Politics – Despite the hard contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, party leaders keep telling Democratic-leaning voters that they have two good candidates. They are right, but one of them may well be a Republican.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
hatukabu
elliotthicks1965
yarrkz24
sterlingburt19681962
2jojoyo
getbackerzoo
adamhowe1980
rontravel
slashup67
sandur
HiHoney
myrtlebeachwebdesign
andieaw
toilnaa
nitegarito
maninthemiddle
Muraha
Emmanuel70
bugluver
layhandy
linna4linna
2ndcorpz
Morshad
Malverde
garier
Sandra_honestly
cyclo
DJIDJI
pamcak3
flavioalfanet
expressregalo
flowersexpressphilcom
sevenwholesale
streetzwear
myoptimind
mexpresscomph
doppich
355)
"Sophisticated commentary now notes the growing creepiness of the Obama campaign: Its aversion to substantive policy discussions. The sermonizing - "In the face of despair, we believe there can be hope." And the messianic bit - "At this moment in the election there is something happening in America." (That would be he.)
Volunteer trainees at Camp Obama are told not to talk issues with voters, but to offer personal testimony about how they "came" to Obama. Makes the skin crawl.
Centrists generally do not find cults of personality entertaining. The mass hypnosis reminds them of the mortgage frenzy - all these people buying into a dream and not caring about the fine print."
Double post.
Then for reality.......
McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!
At this point, THE only Candidate that makes sense.
Yes he does make sense! He is more liberal then Barack or Hillary...
Barak Hussien Obama's record is the most liberal in congress,
or did you miss that study?
and Hillary? a liberal wanna be socialist, maybe she can try for Fidels old job.
Michael,
Do you ever feel like a complete and utter low-life when you lie to people about Obama being a Muslim?
Just wondering.
Where in Michael's post did he say anything about Barak being a Muslim???
I can't believe this article actually believes a majority of Hillary's supporters would actually cross over to vote for McCain en mass. There are several reasons this would be unlikely:
1) Even before Hillary has dropped out of the race, Obama is ALREADY winning over former Hillary supporters and cutting into her base.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/19/dem.poll...
"Exit polling results showed Obama either leading or pulling even with Sen. Hillary Clinton among almost all demographic groups -- including the blue-collar workers and women that Clinton had considered her base."
2) Obama draws most of his support from independents while Hillary draws support from the left wing of the Democratic Party. If Hillary wins the nomination, Obama's independent supporters are more likely to cross-over to support McCain (himself supported by independents) than Hillary's left wing supporters are by virtue of where they're located on the political spectrum.
Republicans are clearly terrified of running against Obama. They realize that Obama can win both the leftwing Democrats (former Hillary supporters) AND the independent vote, while expanding the voting base to include the traditionally disenfranchised youth and minority vote. In addition, Obama's strong support among black voters may help him win southern states like South Carolina where the black population is large and energized.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
"14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday versus 8,367,694 voters for McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. 73% more people came out to vote for the two Democratic candidates than for the three Republicans."
Not only will McCain have to compete (and probably lose) against Obama in courting independents, but he will have to convince the conservative and Evangelical base to rally behind him too, which he has yet to do.
The author of this article is participating in wishful thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/19/gop.poll...
"John McCain still has trouble with GOP voters who consider themselves 'very conservative.' Nearly half of the voters who said they were very conservative cast their ballots for McCain's chief rival, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Evangelical voters still flocked to Huckabee, a one-time Baptist minister."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008...
"A Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll of registered voters this month found that Obama would fare better against McCain than would Clinton, largely because he would draw significantly more independents and Republicans than she would."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
"Among voters who voted for Clinton, 69 percent would be satisfied with Obama as the Democratic candidate; among Obama voters, 68 percent would be OK with Clinton."
You can't be serious...
John Sidney McCain III just doesn't deliver as much of a punch, huh??
Not in this lifetime. McCain is a Moderate-Conservative. Hillary is a liberal. Obama is a Socialist. Both Hillary and Obama made Judicial Watch's list of Top Ten Corrupt Politicians of 2007.
Do you people EVER bother to do ANY fact-checking? Judicial Watch?! You mean that "non-partisan" organization funded mostly by cons and which has been stalking the Clintons for over a decade? The "non-partisan" group which happens to have mostly Democrats on its list (the year after the GOP was booted from power for all manner of corruption)? THAT Judicial Watch? That group which devotes an entire section of its website to attacking Hillary Clinton ("Hillary Watch", I think it's called) but no such section for ANY other presidential candidates (Democratic or Republican)?
For the love of God, please tell me you aren't a registered voter, Jose. Please reassure me that you aren't actually allowed to go anywhere NEAR a voting booth! OMFG--THIS is how you cons educate yourselves?!
blablabla, Then obviously McCain has your libby vote!
I am a Ron Paul republican
Then hang tough. Real tough. I do agree with some of Paul's stands although some are off the wall.
name one thats off the wall
The candidate who was against Bush tax cuts and waterboarding before he was for them makes sense but wingers thought George Bush was the lesser of two evils in 2004?! Wow, I guess cons are some pretty big flip-floppers in their own right. ;-p
you gotta see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
cult of personality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY
McCain for President and another 4 years of WAR!!!
better than a lifetime of defeat and taxes.
The Modern Republican stands for Welfare, Bigger Government, Deficit Spending on a massive scale, Incompetent management of the military, and invasion of privacy.
These have been documented through 7 years of this administration. There is no doubt about this as each of these points is verifiable.
Only the desperate, 'Cultish' supporters of this kind of governance refuse to see it.
Think about it.....
Everything that strident Conservatives groused about 30 years ago - as pitiful examples of Democrats - is now entrenched policy of The Modern Republican.
Democrats now believe in effective government.
You know, MichaelRhodente, _nothing_ is permanent. Everything changes. The Republicans in 1860 freed the slaves. The Republicans in 1960 fought for states rights which enabled states to disenfranchise black people.
It began in November '06 - America is leaving Republicanism in droves. When are you going to?
I'm sorry, but was it not the republicans in the 60's who fought for the civil rights act? Not to mention the fact that over 83% of Republicans voted for the bill, while only 60% of dems did. They may have fought for states rights, but were also the ones who finally gave blacks the freedoms they deserved.
As for your last line, it sure did begin in Nov 06, and it died in Feb 07. That's why Congress has maintained the lowest approval ratings of any other congress in history.
That was then. This is now.
Many republicans are acting like old party Democrats and many Democrats are acting like old party Republicans.
It's a new world order alright. And many of us are finding ourselves just like the song goes ...
"clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you!"
tanglang,
I believe that selective editing of history, or an outright refusal to understand the dynamics of history is one of the defining aspects of the Cult of The Modern Republican.
Regarding the Civil Rights Movement: Democrats led. Some Republicans followed.
Republicans did not fight for the Civil Rights act.
Now, I expect that you will point to the many Southern Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights act. But this is disingenuous. Because it's a denial of the fact that there were no White Republicans in the South. White, politically minded always registered as Democrats as an expression of their hatred of what Lincoln did to them.
These legislators were known nationally as Dixie-Crats. That is, Democrats in name only. Legislatively and by personal persuasion, these legislators were Republicans who fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Movement.
Now it's your turn to bring up Senator Byrd. yada. yada. yada.
Ha! Nice spin pal. You sure sure delusional. And talk about selective editing of history, it is the dems who still employ one of those dixie crats. (since YOU brought him up) Who is so far left he is right next to obama and kennedy. Not to mention the fact that old "dino" as you put it, has held his senate seat as a dem longer than any other senator in history. What is this, his 54th year in the senate? Get real pal. The dems were dragged kicking and screaming to the civil rights act.
I'm truly saddened by your outright refusal to accept reality.
But I'm heartened by an understanding that fewer and fewer Americans - especially younger Americans - are choosing the 'cult-like' devotion to your type of historical invention.
America is truly tired of the endless revisionism that is necessary to qualify the Ideology of The Modern Republican.
Read a history book pal,then you might be qualified to come here and say that I don't know what I am talking about. Welfare might have made you rich, but it damn sure did not make you smart.
See my post to you on the last page. : )
very well put Tang,
and for welfare, let me add that maybe you should learn the difference between facts and spin, who's your source KOS?
PPlease don't feel so smug with tanglangs exhibition of his/her lack of understanding.
If he/she has integrity, you embarrass him/her, and lessen your own credibility.
And your attempt at clever retort is useless against me. I've lived through what I'm talking about, I don't need spin-meisters.
I don't need FOX, don't need Clear Channel, don't need Talk Radio. And I don't need Right Wing Newspapers in Texas to interpret the rational experience.
No! It was the dems who fought for civil rights in the 60's. Remember when Ike was pres and there was an uprising at Little Rock? Black girl, white school, remember?
This fight started a battle that continues still today in some areas.
Ike did stand tall. I did not mean to belittle his efforts. I was speaking more to the leadership of those that carried that battle forward - especially during the pivotal period beginning in the early '60s.
I have a lot of admiration for Eisenhower.
Even though he committed our nation to Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and overthrowing the democratically elected president of Iran - all of which I forgive him for due to the crazy nature of the Post WW2 Communist scare.
Well, I don't really forgive him for the coup de tat of the Iranian President. This went against all that our nation stood for and had horrible long term consequences for our nation.
But, we elect leaders to do their best. And most of them have not debased our nation - up until around the year 2001.
I have no problem with Ike. I look back and wonder why the GOP is not smart enough to compare themselves to him rather than Reagan!
Umm, what party did George Wallace belong to?
"better than a lifetime of defeat and taxes."
--But taxes are only gonna be raised for people who were already wealthy, so where's the problem? As for concerns about "defeat," I am truly baffled as to why chickenhawk cons somehow think looking bad in "defeat" is worse than the way we're currently viewed by the rest of the world. We're despised, viewed as arrogant, unilateralist bullies, Michael. No one in the international community trusts us or wants to help us and we're reduced to begging and bribing men and women who are nearing retirement age, people with marginal education levels and convicted felons to fight our wars. When your own fellow citizens aren't willing to put their lives on the line, don't you think it might be time to step back and ask what you're willing to trade off simply to avoid looking bad in "defeat"? You war cheerleaders need to get a serious grip...
Cultish?
What is cultish is the supporters of The Modern Republican party.
After years of being groomed to demand ever more extremist ideals by an endless stream of Right Wing Talk Radio, & FOX personalities - 'cultish' adherents of The Modern Republican ideology are discovering that America is simply disgusted with the lack of pragmatism and effective governance of our nation.
Most sophisticated Americans now realize that simple-minded answers to all problems may make the base feel good, but are typically counter-productive to America's self interest.
We now know, as a society, that simple minded belligerency cannot take the place of diplomacy.
We now know that welfare for the wealthy is inherently insane.
We now know that expanding government, while reducing revenue is truly, incomprehensibly, idiotic.
We now know, that The Modern Republican Party is a servant to the inconsolable rage of the extremist and this rage can never be assuaged.
So, we must move on.
What has turned _on_ independents, is the massive rejection of the ideological irrational insanity of The Modern Republican - as represented by 8 years of George W. Bush.
American gave George W. Bush a chance in 2000. Even in spite of the fact that he did not achieve a majority. This was not a mandate.
In spite of this 'non-mandate', George W. Bush and his madly ideologically driven operatives, used their new found access to power to try to ensconce that power as never before - and by any means necessary.
The result? All over the nation, citizens are voting in record numbers. All over the nation, people are disgusted with the past 8 years of failure after failure. From FEMA to FISA - this is an administration that refused to make government better - but rather chose only to make it bigger, more cumbersome and invasive - and to benefit the elites and well connected families of this nation.
I'll tell you what, looking at these three makes Dubya look good.
See, my comment below.
You'll understand where America is coming from.
Perhaps it's time for you to reflect upon what your party stands for.
Look at my bio. Your titular leader is a product of Welfare - _not_ entrepreneurial efforts. He's not a brave man - having avoided military service to his country. He's not a leader by speech.
His appeal to the most dire of his supporters appears to be that he believes exceptionally strongly in his opinions.
I don't consider that exceptional leadership.
I've worked with many business leaders. I can tell you that if this person was in charge of a company, it would not be a viable company.
He makes a good _cult_ figure.
But based on what? What criteria are you basing your views (which you know aren't mirrored by the vast majority of Americans--or the world, for that matter)? Why do you think your perspective and judgement are sound when most people know that Bush is one of the worst Presidents (if not *the*) worse Presidents to ever inhabit the White House?
Please contrast this nation-wide enthusiasm for the election - the record number of voters with the extreme ennui exhibited towards the Republican candidates.
Young people, having lived their last 7 years under George W. Bush, are recognizing that he is _not_ the education president. College is harder to get into than ever - costing ever more money - with grants and assistance ever more difficult to obtain.
Young people recognize that this administration's abysmal track record in Iraq can affect their personal future, and the future of our nation.
The only _'Cult'_ aspect to this election is that exhibited by those who are desperate to support a Republican candidate.
You should really blame Right Wing Media for driving you to demand ever more extremist politics.
You should blame your Party's troubles on your penchant of kowtowing to the most crazy among your base - simply because they are the loudest.
There is your cult, AlphaGnosis.
and there is your troll, AlphaGnosis
See?
You have no argument.
Believe me. I'm saddened by this. When Conservatives can no longer engage in argument - in an honest manner - without falling back upon pointless non-sequiturs, it's quite apparent that our nation has lost a valuable foil.
I'm not here to promote Democrats.
I'm here to promote rational thought.
And from where I come from, The Modern Republican has sublimated rational thought in deference to sound-byte spewing media mavens.
It's gotten so bad, citizens can't even engage in debate without those on the right giving up and taking their toys with them - while sending some childish retort over their shoulder.
It's a sad state of affairs when a formerly dignified political discipline is now led by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and a greedy Australian arch-conservative.
well then welfare, tone down the sanctimonious attitude,
and brush up on your rational thought,
maybe we'll debate sometime,
till then, I'll enjoy mocking your tirades.
It's your choice to interpret my comments as being sanctimonious.
All I'm doing is typing in words - words that express an honest assessment based on facts - not emotion or a desperate desire to prop up a 'cultish' support for Modern Republicanism.
How in the world do you derive that I've copped some 'attitude' from that?
And _again_ with the 'over-the-shoulder' insult as you walk away with nothing to say.
I don't have any problem with what you say here MichaelRhodente - I don't know why you seem to get so upset and threatened by what I say.
Unless you are feeling as though you are having to struggle harder and harder to support an ideology that is less and less to your liking.
Of course, _that_ would be a rational reaction and I would urge you to look at that.
X
X