-change between zero being ignorant and unqualified on one hand to being corrupt and evil on the other, it would be his handling of Honduras.
After spending six days determined not to meddle in Iran–which could be arguable in isolation–he comes down with both feet in Honduras instantly.
He is surrounded by diplomats, lawyers, Latin America experts. He cannot–it is simply not possible in any construction of reality–believe this is a military coup. Yet he treats it as such, lining up with Chavez and Castro.
He and Putin will work to block G8 sanctions against Iran. But things have tightened up between the US and Honduras.
Under no circumstances can this be a matter of inexperience and ignorance. This is what he is, what he does, what he wants.
There is no further question.
And the vicious, underhanded, vile personal attacks on Palin prove that vicious, underhanded vile personal attacks work. I guess that validates using them against dems. Dems have no moral grounds on which to protest.
grackle,
I have to say after reading your comments above, that I don’t disagree with you in everything you say. However, you are painting everyone here as some sort of social conservative. A loaded term, with somewhat different meanings to different people. It is not accurate.
I agree that the right needs all the votes it can get and ideological purity isn’t the way to get there. I also agree that Latinos will be a significant part of any voting block in the future. However, the issue of our borders and border security are most real and must be addressed. I suspect that the Latino community is more diverse than you realize and that they will not as a block be driven into the democrats camp. But it is an issue that must be dealt with deftly, not in some ham-handed fashion. I also think that there is a certain point past which you don’t compromise your positions. The core issues are these principles and at some point you have to stand firm. Though I would also argue to others for more flexibility too.
As for McCain, I voted more against Obama than for McCain. I think many others here did too. However, Limbaugh, Coulter and others you mentioned have not been a divisive or destructive force. They have been the only ‘big’ voices that have really disrupted the wall to wall media love fest for Obama. If they weren’t effective, Obama would not have singled Limbaugh out so pointedly, as he did earlier this year. I say that as someone who doesn’t listen to him or talk radio either. Though I agree with many things he’s said.
br549 was correct (IMO) in observing, “I still don’t believe McCain truly wanted to win.” I too think that he was running a ‘vanity’ campaign. It was a sop to an old senator, much like Bob Dole’s campaign in ’96. Hence the tepid response of many republicans.
By painting everyone here with the same brush, you fall into the very trap you are warning us about. Ideological blinders, of any sort are bad.
At this point, as I said above in my comment, we need to mobilize and be heard. To act. But unlike Alinsky tactics and the vicious leftists who practice them, we don’t go after spouses or kids. We don’t picket their kids schools, etc. Personally, I want to win these people over, or at least get them to cooperate. I do not want to destroy them.
What I would like to destroy is this win at any cost mentality. Where winning is all that matters, even if you have to destroy the country to do it. That’s devil’s bargain Obama and the hard left democrats have chosen.
It’s hard to overstate how seriously the mainstream media has failed in its treatment of Obama, and how central that fact is to the situation we now find ourselves in. Add into the equation the death spiral for the MSM with the rise of social media (look how well Obama milked that), the fact that people could finally vote for a viable and highly charismatic black president, and most importantly the economic collapse in late Sept. (where was George Soros when that happened, anyway?)…and we had a perfect storm of circumstances that all worked in favor of The One.
Most people “are” what they read, and many people think that if they’re regularly reading the New York Times and its ilk that they are well-informed. At least, that’s how it works among my family and friends (I’m the lone naysayer in a sea of Obama supporters, and NO ONE, except my husband and occasionally my Democrat mom, will enter into a conversation about it. And believe me when I say I’m basically an introvert and not a pound-the-table type.)
Anyway, as far as what can be done about it now, I think you’re already making a substantial contribution to keeping people informed, neo. Yes, you may be preaching to the choir to some extent, but it’s also interesting that you’re seeing a higher incidence of trolls lately. If they’re here and they’re reading, then they may actually be absorbing some facts along the way.
Have you considered (re)packaging some of your posts and shopping them around as op-ed pieces and/or online commentary at some of the bigger sites? You have a real gift for clarity and analysis.
For years I have been asking what the gameplan is to overcome MSM propaganda (besides whining and hand-wringing). Elections are decided by the mushy middle who get their “news” from the MSM and late night comedy. If no one makes an effort to educate them, they are going to believe what they hear. It’s that simple.
Talk radio and blogging don’t reach these folks. GOP campaign advertising has been pathetically milqetoast. No one challenges the MSM for being a left-wing propaganda factory. The failure to engage gives them more credence than they deserve.
What’s the gameplan? There are ways to reach these folks. But someone has to directly call the MSM liars and specifically offer a separate way to access accurate information. And the accusation has to be made in ways that the mushy middle cannot ignore (billboards, radio ads, cable ads, etc.).
Richard Aubrey: for me Honduras was key also. I wouldn’t call it a “turning point” for me because I’d already pretty much realized who Obama was by that time, but it was a huge intensifier.
There is nothing equivocal about Obama’s stance on Honduras. To actively support Zelaya is completely against what our country stands for, and it is bold and transparent, and the MSM has continued to cover for him by simply not making it clear what actually happened there.
This fills me with equal measures of disgust and anger—not just at Obama, but at the whores (yes, the whores) in the press. And at Hillary Clinton (thus, my recent post about her) who I thought knew better. She does know better, but she’s decided to become his whore too.
I don’t usually use language like that, but I purposely am using it here as a measure of how deeply disgusted and deeply angry I am. Although my apologies go out to real whores; they’re better than that.
Yow.
I try not to babble about “evil,”, but with cap-and-trade, Iran, Honduras, and Obamacare plus Obama’s simpering narcissism and the media’s non-stop sycophancy, I crashed through some threshold this week.
I knew Obama was a wrong guy when he was elected, but I was willing to hope that he would not be too bad, if only so he could get re-elected and because — another foolish hope — I thought that the veterans of the Democratic party would rein him in.
But no, Obama is the most dangerous and deceptive president we’ve had in a century, probably ever, and the Democratic party has lost all its bearings while lunging for the trough of power and money.
For “Grackle”
You came over to the conservative side it didn’t come to you. It is you who needed saving from your own devise and are now looking for a safe house.
So when the door to a new home was opened to you the first thing you do is criticize how the furniture is arranged, very nice. But as most “not all” liberals your rhetoric is typical and I think you may be unaware that you follow this pattern.
I commented about your typifying the liberal stance and you followed up with a personal attack. That IS Alinsky.
“PURE” as you say is liberal emotional reaction and a distraction from the topic It suddenly is about you???
It might be helpful to know how your thought process originated maybe to begin avoiding this liberal type of thinking. But it is not my place to tell YOU what YOU SHOULD do.
When I commented about where you “need “to remain, if you look at that carefully it is not as personal a “should do” attack as much as it is a general criticism about liberal thinking.
Until your thinking changes you are the square block in a round hole and won’t ever quite fit. (Does that make you uncomfortable?)
It is also Alinsky to draw away from the subject matter and create a talking point “not pure enough??” as diversion, did you know that?
As far as my own personal perspective is concerned.
You attempt to label me as stereotypically ultra right.
I only can hope to achieve that goal one day.
I have been an “undeclared” voter since my first absentee ballot caste from a hospital bed in Japan in 68. And I vehemently disagree with you. I am very right but not right enough.
What the right does not need is fickle leftists who vote from a ” touchy feely” point of view, who are easily swayed depending on “their” needs. Who declare that both parties need to be in the center.
Who vote based on the color of a man’s skin as if that makes up for an epoch in this country that present day Americans hold no responsibility for. Nor does the man they voted for have any connective lineage or other historical significance to this epoch.
What the right does not need is left thinkers who see their own party out of control already, and are scared for themselves so they come to the right and attempt to tell them how to do things.
You know when a person seeks sobriety one of the first things they are told is to come in sit down, shut up, and listen. They are told that although they may quit drinking or drugs their thinking may remain the same for sometime, so please don’t attempt to think that they know whats best for their recovery or how to fix themselves.
Liberals coming over to conservatism could learn something from that instruction.
What the right does need is more people who use a rational and an informed decision making process when they decide on who should lead the country based on it’s original principals , more in line with conservatism and libertarian thinking.
It needs Limbaugh’s, Coulter’s and the like to rattle the thought process sometimes, to provoke partisanship on important subject.
Unfortunately the left mentality fails to see this or are incapable of such depth.
I find your closing statement as a ubiquitous comment in condescension typical of liberals and wonder how you can continue to see Obama in such a parental role.
Again it is all in your conditioning. Try reading Alinsky, it is best to know thy enemy.
I did my turn at our small local tea party today. Most people were middle aged or older. There was a sprinkling of families. Most of the signs were home made and had diverse gripes: cap & trade, profligate spending, the bail outs, taxes. It looked like there was more anger with congress and the whole damn system than with Obama specifically. Maybe he’s just the pimple on the tumor. (One sign made the point rather elegantly: Congress) I’d judge that 1 out of 3 cars that passed honked and waved, which isn’t bad.
My cousin, alas a stiffnecked liberal, started an email conversation last night about Sarah Palin. She dragged in the seeing Russia from her window business, the stupidity of Sarah Palin being an article of faith in those quarters. I don’t know what in hell my cousin was expecting because when I listed some of the inanities and illiteracies her president had uttered, I got:
“I don’t think I care to go any further with this subject. I will agree to disagree however.” Mighty big of you, cousin, mighty big.
I don’t think I’ll attend the fireworks tonight. There’s not much to celebrate. Dem wife can go if she wants.
Hope you all are having a better 4th.
What I find–still find–astonishing and appalling is just how blind most of the electorate has been to this man. I remember voting for Jimmy Carter. Maybe it was just my youth and inexperience, but I didn’t expect what we got. With Barak Obama, it was crystal clear to me from the beginning, both by his words and by his background and connections.
What is needed to awaken people to such reality?
nj
Interesting question. With a few exceptions, get out of Iraq or not–most elections don’t result in a major change. And since Congress has to go along with the pres and vice versa, major change is both slow and muted.
So you can vote as you like, as a self-expression, while knowing that winning or losing isn’t going to ruin the country or your own personal prospects.
It’s a bad habit to get into when the choice includes zero and a bunch of corrupt dems.
I recall some conservatives voting for Perot–to send a message–and, more recently, staying home for the same reason.
As some conservatives say, thanks a pantload, 52.
Well, there are some on the right who deserve the same thanks.
Pingback:Bent Notes » Blog Archive » “At this point, the jury is no longer out on Obama”
I have to say after reading your comments above, that I don’t disagree with you in everything you say.
However, you are painting everyone here as some sort of social conservative. A loaded term, with somewhat different meanings to different people. It is not accurate.
I do not paint “everyone here” as a social conservative. My comment has been directed at specific commentors which I have quoted. I am sure that this blog, which has a sizable traffic, has many readers which are not social conservatives.
If you are puzzled about what I mean when I refer to “social conservatives” I am happy to dispel whatever confusion you may have. I am referring to a specific group with a specific set of beliefs, generally those folks who ….
… favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose embryonic stem cell research; support the death penalty, oppose same-sex marriage and other marriages social conservatives consider the establishment of to be contrary to traditional marriage, and the nuclear family model as society’s foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in homosexual relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose secularism and privatization of religious belief; support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency.
The above is part of the Wikipedia definition of social conservatives which I believe is quite accurate. So now you know what I mean and what most people, including social conservatives themselves mean, when the term, “social conservative,” is used. Furthermore, I will continue to use the term when the term is called for, thanks all the same. To do otherwise would be acceding to some sort of ridiculous rule of political correctness that you have just invented. Glad to clear that up for you Tim p.
I want to also let you and others who may be following these comments know that I share some of the same tenets of what is generally agreed upon as social conservatism and that I do not believe there is anything wrong whatsoever in being a social conservative, per se – I do not believe anything I have said so far in this discussion can be realistically construed otherwise. Please feel free to quote me if you believe the opposite.
It is when social conservatives intrude into the political process to the extent of helping to insure victory to knaves such as Obama which in turn actually serves to perpetuate what social conservatives say they are against and diminish what social conservatives say they stand for is when I feel compelled to point out the perverseness of their political behavior. At some point common sense has to be voiced by someone.
I agree that the right needs all the votes it can get and ideological purity isn’t the way to get there. I also agree that Latinos will be a significant part of any voting block in the future.
Agreed.
However, the issue of our borders and border security are most real and must be addressed.
Here again — we agree.
I suspect that the Latino community is more diverse than you realize and that they will not as a block be driven into the democrats camp.
Then you do not read the same material that I do. Feel free to provide a link to any article from any authoritative source that waxes optimistic about the Republican Party vis a vis the Latino vote. I think your breath will be taken away by the dearth of material. Obama even captured the Cuban American vote — which has been rock-solid Republican in the past. Wake up, Republicans!
But it is an issue that must be dealt with deftly, not in some ham-handed fashion.
Agreed. But so far the Republican Party has been extremely “ham-handed.”
I also think that there is a certain point past which you don’t compromise your positions.
Feel free to elaborate on those positions that you don’t feel can be compromised — otherwise no one knows what in the hell you are talking about.
The core issues are these principles and at some point you have to stand firm.
Feel free to elaborate on those principles that you feel have to be firmly held — otherwise no one knows what in the hell you are talking about.
Though I would also argue to others for more flexibility too.
Which is it, firmness or flexibility? You really can’t have it both ways.
As for McCain, I voted more against Obama than for McCain. I think many others here did too.
Yes, and the lack of enthusiasm for the GOP’s choice helped Obama into the Whitehouse. You can’t win with reluctance. It takes a more proactive behavior than trudging to the voting booth with a long face because your favored politician did not win your Party’s nomination.
However, Limbaugh, Coulter and others you mentioned have not been a divisive or destructive force.
Go to Limbaugh’s site, as I did, and key “McCain” into the site’s search engine. You’ll get about a thousand hits. Then hurry back here with several positive quotes about McCain by Limbaugh and post them for all to see. We’ll all be waiting …
I saw Coulter twice say that she would rather vote Democratic than vote for McCain — and I don’t see anywhere near all her talk show appearances. Provide a link to anything positive that Coulter has EVER said about McCain. We’ll be patient …
They have been the only ‘big’ voices that have really disrupted the wall to wall media love fest for Obama.
I freely admit that I agree with some things that Coulter and Limbaugh say. Coulter is even sometimes funny. I can admit that someone I dislike can be correct on some utterance or issue, a virtue that some others who have commented here should nurture in themselves.
If they weren’t effective, Obama would not have singled Limbaugh out so pointedly, as he did earlier this year.
Obama singled out Limbaugh when Obama and the rest of us saw the sorry spectacle of Michael Steele, the head of your party if you are a Republican, having to publicly and humiliatingly apologize to El Rushbo. Obama, being the canny politician he is, thought it would be tactically sound to do so, and he was SO right. “Who runs the Republican Party?” gleefully asked every Democrat operative from Gibbs on through to Carville.
Effective? Yes, I would say Limbaugh and Coulter are VERY effective, but not in the way you evidently believe. This is a problem that the Republicans need to tend to. Republican politicians need to be able to criticize El Rushbo without almost ending their political careers, for God’s sake! Republicans need to stop buying Coulter’s books because that’s the only way they can stop her from urging folks to vote for Democrats because she doesn’t like McCain. I sometimes think that the Republican Party in general and social conservatives have some kind of institutional death wish the way they go about shooting themselves in the foot almost every chance they get.
I say that as someone who doesn’t listen to him or talk radio either. Though I agree with many things he’s said.
Oh. You don’t listen, but you agree with many things. Well, I agree with some things Limbaugh and Coulter have said, as I pointed out earlier. But that does not change my low opinion of both those mountebanks.
br549 was correct (IMO) in observing, “I still don’t believe McCain truly wanted to win.” I too think that he was running a ‘vanity’ campaign. It was a sop to an old senator, much like Bob Dole’s campaign in ‘96. Hence the tepid response of many republicans.
I can’t let you get away with blaming your tepid response on your Party’s choice for the nomination. The fault of tepidness lies within yourself, not in McCain. I see also you have fallen for the Progressive meme that McCain and Bob Dole were too old. Both of them won their party’s nomination fair and square and their victories were not a “sop’ to anyone or anything. I’ll take either one today over Obama and so should you if you are disturbed by Obama.
By painting everyone here with the same brush, you fall into the very trap you are warning us about. Ideological blinders, of any sort are bad.
I have commented on specific comments, never painting “everyone here with the same brush.” You are the one with the blinders, not me.
At this point, as I said above in my comment, we need to mobilize and be heard. To act. But unlike Alinsky tactics and the vicious leftists who practice them, we don’t go after spouses or kids. We don’t picket their kids schools, etc. Personally, I want to win these people over, or at least get them to cooperate. I do not want to destroy them.
What I would like to destroy is this win at any cost mentality. Where winning is all that matters, even if you have to destroy the country to do it.
That’s devil’s bargain Obama and the hard left democrats have chosen.
You are going to have to describe to me how voting for McCain would have been destroying the country. How would it have been winning “at any cost”? Would it have been a “Devil’s bargain” to have enthusiastically supported your Party’s nominee? Just what “Devil’s bargain” do you think I am proposing? Please, be specific if you can. I’ll be waiting.
You came over to the conservative side it didn’t come to you. It is you who needed saving from your own devise and are now looking for a safe house.
Nonsense.
So when the door to a new home was opened to you the first thing you do is criticize how the furniture is arranged, very nice. But as most “not all” liberals your rhetoric is typical and I think you may be unaware that you follow this pattern.
More nonsense.
I commented about your typifying the liberal stance and you followed up with a personal attack. That IS Alinsky.
Conspiratorial nonsense. I am “Alinsky?”
“PURE” as you say is liberal emotional reaction and a distraction from the topic It suddenly is about you???
You WERE commenting about me, weren’t you. Am I mistaken about that?
It might be helpful to know how your thought process originated maybe to begin avoiding this liberal type of thinking. But it is not my place to tell YOU what YOU SHOULD do.
You call it “liberal type of thinking.” I call it common sense and a desire to defeat Obama.
When I commented about where you “need “to remain, if you look at that carefully it is not as personal a “should do” attack as much as it is a general criticism about liberal thinking.
Hmmm ,,, You told me I need to “remain” somewhere but nevertheless that comment shouldn’t be interpreted as anything I “should do.” Right.
Until your thinking changes you are the square block in a round hole and won’t ever quite fit. (Does that make you uncomfortable?)
No, nothing you have said so far makes me “uncomfortable,” even slightly.
It is also Alinsky to draw away from the subject matter and create a talking point “not pure enough??” as diversion, did you know that?
I think my “point” was well taken. You are perfectly free to think of it as a diversion if that is what you want to do. However, doesn’t make my point a diversion — that’s just an incoherent assertion by you.
As far as my own personal perspective is concerned.
You attempt to label me as stereotypically ultra right.
I only can hope to achieve that goal one day.
Oh, was I wrong? Are you NOT a social conservative? Are you a conservative, period, of the ordinary type? Just what ARE your beliefs? As far as achievement is concerned – Keep trying … you’ll make it yet.
What the right does not need is fickle leftists who vote from a ” touchy feely” point of view, who are easily swayed depending on “their” needs. Who declare that both parties need to be in the center.
I will admit that I think the social conservatives need to be a tad more tolerant to folks who are a couple of degrees more centrist than the classic social conservatist viewpoint, even to the extent of finding some enthusiasm for nominees who are not their favored politicians. But what do I know … after all, I AM just a “fickle leftist.”
Who vote based on the color of a man’s skin as if that makes up for an epoch in this country that present day Americans hold no responsibility for. Nor does the man they voted for have any connective lineage or other historical significance to this epoch.
But you have me all wrong on this issue. I emphatically do not support voting for black candidates because of any past history. I am not a supporter of affirmative action or any kind of reparations for blacks. Where did you ever get the notion in your noggin that I was?
What the right does not need is left thinkers who see their own party out of control already, and are scared for themselves so they come to the right and attempt to tell them how to do things.
I’ll admit that I am a bit frightened by the tendency to of the Right in general to unwittingly help to promote what the Right says it is against. Yes, I am scared for myself(in a way) if Obama prevails. I fear for the whole nation if Obama prevails, don’t you?
You know when a person seeks sobriety one of the first things they are told is to come in sit down, shut up, and listen. They are told that although they may quit drinking or drugs their thinking may remain the same for sometime, so please don’t attempt to think that they know whats best for their recovery or how to fix themselves.
Congratulations on your sobriety! My last drink was 23 years ago. The best thing I EVER did!
Liberals coming over to conservatism could learn something from that instruction.
Well, obviously the conservatives, or at least Republicans, could learn a thing or two about winning an election from Obama. The Republicans lost … remember?
What the right does need is more people who use a rational and an informed decision making process when they decide on who should lead the country based on it’s original principals, more in line with conservatism and libertarian thinking.
I really don’t see how the social conservatives or the Republican Party could get too much more conservative. Lynch John McCain? Waterboard Mitt Romney? Make Michael Steele abjectly apologize to …. aw, forget it. Let’s just say I think the Right is pretty much there already.
It needs Limbaugh’s, Coulter’s and the like to rattle the thought process sometimes, to provoke partisanship on important subject.
It’s all right to be partisan, I would never argue otherwise. It’s when it’s carried to extremes to the extent that it leads to self-destructive behavior that I feel compelled to speak up
Unfortunately the left mentality fails to see this or are incapable of such depth.
The left is not the only side that fails to see certain things, Gary.
I find your closing statement as a ubiquitous comment in condescension typical of liberals and wonder how you can continue to see Obama in such a parental role.
It’s called a metaphor, Gary. I didn’t literally mean that you are actually an infant, just that the Republicans, which I took you to be, were handily beaten by a candidate with very little political experience. But you are right — although true it was a bit condescending and I apologize.
Again it is all in your conditioning. Try reading Alinsky, it is best to know thy enemy.
I am no more conditioned than the next person, Gary. I HAVE read Saul Alinsky, specifically Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. And I saw him speak back at my university years ago. There is nothing in Alinsky’s methods that can’t theoretically be used by the Right. The Left doesn’t own Alinsky’s methods. Wake up, Republicans!
Gee grackle, got your hackles up, huh?
I’ll try to explain.
You said,“I do not paint “everyone here” as a social conservative.”
But earlier you said, “Conservatives and the GOP need to grab hold of reality instead of wistfully wishing for burst bubbles that are not likely to happen in the way they want them to happen. And finally, to all the McCain haters, you childishly angry “I’m mad and I’m going to take my toys and go home and not play anymore and that will show you RINOS!” (Waah, sniff, sniff, rubbing tears from eyes, stomping tiny feet) If you want to lose you deserve to lose. The only problem is you take the rest of us down with you in your self-destructive tantrums, your misplaced anger. Wake up, Republicans! Open your eyes and see reality, conservatives!”
Seems your talking to more than a few specific commenters. I mean everyone who happens to be a republican and/or a conservative is a pretty broad brush.
Then you later say“I have commented on specific comments, never painting “everyone here with the same brush.”
Pleeease! Re-read your comment above and then ask yourself, who wears the blinders?
As for a definition of social conservative, thanks, I understand who they are and don’t need a definition. Having been and been around conservatives of all stripes most of my life, I know them better than you ever will. By the way, that’s not a blanket approval for all or all things conservative. Just thought I’d throw that in since you have such a problem seeing the gray between the black and white.
While we’re looking at what you said, let’s examine this inane statement, “Look at most of Europe — more socialist than the US and has been since the end of WW2 — around 75 years now. Yet those nations manage to function well enough for their citizens to be fairly content — I see no broad outcry against socialism and demand for classic capitalism among the inhabitants of Europe.”
First, understand that the ONLY reason the ‘western’ Europeans had viable socialist governments is because the US parked several hundred thousand soldiers on their frontiers to protect them from Soviet invasion.
Second, the Eastern Europeans have no such illusions about socialism.
Third, many of those same socialist governments are having problems and center-right coalitions are emerging from formerly left of center-left. France, Britain, Germany to name three.
Regarding Latinos being more diverse than you think, you say, “Then you do not read the same material that I do. Feel free to provide a link “
That is an observation based on actual discussions with Latinos, not something I read second hand. You really ought to get out more. Perhaps I draw the wrong conclusion, but at least it’s based on more than what somebody told me to think. You really need to try to view people as individuals, not blocks.
As for voting for McCain you said, “Yes, and the lack of enthusiasm for the GOP’s choice helped Obama into the Whitehouse. You can’t win with reluctance.”
Neither do you win with a mediocre candidate. While you’re at it, explain how reluctantly voting for McCain is any worse than enthusiastically voting for McCain. Only the vote counts, not the sentiment. McCain still got my vote.
As for Steele grovelling to Rush, he was very stupidly sucked into agreeing with a democrat on a talk show who was lampooning Rush and calling him the real head of the republican party. It was part of a concerted effort on the administration’s part. Steele got what he deserved.
Regarding Latinos and republicans addressing Latinos, you said, “Agreed. But so far the Republican Party has been extremely “ham-handed.”
Care to explain how? If enforcing border security is ham-handed, go back to the democrats now! If wanting to deport illegals and not extend them benefits is bad, go back to the democrats now!
As for Limbaugh and Coulter, your hatred of them seems almost visceral. Sure there isn’t something more to it? In response to my saying I didn’t listen to talk radio, but agree with many things Rush has said, you replied, “Oh. You don’t listen, but you agree with many things.” Yes, they both seem to get quoted and repeated a lot. You don’t have to listen to talk radio to hear some of what these two have said.
Then you ramble on, “I can’t let you get away with blaming your tepid response on your Party’s choice for the nomination. Explain what the hell you’re trying to say? How does understanding that your candidate is less than what you want, but voting for him anyway over Obama is somehow bad, when it’s what you’ve been trying to say all along?
The fault of tepidness lies within yourself, not in McCain. Here your just being an incoherent ass-hole and blindly attacking me. Just what exactly does that mean?
I see also you have fallen for the Progressive meme that McCain and Bob Dole were too old. Hardly, hell I voted for Reagan and his age didn’t bother me. How do you presume to know what’s going on in my head or anyone else’s for that matter? Nobody said a word about their ages. You have to be a pompous ass to presume to know what’s in someone else’s head.
Both of them won their party’s nomination fair and square and their victories were not a “sop’ to anyone or anything. No one said that they didn’t win their nominations fairly did they? None the less, they were still sops to senate veterans a the end of their careers. The party had no viable candidate to run in either year, so these guys got the nod. Eergo sop.
I’ll take either one today over Obama and so should you if you are disturbed by Obama.”
Agreed there, that’s why I voted for them dumb-ass!!
Here’s a quote of mine you cited, “What I would like to destroy is this win at any cost mentality. Where winning is all that matters, even if you have to destroy the country to do it.
That’s devil’s bargain Obama and the hard left democrats have chosen. ”
You then replied, You are going to have to describe to me how voting for McCain would have been destroying the country. At this point, you have become delusional. Go back and show me where I said any such thing. Reading comprehension!!
What I am saying is that what needs to be destroyed is the win at any cost mentality. Get it. On all sides! That winning at any cost is what the democrats have chosen to do, even if it is bad for the nation. How can you misconstrue that?
Good bye, your not worth anymore time.
people have caught my verbosity
Artfldgr,
I’ll try to keep it under control.
You know, I really like this blog. I hope the above episode is now put to rest, and the personal things are put to rest just as well as they have been established.
Gee grackle, got your hackles up, huh?
I’ll try to explain.
[Grackle — earlier:]… The only problem is you take the rest of us down with you in your self-destructive tantrums, your misplaced anger. Wake up, Republicans! Open your eyes and see reality, conservatives!”
Seems your talking to more than a few specific commenters. I mean everyone who happens to be a republican and/or a conservative is a pretty broad brush.
Then you later say“I have commented on specific comments, never painting “everyone here with the same brush.”
Pleeease! Re-read your comment above and then ask yourself, who wears the blinders?
Well, Gary, to attempt to explain: Yes, I tack those slogans to Republicans and conservatives to the end of some of my comments to individuals and, yes, the slogans are clearly addressed to groups. But, although the slogans at the end of some of my comments are addressed to groups(Republicans and conservatives) the comments themselves, and the thoughts within the comments, are always addressed to individuals, and cannot be reasonably construed to be directed at everyone who may be reading the blog. The slogans themselves are to be understood to be directed only at any Republican or conservative who may be reading the comment section of the post and not at the individual to whom the bulk of the comment is directed.
Now, Gary, look carefully at the sentences that precede the bolded slogans at the end of my comment that you have used as an example. Do you think those sentences were … (a) addressed to all Republicans and conservatives? Or (b) To a specific individual?
There are no trick questions on the quiz. Take your time before answering but keep in mind that first impulses are usually correct on a multiple choice exam.
And Gary, your concern is touching but I assure you, my hackles are not up.
As for a definition of social conservative, thanks, I understand who they are and don’t need a definition. Having been and been around conservatives of all stripes most of my life, I know them better than you ever will.
Well then, Gary, I must apologize again. Your previous comment …
However, you are painting everyone here as some sort of social conservative. A loaded term, with somewhat different meanings to different people. It is not accurate.
… had led me to believe that you did not know what I meant when I used the term, “social conservative.” You also referred to the term, “social conservative,” as “loaded,” which led me to believe that you thought the term possessed some sort of pejorative connotation. I thought it best at the time that those seeming misconceptions be cleared up by a definition from an authoritative source. I now realize you were not confused about the meaning of the term. And I now realize that we both know that the term, “social conservative,” is no more derogatory than, say, “brunette,” or “right-handed,” and that knowledge is, I’ll confess, a minor source of contentment for me.
By the way, that’s not a blanket approval for all or all things conservative. Just thought I’d throw that in since you have such a problem seeing the gray between the black and white.
Duly noted, Gary.
While we’re looking at what you said, let’s examine this inane statement,
[grackle — earlier] “Look at most of Europe — more socialist than the US and has been since the end of WW2 — around 75 years now. Yet those nations manage to function well enough for their citizens to be fairly content — I see no broad outcry against socialism and demand for classic capitalism among the inhabitants of Europe.”
First, understand that the ONLY reason the ‘western’ Europeans had viable socialist governments is because the US parked several hundred thousand soldiers on their frontiers to protect them from Soviet invasion.
Duly noted … but … and I hate to mention this, Gary, lest you worry that my hackles may be up … but the observation above seems to miss my point. To put it another way — The US also has soldiers within the US to protect it. Keep in mind that I was comparing the US to some of the nations of Europe.
I will agree that the nations of Europe benefited after WW2 by a US presence but that really has nothing to do with their degree of socialism. They would have been protected by the US even if they would have had strict, classic capitalist economies. The same could be said if they had instituted 100% socialist economies. The point of the protection was to keep them from being taken over by the Soviet bloc — not to allow them, as it happened, to be somewhat socialist.
Second, the Eastern Europeans have no such illusions about socialism.
But, Gary, my point was to compare the degree of socialism in the US to other countries who possess socialist aspects. It was all about degrees and comparison. Gary, would you say Russia(an Eastern European nation) is more socialist or less socialist than the US? While Russia may not be as socialist as it was when it was the dominating nation of the Soviet Union it is still more socialist than the US at the present time — that was my point.
Third, many of those same socialist governments are having problems and center-right coalitions are emerging from formerly left of center-left. France, Britain, Germany to name three.
Gary, my reading of history indicates to me that these factors have an ebb and flow to them. For instance: At one time there was no such thing as Social Security, Medicare or state-sponsored welfare in the US system. These things came about in the fullness of time. Then a few years ago Clinton reduced the number of welfare recipients. Today, during Obama’s administration, there is talk of instituting policies which may again swell the welfare rolls. The national healthcare initiatives being floated around congress may change Medicare into something else entirely. The same thing has occurred and is occurring(it’s a process — not a series of static events) in those countries you have mentioned.
But my point was that since WW2 that they all have had more of a degree of socialism than the US. As for the “problems” you mention: The problems I have been reading about have occurred when those governments have tried to withhold certain socialistic perks — as when there was rioting in France because the French government wanted to allow employers to fire employees. Have you read of any unrest due to European governments attempting to bestow additional socialistic benefits upon their citizens?
Once the nomination process is over, I think that the winner of the nomination should expect the enthusiastic support by all in his party even though their favorite may not have won the nomination. I think that’s how elections are won. I think that’s how Obama won. I think the Hillary supporters and the Edwards supporters sucked it up and decided to act like loyal Democrats instead of whining and blasting Obama and went out and enthusiastically campaigned for their Party’s nominee. But many Republicans were … “tepid” … probably Limbaugh fans, right?
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
But Limbaugh calls the shots in the Republican Party.
No, he doesn’t. Limbaugh calls the shots on his radio show and he has influence on many in the RP, but if Limbaugh called the shots McCain would never have been nominated.
Aside from the occasional quote that comes my way, I don’t listen to or read Limbaugh, Ingraham, Coulter, or even Fox News. I still call myself a classic liberal, which these days means I vote Republican.
That said, I have little patience for the Colin Powells, David Frums, or Grackles of the world who keep demanding that the Republican Party make itself into a bigger tent by shoving the hard-core conservatives out.
Michael Steele is chairman of the Republican National Committee. As such his job is to promote the Republican Party, raise funds, and coordinate election strategy.
Steele’s job is emphatically not to take sucker bait from the Obama administration and pick fights with prominent conservatives. He should have apologized to Limbaugh and he did. Good.
I hope he keeps his head down and does his job from now on. The only way Steele should be making headlines is by raising record amounts of funds for the Republican Party.
huxley: I haven’t read the whole back and forth here about how big a tent the Republican Party should have, but I didn’t get the impression grackle was for shoving the hard conservatives out. He/she was for greater inclusiveness of those who are not hard core conservatives; at least that’s my impression.
I have argued for greater inclusiveness in the Republican Party in various posts, especially this one (here’s another on the general subject).
My feelings on this matter have not changed. And in the words of Ronald Reagan, I would also say to Republicans:
We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only “litmus test” of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty. As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.
Will it matter what the republicans do?
Obama owns ACORN and will send them fed dollars, all they want.
Obama now owns the census.
He likes Chavez, with his president for life machinations. He doesn’t like Zelaya getting turfed out due to his president for life machinations.
Nice two and a third centuries we had here.
I want Republicans to stop listening to destructive defeatist celebrities such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham who bad-mouthed the Republican nominee incessantly. In order to win ratings and sell books they will drag you down to defeat and elevate Obama to a second term. You are being led around by the nose by these idiots! Republicans must realize that if Michael Steele has to apologize to Rush Limbaugh that the tail is wagging the dog and you cannot be considered a viable political party if this sort of thing continues. Potential converts to the GOP will not vote with you if your party is run by un-elected, unofficial opportunists like Limbaugh and the rest — not a one of them who has ever run for office themselves.
— grackle
Neo — I don’t read these words by grackle as an argument for greater inclusiveness on the Republican side, but as a nasty diatribe against Limbaugh, Coulter, and Ingraham, and by extension the hard-core conservatives they represent.
huxley: well, I read it as a diatribe against those people for their acts in harshly criticizing nominee McCain to the point of even (especially with Coulter) saying they would support the opposition. The point, I think, is that Coulter and Limbaugh sometimes take their invective against fellow Republicans too far, and it helps the opposition.
I wrote about that very thing here.
Someplace in my misty eyed state of saluting the flag yesterday I got lost tracking the comments.
I think Grackle, has lost his place as well because I see him addressing me and it is not my commentary he is addressing. (haven’t figured that out yet).
However I am going to print it all out and go over it and try to catch up .
My husband and I, both middle-aged prosecutors, are more than a little worried about the direction that the country in general and this adminstration in particular are headed. My recollection is that Obama positioned himself as quite the centrist at first. I even had a few early glimmers of hope that he would be a post-racial, center-left leader.
But it was pretty much all over in our minds when the Ayers connection popped up…and everyone just accepted not only the connection, but the lies that were originally told about the duration and importance of the ties between them. I could not get anyone, including those who have always respected my opinions as real-life friends or online acquaintances, to think there was the slightest significance to the hidden ties to a murderer like Ayers. Moreover, as the background with Ayers began to be revealed (to take just one troubling aspect of Obama’s past) and I brought new facts to my acquaintances attention, they got less interested–not more.
I find myself exactly where you have found yourself, NeoN. Unable to say anything at all about the current situation without being accused of partisanship (which is a real hoot considering my tepid life-long automatic identification with “liberal” and “Democrat”), or being reacted to as though I am a kook. It’s crazy-making! I’m the same smart logical caring open-minded person I’ve always been.
Next to my real concerns that my teen-aged kids will not know the freedom and opportunity that I have, my greatest fear comes from knowing that as government employees, my husband and I can NOT speak out. We really can’t. Once our kids are out of college, we can afford some job insecurity. That’s going to be only after eight crucial years have passed though.
I can’t believe I am afraid of my own government.
Welcome, RigelDog. There are many of us who’ve been disillusioned lately.
I noticed you say that you and your wife are prosecutors. I’d love to hear your take on this. Please take a look and comment; I’d appreciate it very much.
Neo’s written on a particular theme since she started; how she changed her mind and why she was where she was originally.
I’m always interested on why those who have come over were liberals and dems in the first place.
What did they believe? What did they think went without saying?
How deep did the evidence have to be (chin deep?) before they got a clue?
Why?
Richard Aubrey: If you read my series “A mind is a difficult thing to change” from the beginning, especially the first few installments, I attempt an answer of sorts.
You may find this interesting too, as well as this.
But it was pretty much all over in our minds when the Ayers connection popped up…
That was exactly when my eyebrows went up about Obama. I had tracked the Weathermen when I was younger. I knew who Bill Ayers was — a crown prince of the Weather Underground.
Until then I had assumed that Obama was your basic liberal-progressive black who came up through the Democratic ranks and was probably too liberal for me but what the heck. I didn’t like the Rev Wright/Trinity Church connection but to an extent that was understandable. After Bill Ayers, no, I knew Obama was a sort of Manchurian Candidate.
The only question remaining was whether he would be “corrupted” into more of a mainstream president. For a while, I thought he could. Now I know better.
We may as well have elected Bill Ayers.
I just finished a few chores and looked into this thread and have realized I mistakenly addressed Gary when it was actually Tim p I was jousting in that last display. It got a bit nasty what with the name-calling from Tim. Oh, well — I read somewhere that every mistake is a lesson in disguise. I will endeavor to check identities carefully in the future. Although mistakenly ascribed, the quotes were accurate. I stand by every response I made.
Meanwhile the debate continues:
[grackle — earlier] But Limbaugh calls the shots in the Republican Party.
No, he doesn’t. Limbaugh calls the shots on his radio show and he has influence on many in the RP, but if Limbaugh called the shots McCain would never have been nominated.
Well, judging from Limbaugh’s remarks at the time McCain was running in the primaries Limbaugh did his best to see that McCain was NOT nominated. He certainly expressed his dissatisfaction with McCain often enough during the various primary elections.
The problem Limbaugh had in this endeavor is that nominees aren’t determined by party leaders(with whom Limbaugh has great influence) — the nominees are determined by those pesky folk, the voters in the primaries. It’s not as clear cut or as easy as being able to fire Steele from his job as head of the RNC — those politicians that seek their Parties’ nominations hold no official job or position within their Parties’ organizations from which they can be removed by Party notables acting on the wishes of Limbaugh.
However, once McCain won the nomination Limbaugh did everything in his power to see that McCain was not elected President. Coulter too. No one can know for sure how successful Limbaugh was in that, just how significant Limbaugh’s unceasing diatribes against McCain actually were — I will only point out, as gently and tactfully as possible, that Obama won and that more than one commentor on this thread has expressed a distinct lack of enthusiasm for McCain and have confessed to voting only reluctantly for their party’s duly nominated Presidential ticket.
Myself, I tend to connect the two things: Limbaugh’s verbal vendetta against McCain(words are such powerful things, don’t you agree?) and the lack of enthusiasm among some Republican voters.
Aside from the occasional quote that comes my way, I don’t listen to or read Limbaugh, Ingraham, Coulter, or even Fox News. I still call myself a classic liberal, which these days means I vote Republican.
Good for you, although I personally retain some respect for Fox News. Ever watch Fox News Watch? I enjoy it — Pinkerton hits them where they live, dude. And the panel at the end of Special Report usually has Krauthammer, a favorite of mine. Hammer them hard, you magnificent Kraut!
That said, I have little patience for the Colin Powells, David Frums, or Grackles of the world who keep demanding that the Republican Party make itself into a bigger tent by shoving the hard-core conservatives out.
I really do think the Republican Party would do well to take heed at what Frum has to say. He’s trying to save the GOP, which is in big trouble these days. BTW, I don’t know of any way to add recruits to a “tent” by shoving folks out. The statement seems contradictory on the face of it.
On the other hand I have been exhorted more than once in this thread to “go back to the liberals.” And who do you think is trying to shove who out? Isn’t it the “hard-core conservatives”(your term, not mine) who want to rid the GOP of members that the “hard-core conservatives” don’t think are conservative enough? By any chance has the ubiquitous neologism, “RINO,” ever impinged upon your consciousness?
I’m surprised you made the effort to educate your liberal friends on Obama. I realized early on here in New York that the fix was in and little of substance about Obama’s past was being noted. Unfortunately from my limited contact with blacks, they seemed almost uniformly ready to vote for him simply because of race. It reminds me of the scene in the Time machine when the humans of future are being corralled. Their fear of the economy, their hatred of George Bush blinded them to counter facts. I suppose it will be years before most of the sheep see beyond the hype. Most voters around here still think Clinton was a good president.
[grackle — earlier]I want Republicans to stop listening to destructive defeatist celebrities such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham who bad-mouthed the Republican nominee incessantly. In order to win ratings and sell books they will drag you down to defeat and elevate Obama to a second term. You are being led around by the nose by these idiots! Republicans must realize that if Michael Steele has to apologize to Rush Limbaugh that the tail is wagging the dog and you cannot be considered a viable political party if this sort of thing continues. Potential converts to the GOP will not vote with you if your party is run by un-elected, unofficial opportunists like Limbaugh and the rest — not a one of them who has ever run for office themselves.
Neo – I don’t read these words by grackle as an argument for greater inclusiveness on the Republican side, but as a nasty diatribe against Limbaugh, Coulter, and Ingraham, and by extension the hard-core conservatives they represent.
Another Republican freely admits that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham “represent” them. Not Michael Steele, who is ostensibly the head of the RNC, but unofficial, un-elected charlatans who have never won elected office themselves. It is more obvious than ever to me that the hapless Michael Steele is only a pitiful figurehead who serves at the pleasure of El Rushbo and that Rahm Emanuel and Obama has it all figured out. I rest my case.
Another Republican freely admits that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham “represent” them.
grackle — I remain a registered Democrat. Elsewhere I have declared myself a “classic liberal.” I have also said I do not listen to Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham, aside from excerpts that come my way occasionally.
You misrepresent me and I wouldn’t trust you on Republicans or conservatives either.
Michael Steele is chairman of the Republican National Committee. As such his job is to promote the Republican Party, raise funds, and coordinate election strategy.
Steele’s job is emphatically not to take sucker bait from the Obama administration and pick fights with prominent conservatives. He should have apologized to Limbaugh and he did. Good.
Me, I think it is Limbaugh who should apologize, especially to McCain, who was the Republican Party’s duly nominated Presidential candidate and against who Limbaugh waged a furious verbal vendetta.
I don’t think the Republican Party can consider itself a serious threat to Obama with Limbaugh leading the GOP around by the nose.
Look for Obama to take advantage of this ridiculous state of affairs in the next Presidential election. It’s what I would do if I were him. It’s just too tempting and too easy.
I hope he[Steele] keeps his head down and does his job from now on. The only way Steele should be making headlines is by raising record amounts of funds for the Republican Party.
Oh, I’m sure the thoroughly chastised Steele knows his place now. He needs to be a good fellow and never, never incur the wrath of El Rushbo.
grackle – I remain a registered Democrat. Elsewhere I have declared myself a “classic liberal.” I have also said I do not listen to Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham, aside from excerpts that come my way occasionally.
You misrepresent me and I wouldn’t trust you on Republicans or conservatives either.
A registered Democrat? But earlier the writer emphatically declared that “I vote Republican.” I truly am puzzled and ask the writer to help me out on this: Why register as a Democrat if you “vote Republican.”? Is there some new way of voting that I haven’t heard about?
However, in deference to the writer’s wishes I will amend my comment to read:
Another person who votes Republican but remains “a registered Democrat” freely admits that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham “represent” hard-core conservatives.
There now, I think that clears up the misrepresentation that has the writer concerned.
Speaking of “trust,” since the writer has introduced that concept into the debate, I’m just wondering how trustworthy someone is who registers as a Democrat but votes Republican. Just an idle thought that passed through my curious mind as I was preparing to post this comment.
I rest my case again.
grackle — Now you are simply being stupid and snarky.
I said, full-quote: “I still call myself a classic liberal, which these days means I vote Republican.”
I have been a registered Democrat since 1970. If the Dems returned to a more classically liberal positions, I might vote that way again.
grackle – Now you are simply being stupid and snarky.
I said, full-quote: “I still call myself a classic liberal, which these days means I vote Republican.”
I have been a registered Democrat since 1970. If the Dems returned to a more classically liberal positions, I might vote that way again.
The writer believes that him claiming to be a “registered Democrat” is highly significant to the debate, even though he “votes Republican.” I don’t see the significance myself.
I will admit to not being the smartest fellow on the planet(yes, neo, I am a man), so “stupid” might be a fair assessment of my mental capabilities, but the “snarky” epithet the writer attaches to my last offering seems unfair and needs explaining by the writer. It’s not good to call someone “snarky’ with no explanation.
But getting back to the central problem: If the writer has not voted Democrat how is the fact that he is a “registered Democrat’” relevant? I’m just going to have to state the obvious: It doesn’t matter, dude. You haven’t voted Democrat. You have voted Republican. Voting Republican is the significant fact, not how you haven’t voted — even old “stupid” me can see that.
If the Democrats changed I might vote Democrat myself and if I won the lottery I might buy a Beverly Hills mansion but neither has happened yet so neither of those hypothetical events are very significant in the scheme of things.
Another person who votes Republican but remains “a registered Democrat” freely admits that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham “represent” hard-core conservatives.
There now, I think that clears up the misrepresentation that has the writer concerned.
grackle — More sloppy, snarky reading which is what I’ve come to expect from you.
It’s not my admission; I have nothing to do with it. It’s simply a fact that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham represent some, but not all hard-core conservatives.
That may bother you or strike you as a terrible indictment. However, your opinion has nothing to do with it either. It is true: Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham represent some conservatives. No mystery, no scandal there.
grackle — You declared me to be a Republican. You are mistaken. I am not a Republican.
It may come as shocking news to you, but Americans do cross party lines.
I’m done.
Neo, I was referring to Rigel.
Sorry.
Rigel should note that zero is doing everything liberals have wanted for decades.
Weaken the US militarily.
Socialized medicine.
Redistribute wealth.
Hammer for environmental causes.
Support socialist tyrannies overseas.
Dump Israel.
Nationalize industry.
Centralize political power.
Restrict speech.
If they don’t like what zero is doing, it’s kind of odd that they were for it until it started happening. Not to mention that, in their own ways, large or small, enabled earlier steps.
Given all that, what caused the change? What about zero is there that surprises them?
grackle – More sloppy, snarky reading which is what I’ve come to expect from you.
It’s not my admission; I have nothing to do with it. It’s simply a fact that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham represent some, but not all hard-core conservatives.
It’s a bit frustrating to read the above since it strongly implies that I do not believe that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham represent some, but not all hard-core conservatives. To set the record straight: I have been of the opinion for years that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham represent some hard-core conservatives. This belief has been central to the thrust of some of my comments.
The writer now wants to change his original statement from …
… “the hard-core conservatives they[Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham] represent.” to some hard-core conservatives they[Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham] represent.”
… and I have absolutely no objection. I do think it’s kind of ironic that he refers to me as “sloppy” when it is he that has had to amend his original statement. All I can do is accurately quote posted words — which is what I did in this case. But no matter, I’ll happily keep amending his words as long as he wants to keep changing them. No problem at all — just let me know and it’s done.
I think my incorrect assumption that he is a Republican can be forgiven, considering that he wrote himself that he votes “Republican,” and especially since I quickly amended my statement to include the fact subsequently revealed by him that he is a “registered Democrat.” I did not see the relevance to the debate but I suppose it is all in the eye of the beholder and these details are worth getting right.
I still take issue with the “snarky” epithet the writer again introduces without explanation. I do hope this exchange doesn’t descend too far into ad hominem name-calling.
That may bother you or strike you as a terrible indictment. However, your opinion has nothing to do with it either. It is true: Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham represent some conservatives. No mystery, no scandal there.
Here I must repeat myself, so I apologize to the readers:
I have been of the opinion for years that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham represent some hard-core conservatives. This belief has been central to the thrust of some of my comments. I DO believe, of course, that it’s scandalous that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham have so much power over the conduct of the Republican Party.
I admit that this circumstance has bothered me and I believe also that it is not good for the GOP that Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham have so much power among some social conservatives and over prominent Republicans. I have given my reasons for these beliefs in previous comments.
grackle – You declared me to be a Republican. You are mistaken. I am not a Republican.
But I have already indicated every way I know how that I now know that the writer is not a Republican but is instead a registered Democrat who votes Republican. I have admitted the mistake and admit it again now and will continue admitting it as long as the writer deems it necessary to bring it up. I can’t help wondering, though, is it really necessary to belabor the point? And I still cannot see the relevance to the debate
It may come as shocking news to you, but Americans do cross party lines.
But I am not at all shocked and do not know why the writer would think I was.
I’m done.
I still feel the writer owes an explanation to me about the “snarky” word.
In previous progressive periods of ascendancy, the solution was their running the country into the ground…. I grew up in the 70s… the 70s are back.
The long term fix will be to retake some of the commanding heights we’ve given up on during our period of ascendancy. Obviously, letting the left control the media is NOT working. Now that progressives have gotten smart enough to not admit what they’re up to (above my paygrade, et cetera) we must have some conservatives go into news departments.