If Obama Runs on His Liberalism, and Wins…
February 13th, 2008 at 06:52pm Mark Noonan
…then it would be the first time since Johnson that a liberal actually won a national election running as a liberal.
Not saying it can’t happen, but any GOPer, given his ‘druthers, prefers to run against an out-and-out liberal than against any other sort of person…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, General Government
68 Comments
1. Casper | February 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Well, as they say, it took a Carter to get Reagan elected. It could turn out that it takes a Bush to get Obama elected. Much the way FDR was elected because of the Hoover administration.
2. Casper | February 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Part of the problem for Mccain, is that he also going to have to run against Rush and Ann and Sean. It won’t be easy running against both the far right and the far left.
3. Mark Noonan | February 13th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Casper,
Could be - we of the GOP could be heading for defeat in the fall, and the blame would naturally fall on President Bush for it, if it came down to that…and at that point you could make the argument that Bush made Obama plausible…this all based on an assumption that President Bush is as unpopular with likely voters as some assume; additionally, it assumes that all of those who are mad at President Bush amongst likely voters are all lining up behind Obama.
As for Rush, et al - I wouldn’t put too much stock in that. Rush, et al will do their sniping at McCain, but their primary target will be the Democratic nominee - no matter how much they might disagree with McCain, they are far more in opposition to all things Obama. Personally, I think they all got waaay to far out in front of themselves in sniping at McCain in the early primaries and are mostly mad that their desires/predictions didn’t come true…
4. Obama2008 | February 13th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
This is the first election wherein a liberal is guaranteed to get elected.
McCain is liberal on a good many issues.
Where he may still fail America in nominating far right ideologues to the Supreme Court as a payback should conservatives support him.
On the most important issues, Americans are liberal and progressive so it’s no surprise that a liberal will be president.
Conservatism is merely designed to conserve wealth and power in fewer hands at a terrible expense of the common good of all citizens.
People are realizing also that conservatism is ruse to get the poor and working class to support the wealthy. Chief among these false promises is that if you march in favor of the rich, you may get lucky and become rich.
Another bold face lie is that if you work hard for the man you may get to be the man someday.
Yeah, right. More like you get a pink slip and corporate bankers who raid your pension fund.
They actually convince people in the poor, rural south to vote Republican in order to stick it to Wall Street.
But with a compliant media they keep Horatio Alger myth alive.
5. Mark Noonan | February 13th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Obama2008,
The man? Are you freaking serious? In 2008 you are still speaking of “the man”? Oh, for crying out loud…if that is the level of leftwing intellect, then we’ll win in a landslide in November…
6. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I keep asking, and never get an answer—what IS “far right”?
I can name some far-right personalities who are mean and nasty—Michael Savage and Mark Levin come to mind—but their radicalness (?) seems to be personality-based and not political. By this I mean they are very intolerant of any who do not agree with them, and feel free to use insults and name-calling to express themselves.
But what IS the philosophy of the so-called “Far Right”?
As far as I can tell from comments here, anyone who is a strict originalist, regarding the Constitution, is “far right”. But how does this differ from just plain “right”, or “tepid right” or whatever you would call kinda-right.
I can define Far Left—I do it all the time. But what, exactly, is Far Right?
7. Ricorun | February 13th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Is Obama’s platform really more liberal than the one Bill Clinton ran on? My memory is a bit fuzzy, but as I recall Clinton ran a more liberal campaign than he turned out to be.
Anyway, this election is interesting in a number of ways that makes it difficult to determine how much conventional wisdom applies. For example, it will be the first time either a woman or a black is nominated for president by a major party. The other party is all but certain to nominate the oldest candidate ever. Likewise, it is all but certain that a sitting Senator will win the White House since 1960. This is also the first election since 1952 that a sitting President or Vice President hasn’t been involved. Pretty interesting, huh?
8. Obama2008 | February 13th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I only mention “the man” because it’s meaning is obvious, even if the faces and names change slightly.
9. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Mark, you are so right—this Obama2008 character is right out of the 20’s playbook for socializing America. I don’t think he missed many cliches—but I also think he is a pretty good representative of Obama in 2008.
I cracked up when I read “the man”—reminded me of the socialist organizers working the floor at the national SDS convention in Boulder back in, what, ‘68? ‘69? And they were right out of John Dos Passos’ description of the commie/ socialist organizers in the Okie camps in the 20’s.
I think the only cliche he really missed out on was “the running dogs of the capitalist system”. Gotta get some new material, O. The modern-day Red tries to hide his socialist colors behind a variety of disguises—the “uninsured” and “THE CHILDREN”.
BTW, O2008, “liberal” and “progressive” can’t accurately be used to describe the same movement, not if accuracy in definition is important. Of course, “Liberal” isn’t the same as “liberal”, either, as Liberals are the most intolerant, illiberal, folk around. And as for “PROgressive”, strictly speaking it means moving forward, hardly the stuff of the REgressive efforts of your fellow travellers, who are trying to drag the country backwards into a repeatedly-proven failure of a system.
And you are an excellent illustration of why Socialism has never succeeded—it depends too much on people like you, with your hands out, trying to get as much as you can of what other people have earned, while trying to simultaneously occupy the Higher Moral Ground by pretending that there is something wrong with being productive and that the unproductive who mooch off the system are the real good guys.
10. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Rico, get out the fuzzbuster—Clinton ran as a conservative Democrat, and then turned his coat and showed his true liberal colors.
Even Mike Rosen, conservative talk show host, talks about being taken in by Clinton, being encouraged by the move to the center he supposedly represented, by the pretense of being a Kennedy (JFK, not Teddy) kind of Dem only to be stunned by his subsequent liberal posture.
This is how Clinton won the first time—-he did not scare off Republicans, who were disenchanted with Bush 1 but who did not see Clinton as a flaming liberal who should rally them no matter how they felt about the incumbent.
11. Darva Conger | February 13th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Deleted - insults an American hero and inserts a really paranoid conspiracy theory at the same time; a pretty good two-fer.
12. Joe | February 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Almiranta — I can define Far Left—I do it all the time. But what, exactly, is Far Right?
Yep… you do it in every post. To you, the “far left” is anyone who disagrees with you.
Anyway….. in this election year where up is down and down is up, I guess it would only be apropos that a liberal DOES win the election!
13. Mark Noonan | February 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Almiranta,
Pretty much, but lets also put Obama2008 to the test:
Ok, Obama2008, pretend I’m an idiot (won’t be hard) - please define the following:
1. The Man.
2. The Jews.
3. The Blacks.
Please explain how each of them works in our society.
14. Mind Numbed Robot | February 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“Part of the problem for Mccain, is that he also going to have to run against Rush and Ann and Sean.” Casper
Casper, what you don’t realize is the fix is in. We have all gotten our orders from Rush to pretend we are against McCain, until election day. That way we can fool independents, moderates, and conservative Dems to vote for that Maverick McCain, because he’s not beholden to the conservative base.
Once McCain is elected, he has promised to declare martial law, outlaw the Democrat Party, arrest all democrat politicians in Washington, suspend constitutional guaruntees, and send all registered democrats to re-education camps which are now being built in Area 51. He will then implement his energy independence plan which invovles invasion of Canada and Mexico, and nuking Saudi Arabia Iran and Venezuela.
15. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
>>But what IS the philosophy of the so-called “Far Right”?
>>As far as I can tell from comments here, anyone who is a strict originalist, regarding the Constitution, is “far right”.
The “far right”, contrary to what they say, are NOT ’strict constructionists’. In fact, they try to ALTER the Constitution at every turn. Case in point- one of the reasons that McCain is despised by the far right is that he does not support ‘the marriage amendment’, ‘the flag-burning amendment’, or the ‘life amendment’! (What’s next? the ‘Honor Thy Father and Mother Amendment’? The ‘Keep the Sabbath Day Holy’ Amendment?) The far right gave us the Schiavo affair, are anti-stem cell research, ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed, and the like.
In fact, a strict constructionist would be akin to a Libertarian (Ron Paul) or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Both of them would argue that the Federal government has NO PLACE legislating marriage, for instance. In fact, the Constitution says nothing about marriage- nor should it. Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental one. Furthermore, both of them would argue that it’s nobody’s business whether you’re gay, or a polygamist (like Romney’s grandfather), etc. They would also argue against drug laws, prostitution laws, obscenity laws, etc (none of these were in the Constitution).
In contrast, the ‘Far Right’ believes that we are a ‘Christian Nation’ (Christ isn’t mentioned in the Constitution). What they really want is a theocracy.
16. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Clinton ran as a liberal, but governed like a Republican (even Alan Greenspan thinks so- he calls Clinton “the best Republican president we’ve had lately”)
It’s funny, though. The Republicans haven’t been running as ‘Conservatives’ for a while- witness the 2004 GOP Convention where EVERY PRIMETIME SPEAKER was a social liberal/economic conservative (Guiliani, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, etc) The Republicans realize that if they ran on what they really believed, that they would be CLOBBERED in the GE!
For instance, did Bush even mention privatizing Social Security during the campaign? NO, but when he took office he decided he had a ‘mandate’ to dismantle this popular program. Similarly, most Americans realize that Global Warming is occuring, so the GOP pretends to care about climate change (including Bush). They also pretend to care about the poor, health care, and civil rights. But as soon as they are elected, these issues are forgotten.
You may not like it, but America is much more liberal than you realize. If EVERYBODY was to vote in the GE, we would have a much more liberal government. This is part of the reason Obama is so scary to the GOP. . . he can actually mobilize large blocks of voters who have never voted before!
And, he’s going to win as a liberal and will govern as a liberal. . . Good luck to McCain and the GOP’s old, failed ideas!
17. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Joe, get a grip. I often comment on my respect for those who simply have a more-leftist point of view than I do, and I often find myself understanding how and why they feel this way. But these are not the Far Left.
The Far Left wants to make this country a Socialist State. That is the shorthand definition. There are plenty of nuances and examples and so on, but that pretty much sums it up.
At least I have a coherent point of view, with a historical perspective, which I can explain, defend, and illustrate—unlike the knee-jerk emotion-based radicals who just get off on out-nastying each other.
18. keefer | February 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
As far as I can tell from comments here, anyone who is a strict originalist, regarding the Constitution, is “far right”
No, Almiranta, according to the trolls here, anyone who’s not them is “far right.” Or, as plainjane the cow would say, we’re “neocons.”
Anyone thinking of sitting this one out if McLame is the candidate? If nothing else, think of the troops. For all their platitudes, Hillbama loathe the military, and would surrender in the war on Islamofascists in a heartbeat.
Call me a flip-flopper, but his committment to our military has swayed me. I’m for McLame now. Hillbama would damage this world beyond repair…
19. Casper | February 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
“I keep asking, and never get an answer—what IS “far right”?”
I consider the “far right” as those that consider anyone with any kind of a liberal agenda as socialist or communist.
I consider the “far left” as those that consider anyone with any kind of a conservative agenda as a Nazi or communist.
“But what IS the philosophy of the so-called “Far Right”?”
Almost anything a liberal comes up with is wrong. Almost anything a “true” conservative comes up with is right.
Philosophy of the “Far Left”.
Almost anything a conservative comes up with is wrong. Almost anything a liberal comes up with is right.
I consider you, Matt and Mark as far right. LiberalMind and USA as far left.
The problem with both ends is that neither side is willing to admit that the other side comes up with a good idea once in a while. Everything is black or white.
20. Casper | February 13th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Mark,
I guessing that Rush and friends will probably come around before the election. I’m also guessing the the democrats will fall in behind either Obama or Clinton when push comes to shove. The only thing that could prevent that would be ego, either Rush’s or Clinton’s.
21. Ricorun | February 13th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Here is the 1992 Democratic Party platform. It sounds pretty liberal to me. More to the point, it doesn’t sound appreciably different in overall approach to Obama’s.
22. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
A good example of a conservative would be Senator Barry Goldwater. Almost none of the allegedly conservative voices today are conservative in any coherent sense. Rather they are given over to slavish devotions to personalities such as President Ronald Reagan and/or the pursuit of concentrating power in the Executive Branch (just so long as the White House has a Republican occupant). So, most conservatives today are actually authoritarians who want a Daddy-state built around militarism.
23. Eli Blake | February 13th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
As a Liberal, I’m frankly glad that Obama is running as a liberal.
Frankly I’m sick of Democrats who have been so cowed by you folks on the right that they do stupid things like voting for the Iraq war or with conservatives on legislation like NCLB or the FISA reauthorization they passed today just so they won’t get called ‘Liberal.’
I WANT a Liberal to start calling himself a Liberal. Frankly the last Democratic candidate to do so was Mike Dukakis, and even though he got beat, every vote that was cast for him was cast for a Liberal. With America changing since then, I’m more than happy to run a Liberal and see what happens.
That’s despite the fact that you aren’t running a real conservative, I’d much rather be running a Liberal against Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney just to show how much things have changed since 1988.
24. neocon | February 13th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
>>Almost none of the allegedly conservative voices today are conservative in any coherent sense. - Diana<<
I really am amused at how our resident liberals have their finger on the pulse of “conservatism” as it relates to the current GOP without realizing how far left their own party has gone. The fact that McCain appeals more to moderates than strict conservatives should greatly concern you. Obama and Clinton have been trying to outflank each other on the left during the primary making it that much more difficult to appeal to the center during the GE. Add in the racial and gender divide and they could have a real problem come Novemeber. Meanwhile, being that the GOP candidate is all but determined, McCain has that much more time to lock in the independents and moderates, which already are a large part of his base, while the Dem candidates continue to pander to the left. And as we all know, it’s the center that determines elections.
25. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
coulterfan, your point of view is so skewed it is impossible to find a point at which one might begin to untangle it.
Take your wackadoo spin on conservatives vis-a-vis the Constitution. You complain that “…they try to ALTER the Constitution at every turn. ..” and then you go on to complain that when they do want to “alter” the Constitution they insist—DAMN them!!!!—on trying to do it via the means set forth within the Constitutuion!!!! Duh.
There is nothing wrong with wanting certain things to be the law of the land. But the strict constitutionalists want the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, and when and if they want a change, they want that change to be implemented according to the Constitution, AS IT IS WRITTEN. It is the Liberals who simply run roughshod over the Constitution, AS IT IS WRITTEN, and try to do backdoor changes, bypassing the amendment process, overriding the legislative process, merely by having appointed, unelected, unaccountable, members of the judiciary simply declare the law to be what they think it should be.
You sure managed to get a lot of crap in your tirade, which is a pretty clear indication of where you are coming from—slams against those who wanted Terri Schiavo to have the protections the Constitution should have provided her, an ad hominem (and totally irrelevant) attack on Mitt Romney, you just pack it in, don’t you?
This kind of free-for-all mudslinging seems to be a staple of the rabid radical Left.
There is not and never has been any “anti-stem-cell research”. There has not even been an effort to stop people from killing off unborn children so their body parts can be used for experimentation. There has merely been an effort to make these experiments privately rather than publicly funded.
Abstinence was once taught to nearly all children as a moral and practical issue, with the benefits ranging from protection from sexually transmitted diseases to protection from unwanted pregnancy to various religious and spritual benefits. While you may find that rampant and uncontrolled sexual behavior is more to your liking, and you may sneer at those who hold more traditional views, that does not make you correct. It is telling that you are so offended by abstinence.
You are right that marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is ‘privacy’ or the right to same, much less the ‘right’ to kill off inconvenient human beings based on their chronological age. This is precisely the argument against Roe v Wade.
However, the Constitution clearly states that if a large majority of Americans feel strongly enough about an issue to go through extensive labors to get that issue passed as an amendment to the Constitution, they are Constitutionally allowed to do so.
Originalists think that Roe v Wade was always a state issue, always should have been. Originalists think that if enough Americans think human life should be at the whim of the carrying organism (which can hardly be qualified to be called a “mother” if it chooses to end that life) they do have the right to pass such an amendment to the Constitution. That is a far cry from what actually happened, when a few agenda-driven justices decided to impose their personal views on our Constitution, to discover an “emanation” of a “penumbra” of an unstated “right” and in so doing overturn properly legislated law.
If marriage is a “..religious institution, not a governmental one…” then why can people get married in governmental (non-religious) ceremonies and why do they have to go through “governmental” processes to end the marriage? Of a long list of simply silly statements from you,this has to be the silliest.
The insistence on stripping away a long-held, significant, and traditional definition of marriage just to meet the narcissistic needs of a few has its roots in disdain of religion. When two people have the legal freedom to enter into a contract which is the legal equivalent of marriage, with the same protections and restrictions, the demand to hijack a specific term to define it is infantile, selfish, and destructive. And if enough Americans feel this way, and if enough Americans want to protect the traditional definition that means so much to them, then they can MAKE this a Constitutional issue, by going through the Constitutionally-mandated processes to do so.
Until that is done, it is, according to the 10th Amendment, a state issue.
Anyone who can read and process information knows that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, and that God was an integral part of every aspect of its creation. The Constitution says that we are Constitutionally allowed the freedom to worship as we please, and further dictates that Congress shall establish no religion. Haters of religion, particularly of Christian religions, can whine all they want about the FACT that the roots of the country are firmly planted in Christianity. Go ahead. No one cares.
But please spare us the goofball whine about Christians wanting to create a “theocracy”. At least try to learn what the word means.
Here are a few definitions.
Rule by religion. A government that is based on theistic beliefs. Iran is a theocracy
Any government in which the leaders of the government are also the leaders of the religion and they rule as representatives of the deity.
a form of state political organization in which the government is based on religious offices.
A government controlled by religious leaders. John Calvin founded a theocracy in Geneva.
is derived from the two Greek words (Theos) meaning “God” and (cratein) meaning “to rule.” Theocracy is the civil rule of God. The government of the people of Israel until the inauguration of Saul is termed a theocracy.
A government based on religious beliefs. The head of the government is generally considered to rule by divine guidance and may be worshiped as a god.
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A form of government in which the society is ruled by religious leaders
a system of government in which the ruler is believed to be a god, or to have been chosen by God to rule
a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
the belief in government by divine guidance
……………………………..
Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is a philosophy based on the belief that Jesus (”Christ”) was the Son of God and came to earth to redeem humanity.
There are approximately 1600 religions based on this philosophy. Each of these is different. None of these religions has the slightest chance of ever reaching ascendancy over the others. Therefore, none of them has the slightest chance of ever meeting any of the definitions of
‘theocracy’ I have come across—even if any of them wanted to, which is of course not the case.
The inability to see the difference between acknowledgement that a nation was based on Christian principles by men who believed in Christianity as their guiding philosophy, no matter what their religion, and a desire to have that government ruled by any religion is typical of the anti-religionist rhetoric which tries to pass itself off as mere political analysis.
Hate religion, hate Christianity, all you want, but puhLEEZE stop your incessant whining about this phantom “theocracy” you love to obsess about.
And as for the claim that Clinton ran as a liberal but governed as a conservative, that simply flies in the face of reality. The most conservative thing he ever did was finally, FINALLY, agree to stop vetoing the welfare reform acts passed by the Republican Congress. He ws not as successful as he wanted to be in implenting the Socialist agendas he and Hillary had dreamed of imposing, but it’s not because he had a conservative point of view.
But then Clinton aplogists are, by definition, pretty loose with their definitions and very willing to rewrite history.
26. Ricorun | February 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
neocon: The fact that McCain appeals more to moderates than strict conservatives should greatly concern you.
What IS “strict conservative”? By the way, how did you come up with your nickname, neocon? Is it meant to be descriptive?
27. js | February 13th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition”
(2 Thessalonians 2:3 )
28. Tractatus | February 13th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
While you may find that rampant and uncontrolled sexual behavior is more to your liking, and you may sneer at those who hold more traditional views, that does not make you correct. It is telling that you are so offended by abstinence.
No, it’s the fact that abstinence-only education has been a failure that makes him correct. It is telling that you’re so offended by facts.
Christianity is not a religion.
So all these Christians are going to shut up about “religious persecution” and stop claiming that their anti-gay rhetoric is merely religious teaching, then?
29. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Diana’s finally out of the closet—the Socialist closet, that is. After all that pretense, for a while, of trying to be rational and objective, her true (red) colors are showing, and so is her fanatical devotion to the hard-core Leftist manifesto, complete with talking points and illustrations.
This election is going to come down to Americans choosing between democracy and Socialism, whether they know it or not. The smoke and mirrors of, for example, Hoping For Change and Changing to Hope and Believing in Hope and Change, ad nauseum, might fool some people, but when it comes down to the basics, it is not going to be about whether or not we should fight here or there or anywhere, it is going to be about how big and powerful and intrusive and bossy the State should be.
The Dianas, Joes, coulterfans, et al, will be rooting for the reddest government we can possibly have, for the strongest State, for the collective over the individual. And Spook and AAR and kjs and navydad and keefer and many of the rest of us will be fighting for the rights of the individual, which we believe to be part of the very fabric of the original United States and its founding beliefs.
This is why one of the funniest things I have ever read is Diana’s “So, most conservatives today are actually authoritarians who want a Daddy-state built around militarism.” Boy, talk about a feeble grip on reality—clearly she wouldn’t know it if it bit her in the butt. But then I think radicals are being fed that line, in an effort to spin the passion for a totalitarian State which tells us which doctor we can use, how much money we can keep, what kind of car we can drive, what kind of light bulb we can use, etc etc, into the conviction that it is the OTHER side, which is fighting it at every turn, that is the one striving for government control over our lives.
It is soooo Orwellian, bu then it seems to work with Diana.
30. bongoman | February 13th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
29. Almiranta:
Yeah, ’cause if Obama or Hillary get in, they are going to do away with elections. Bye bye democracy.
Sheesh, talk about fear mongering…
31. js | February 13th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
A terrible tragedy is going on in Kenya.
It turns out that Raila Odinga, the communist, who has the support of the muslims who are killing people in Kenya- is Obama’s cousin.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285292746454291
32. Ricorun | February 13th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
js: It turns out that Raila Odinga, the communist, who has the support of the muslims who are killing people in Kenya- is Obama’s cousin.
So is Dick Cheney. Lol!
33. js | February 13th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
So why did Odinga claim to be Obama’s cousin?
Odinga is the one trying to install sharia in Kenya. Obama supports him, and Kenya’s duely elected president called Obama Odinga’s stooge.
So if we have a Presidential nominee, who is all for installing sharia in an African nation (the nation that Obama’s father is from, Odinga and Obama are from the same tribe), why does Obama claim to be Christian?
Somethings really wrong here.
Really Wrong.
34. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Tract, you are so full of it.
Of the 1600-plus Christian religions, many of them are suffering persecution because of their beliefs. And the prejudice is against Christianity in general, with little or no bias for or against those who believe in the Virgin Birth, for example, or the infallibility of the Pope.
Would you be happier if persecution were more clearly identified? Would it make a difference if you were to know that THESE people are Lutherans and THOSE people are Methodists and THEY are Baptists? They are all Christians, and they are all persecuted in various ways, in various places.
If you scorn religious people, then admit it. It’s this posturing as some kind of intellectually superior being, or of really just seeking truth or fairness or some such bull, that is so bogus. And please don’t try to pretend that your hatred of religion is based on some higher motive, such as defense of homosexuals. You hate, you love to hate, you wallow in hatred, you glory in hatred, and you just look for hooks on which to hang your hatred. Ain’t you special…..
And look at poor coulterfan, trying to convince us that there were NOT fewer illegitimate births when abstinence was considered important. Yeah, right. It took rampant promiscuous sexual activity to really bring that statistic down, didn’t it? Not to mention how indiscriminate sex has nearly wiped out venereal diseases, especially when compared to the number of STDs only a few decades ago.
Before we were killing off inconvenient babies, before we started to claim that rutting like animals was proof of higher moral and intellectual development, the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies was a very small percentage of that number today. Yet promoting abstinence had nothing to do with it? You true believers are just—unbelievable.
35. phnx | February 13th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
As a Liberal, I’m frankly glad that Obama is running as a liberal. Eli
Eli, we would prefer that he drop the liberal facade and run as the Marxist that he is.
36. Casper | February 13th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
So that means that Raila Odinga is Dick Cheney’s cousin.
37. js | February 13th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The idea was simply to have the Luo tribe, mostly Muslims, to take over Kenya from the inheritors of colonial power, the Kikuyu, and bring the country under Sharia law, kick out the Western investors in the nation that had made it one of the most stable nations in Africa, and supplant those Western investors with wealthy Arab oil money.It all failed.Then Odinga yelled election fraud, and put his Luo Islamofascists into the streets of Nairobi to “protest” by murdering, raping and maiming Kikuyu people, including the recent burning alive of a church full of Christians.
38. js | February 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
What about Obama’s trip to Kenya, when he met with his cousin?
39. Tractatus | February 13th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Awww, you mad, Almiranty? You obviously are–you forgot to call me a socialist. Poor little thing, you can’t even remember your own invective. Keep up the projection, though (”You hate, you love to hate, you wallow in hatred, you glory in hatred, and you just look for hooks on which to hang your hatred”). You’re losing it, and I’m loving it.
40. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Almiranta is a classic case of the dispirited true-believer. She likes to tell her tale of how she came to her senses from being a committed leftist hippie and now being even more committed to using her all-powerful knowledge of the tricks and traps of the Reds, the Socialists and the Commies to read minds and describe what someone like me thinks. Thanks, Almiranta. It saves me so such much mental effort for you to tell me what I believe from the comfy confines of your judgment seat rather than my actually having the thoughts occur within the privacy of my own consciousness.
41. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
bongo, from your post I have to think that your name is reallly bong-o. ‘Cause it sounds like you are smokin’ something.
It’s OK if you don’t know what socialism is. That’s just fine. But please don’t drag out your ignorance and parade it around so proudly. It’s kind of embarassing to watch you strut your stupidity.
In what universe does Socialism automatically mean no elections?
The silliness quotient just keeps rising, as more and more of you jostle to join in to show just how dopey YOU are. But don’t bother—we get it.
“Fear mongering”… Sheesh. You people are so politically ignorant, you don’t even know the most basic political definitions, but you don’t let that slow you down when you see a chance to jump in, ignorance blazing, to make a non-point.
Hey, if you are going to be a proud member of the radical Left, you ought to at least learn what Left means.
42. Casper | February 13th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Almiranta,
What is your definition of Socialism?
43. bongoman | February 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
41. Almiranta:
Excuse me, but you were the one making the (false) dichotomy. You implied that voting for Obama is not a vote for democracy.
44. js | February 13th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
and then there was this little thing about Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago
the one that Obama belongs too
TUCC is drenched in an exclusivist, anti-American, black racial consciousness. Literally everything it cares about, it defines in terms of an all-embracing blackness. It defines ethics in terms of a “Black” ethics. It identifies itself solely and exclusively with Africa, which it calls the “cradle of civilization.”
So, we have Obama, on one had, promotes sharia law, and Islam, in Kenya, who took a trip to endorse his cousin in 2006, and criticised the duely elected Kenya Government. Then, when his cousin lost, the Muslims went militant, killing lots and lots of people…alot of non muslim people….
and then,
Obama, in a radicalized anti white church, that espouses prejudice and hatred for non blacks?
This guys off his rocker if he seriously thinks anyone should vote for him.
Obama to the slamma, he lied to the demoncrats. Bad, bad Obama.
45. Tractatus | February 13th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Thanks, Almiranta. It saves me so such much mental effort for you to tell me what I believe from the comfy confines of your judgment seat rather than my actually having the thoughts occur within the privacy of my own consciousness.
But you have to admit, it’s informative. Like, I bet you didn’t realize that you’re a rabid socialist until Almiranta came along and informed you of it, right?
46. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Casper, I just hope you are teaching those fine young Wyoming people something very objective, like math.
You say “I consider the “far right” as those that consider anyone with any kind of a liberal agenda as socialist or communist. ” And then you categorize me, and others, as “far right”. Duh. You have probably seen my many posts regarding my respect for, and even understanding of, many liberal tenets.
You may even have read one of many comments I have made on the evolution, or devolution, from liberal to Liberal.
So obviously fact doesn’t enter into your defining process.
I define Far Left as those who do want to establish a socialist form of government in the United States. This is an exaggerated position, compared to those who just want Socialism Lite, just a little bit taken away here and there to fund some social projects, as opposed to the conservative position of creating opportunity for people but not creating outcome for people.
Using other peoples’ money, and the power of the State, to implement social programs or changes does fall on the overall spectrum of Socialism—but it is a broad spectrum, and it is possible to be on it but not to a deeply committed, totally Socialist, degree.
To me, “right” means a belief in a free market system, in the power and right of the individual, in equal opportunity rather than an effort to guarantee equal outcome, in the ability to profit from ones’ efforts, skills, and talents, and in this country in the close adherence to the Constitution, as it was written. That means a belief in small government, particularly in small federal government.
I don’t see much variation along the spectrum of the right. While it is possible to want SOME socialist ideals in ones’ government, once one has moved across the line to small and limited government and free market, there aren’t many shadings of those positions. So to me, “Far Right” would mean really really REALLY wanting small government—unless you think it means not wanting any government at all.
To me, the only Far Right folks I can think of are those types who really don’t think there should be any government—and we tend to write them off as kooks, and not consider nomitating them to run for the presidency.
I had hoped for a real, thoughtful, pondering of the true meaning of Far Right, and maybe even a rational discussion, but I expected—and got—a facile and superficial bumper sticker comment or two, complete with implied insults.
But then a serious consideration of my question would have required a serious evaluation of where one stands on either spectrum, Left or Right, and I don’t think our Liberals want to engage in that kind of introspection, preferring the fantasy that they represent the majority.
47. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Tractacus,
You’re right. I always had this nagging sense of unease that I always put down to not getting my whites their whitest and my colors bright when doing the laundry. Now, I know it’s actually my desire to be subservient to the State.
48. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Diana,
Well, it really just comes down to how entirely predictable you on the left are - we know what you are going to say on an issue long before you say it. Its not so much a matter of mind reading, but of understanding the mindlessness of leftism…
49. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Eli,
We shall see, shan’t we? But, perhaps not - it will take some effort on our part to get Obama to actually be nailed down on his liberalism…heck, he’s even editing his speeches on his website in order to excise the more overtly liberal parts of them (more on that tomorrow).
50. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Mark,
As opposed to the mindlessness of fake conservatism? Quick, what’s my leftist position on the issue of U.S. participation in the International Space Station?
51. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Somebody get Diana a saucer of milk……
At least I have a historical perspective, as well as a personal one, on which to base my opinions and beliefs.
And my philosophy has evolved from being what I call an “unexamined liberal”, or one who just went along with the crowd because, for one thing, being a iberal was the short cut to the Higher Moral Ground. I didn’t have to know anything, understand anything, study anything, I just had to be FOR some things and AGAINST others, and I was home free.
So I was FOR peace, and AGAINST war, and that made me better somehow that those who fought. Damn, that was easy!! So I was FOR feeding the hungry—–felt sooo good about myself!—-and AGAINST greed.
And so on.
While Diana tries to work up a righteous sneer, it is obvious that she has never had the benefit of being on both sides of the politcial spectrum. It’s a valuable experience.
And I prefer my political position now, mostly because it is, finally, the product of a lot of education, a lot of soul-searching, a lot investigation, and a lot of sometimes painful reflection on what a pompous little prig I was when I was judging everyone on such superficial and self-serving criteria.
Oh, I still think war is horrible—but I have the historical perspective to understand that if we don’t have people willing to fight, and willing to take responsibility for fighting, we will be overtaken by those who have no such scruples.
I still think hunger and famine are horrible and should be countered at every opportunity, but I now subscribe to the “teach a man to fish” school of combating hunger, and believe that handouts, over a long period of time, erode a man’s dignity.
I would say that my political philsophy now is more pragmatic, more nuanced, more informed, more demanding of personal responsibility, more optimistic, and a better match for who I am. And I would say that, finally, my politics are based on a strong personal philosophy, and not the upside-down pyramid they used to be, where they started with emotion and then had some philosophy grafted on to try to justify or support the emotion.
Over time I developed the theory that many people experience that upside-down-pyramid type of political structure, which begins with emotion and then has a lot of philosophy and psuedo-philosophy added onto it to try to justify the conclusions already reached via emotion.
When I test certain people here, I find that theory supported much more often than not.
Diana can snicker all she wants to. Obviously, she likes to feel superior to others, and if arrogantly dismissing what someone else relates about her own political journey lets her feel a glimmer of smug superiority,then more power to her.
bong-o, you really need to pay more attention. I said that I think Obama is a Socialist. I also have said that Clinton is a Socialist. You see, I define political positions and then try to see where different candidates fit into those positions. Based solely on what they say about where they would like to lead this country, I consider them Socialists.
Many socialists are elected. When a country declares its preference for a socialist model, it is inclined to elect a socialist government. It’s been a long time since a socialist, or even a communist, has abolished elections. Even Fidel and Hugo get elected. No one has ever claimed that a socialist elected to the presidency of the United States would then halt elections. They never have in the past.
You are the one claiming that socialism cannot co-exist with democracy. If you define ‘democracy’ as a model in which leaders are elected and laws are legislated through elected lawmakers, then of COURSE one can have a democracy which is socialist in nature. More socialist-minded people than free-market people in any country will elect a more socialist government.
These wild leaps of false assumptions don’t do much to advance a discussion.
52. Jeremiah | February 14th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Quick, what’s my…
Meeeeow!
–Jeremiah–
53. keefer | February 14th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Thanks, Almiranta. It saves me so such much mental effort
Mental effort? You have no mind, cow.
Somebody get Diana a saucer of milk……
She can pour her own…
54. weefee | February 14th, 2008 at 7:40 am
JS,
The Kikuyu are not completely innocent they have also carried out horrific attacks. It was a political situation that has turned into tribal division. If as is claimed and suspected Kibaki rigged the election then Odinga should be in power regardless of whether you personally like it. It is up to Kenyans to decide not you.
It is irrelevant whether Obama comes from the same tribe, it doesn’t mean that he supports the violence used by Odinga. I’m a Campbell and I don’t condone what happened at the massacre of Glen Coe. As he has a Kenyan father he should be horrified as are most Kenyans at what is taking place in Kenya. The issue in Kenya is not just ethnicity, it is mainly focused on who you voted for rather than which tribe you belong to.
Christianity is the main religion in Kenya (the last time I checked) thus forcing Sharia law on people is unlikely. The areas worse affected such as the Rift Valley have diverse populations with many smaller tribes such as the Maasi (who have suffered at the hands of the Kikuyu), where land ownership often causes problems.
Do not portray this as a Muslim versus Christian/non-muslim problem because it is not. First and foremost it is politcal problem that has become mixed up with ethnic divisons. Secondly do not assume Kibaki actually won the election because it is suspected that it was rigged (badly), in Arap Moi’s day people wouldn’t have known they were rigged. Kibaki is no angel and has been accused of favouring the Kikuyu peoples over the other numerous peoples in Kenya and corruption.
55. weefee | February 14th, 2008 at 7:43 am
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-259732/Kenya
56. js | February 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
weewee,
You are very far from the truth. Islams conquest of Kenya goes back to the 8th century, and there has been islamic laws enforced there right up until today. Even under Brittish colonialization Kenyans adhered to thier own courts, which applied the customary sharia law.
Only since 1967 has sharia been only volutary, and the state still fields the Islamic Court for that purpose.
If you think the Christian populations march in the name of Jesus to wipe out the Muslim populations, you are also wrong. Thats never happened, your head is filled with hogwash.
The main point, which you walked by and didnt even notice, is about Obama.
Thats his cousin leading the Muslims to slaughter the Christians. That so called Christian Church speaks racism from its very core, defying brotherly love as taught by Jesus. Barak Obama is dreaming if he thinks America will elect him President. This is good for the Republicans. It really didnt matter who the Democrats picked, between Obama and Hillary, they are both losers.
57. westmich | February 14th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Mostly listening today, but wanted to weigh in with a couple of corrections.
Almiranta –
Christianity is a religion. It is one of the three major religions in the world. Methodists, Lutherans (which I am), Baptists, etc… are denominations.
Are we confusing being conservative with being a Libertarian? I don’t think there is any movement that believes in no government with the exception of Anarchists. I think the biggest distinction between the Left and the Right is one believes the government should pass laws regulating economics so everyone gets a fair outcome and the other one believes the government should pass laws on social issues for morality sake. Libertarians don’t believe there should be either – they don’t want the government anymore involved in their business as they do their bedroom.
58. phnx | February 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
“one believes the government should pass laws regulating economics so everyone gets a fair outcome” westrich
Change fair to Equal and you have described the dems
59. coulterfan | February 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I see why your moniker is almiranta!
Spewing paragraph after paragraph of lies, distortions, and misunderstandings certainly doesn’t make you look intelligent. . . just desperate.
The fact is that the Constitution was a very well thought out, carefully crafted document. It does have a process for amendments, but it is extremely difficult to do so. The amendments being introduced by the ‘far-right’ have zero chance of passing and are being used as pure political ploys!
You may think that there is no ‘right to privacy’ in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court (which, you know, interprets the laws according to the Constitution) disagrees with you. Inherent in the fourth amendment is a right to privacy and it’s somewhat ironic that those who insist no such right exists (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Larry Craig, etc) are the FIRST to run to it when their personal lives are exposed! The ACLU has defended Limbaugh and Craig on these grounds- it’s somewhat ironic, isn’t it?
Look, it’s clear that you are very emotional about these issues. But emotion should not cloud your judgement, as it clearly has. For instance, insisting that abortion should be a ’states rights’ issues, but then insisting that the Feds should intervene in the Schiavo case is enormously hypocritical (the Schiavo case had already been decided by the state of FL- her parents had not won a SINGLE lawsuit out of more than 20. . . and you think that liberals like lawsuits!) It is NOT conservative in any sense of the word, but driven by the religious zealots in your party.
>>The Dianas, Joes, coulterfans, et al, will be rooting for the reddest government we can possibly have, for the strongest State, for the collective over the individual.
There you go again! Your ignorance of history and willingness to use McCarthyist politics is certainly impressive! And then in the same rant, you call me a ‘Clinton Apologist’. Now, if Greenspan (a Goldwater style Republican) thinks that Clinton’s economic policy was ‘More Republican’ than Bush. . . well, doesn’t it logically follow that Bush is even more of a commie than Clinton? I mean, he signed the Medicare drug act, vastly expanded the size and scope of government, allows political prisoners to be held indefinately, and has instituted an enormous domestic-spying program.
You are clearly making the same mistakes you accuse others of- conflating communism with socialism. In fact, socialist democracies are the norm in Europe and they are ‘free’ societies in nearly every sense of the word. Indeed, in some respects they are even more free (legalized drugs like marijuana, no domestic survelliance programs, universal access to medical care, etc). In contrast, every ‘Communist’ society has been a dictatorship (a Marxist means to an ends). Although Marxism’s ostensible goal is to end government (and is often compared to anarchy because of the concept of ‘dissolution of the state’), this is a utopian fantasy. Dictators do not give up power once it is seized and citizens’ individual rights suffer enormously. I think you better inform yourself so that you don’t look like an idiot comparing Canada, England, France, Germany, etc to Stalinist Russia!
There are far too many delusions, misconceptions, and poorly thought through arguments in your rants to address them all. It is a fact that Romney’s grandfather was a polygamist, for instance, and I would argue from a Constitutional standpoint that that was his right. In fact, the Mormon religion originally required polygamy, so forbidding it seems to be a violation of the First Amendment, does it not? Further, you talk about ‘killing’ babies to harvest their parts! That is CRAZY- you DO realize that the debate centered around frozen embryos which are destroyed anyway, don’t you?!?!? Nobody ever talked about killing anyone to harvest parts, that is delusional and histrionic! If one is truly against stem cell research, one must also oppose ‘fertility clinics’ which routinely create more embryos than they can use.
‘Conservatives’ claim they believe in small governement, when in fact the opposite is true. Not only do they believe it is okay to conduct searches and seizures without a warrant, but they want to be involved in the most intimate details of a person’s life! They want to decide what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, what items are allowed to be purchased (look at FL and TX laws against sex toys and videos), they want to force a brain-dead person to be kept on life support indefinately (Tom DeLay’s family pulled the feeding tube from his father, but he wanted to interject himself into another family’s decision!?!?), etc, etc. This is the biggest, most invasive Federal government we’ve ever had!
I could easily engage in your tactics and call you and your party ‘Fascists’ (which is, after all, the control of government by corporations). However, I don’t see any point in such inflammatory rhetoric. Get real, pal. . . we’re all Americans and neither party is that extreme! When things swing too far in one direction, the pendulum always swings back the other direction. I, for one, would have it no other way. Unlike Rove, DeLay, etc- I would NOT be happy with ’single-party rule’! I know that power corrupts and that we need opposing political parties to keep us from veering too far in one direction.
60. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Now that’s rich coming from Almiranta who simply adores excoriating others through the learned process of calling them names and comparing their imagined beliefs unfavorably to her own vastly superior knowledge of the world as in, for example, Comment # 41. The word for this is, of course, pride, of which St. Thomas Aquinas wrote
The reality is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Governments exist because there is no perfection in human relations. Laws and regulations exist as the buffer between the competing attempts to game any given system by the greed and contempt of all the participants. That is the essential principle underlying the separation of powers in the Constitution and that is why the arrogation of power by the Executive Branch over the last seven years, so heartily approved in these pages, puts the lie to any notion that it arises from any “conservative” impulse.
61. Canadian Observer | February 14th, 2008 at 10:51 am
59. coulterfan | February 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
You have managed to offer a factual response with calm intelligence to posts containing neither.
Congratulations, coulterfan. Well done.
62. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Well, Diana, when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
And you’re wrong.
Way too many factual errors to address individually, but for one thing, I have NEVER confabulated communism with socialism. Don’t invent things with which to excoriate me. You do just fine based on your irrational dislike of me and your personal biases.
You kind of sound almost reasonable and then you veer off into radical cant, such as the hysterical and false claims of the paragraph beginning “‘Conservatives’ claim they believe in small governement…” Each and every sentence is, simply, false.
I don’t know if you actually believe the stuff you post, or if you are, as I have always suspected, a plant whose job is to sound superficially intelligent while promulgating the lies of the radical Left. But it doesn’t matter—-the sheer volume of your inaccuracies, coupled with your venomous reaction to anyone who stands up to you and presents fact to counter your fiction, is telling enough.
And don’t condescendingly assign some random emotions to me.
You are, simply, wrong. I can’t recall any “fact” you have ever presented whch would hold up under examination, from your wackadoo assertions that people wanted to keep Terri Schaivo alive ‘indefinitely’ to your near-religious invocation of the name of Satan, known to you Lefties as McCarthy, to the rest of your rant.
The only way you can argue at all is to invent straw men, such as your assertion that I “conflate” communism and socialism, that I have “compared” ‘..Canada, England, France, Germany, etc to Stalinist Russia..’ and so on, and then argue against the foolishness of your own inventions.
Diana, you have your own peculiar view of the world. I happen to find it distasteful. I find it distasteful to throw out a comment on the polygamy of Romney’s grandfather, and even more so to then wrap yourself in the Constitution and pretend you were not trying to throw a little mud on the man. At least have the moral courage to stand up and admit that you took the opportunity to toss in a comment that might make some people think less of him, or of his religion.
But then you didn’t have the moral courage to admit the accuracy of the monicker “Diana the Red”, assuming instead some kind of insult inherent in the reference instead of a simple identification of your political position. Instead, you pulled a Hillary, bit your lip, choked back tears, and invoked the emotion of (sniffle sniffle..) BEING CALLED A NAME!!!.
Yeah. Red. You shout the catechism of the Red loud and clear—why deny the nomenclature?
I find your efforts, well-crafted as they are, to sway others though the repetition of half-truths, out-and-out lies, and hysterical emotion, to be distasteful.
In short, you represent pretty much all that I dislike about the well-organized footsoldiers of the truly radical Left. I see in your posts no respect for truth, but merely a determination to “win” any argument, and I see an organized assault on conservatism that is unusual for the average emotion-swayed follower.
This is just my intuition speaking here, but I have never gotten the impression that you are, as an individual, so passionately defending your own cherished views as much as working very very hard to accomplish a goal, which is to cut down conservative discussion. Which is why, when it comes to your own posts, I see them as overt lies more than simple misinformation, such as that spouted by even the coulterfan and CO.
Too bad your posts are so fact-deficient. For every person moved by your passionate, albeit bogus, rhetoric, thrilled by your attacks on the evil foe of conservatism, someone is going to look at the ridiculous means you have to use to gain that advantage and wonder, as I started to when I started to question Leftism, why—if the movement is so good—it has to depend on lies.
63. Tractatus | February 14th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
what a pompous little prig I was when I was judging everyone on such superficial and self-serving criteria.
You meant to say “am” and “am,” not “was” and “was.” Honest mistake, I’m sure–tenses can be tricky.
And don’t condescendingly assign some random emotions to me.
Me-ow! Saucer of milk for you!
64. js | February 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Respect these people.
Democrats are some of the most patriotic Americans there are.
Republicans just die and that it, its over.
Democrats come back, even after they die, and keep voting.
Thats patriotic. Give credit where credit is due!!
65. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Almiranta,
What can I say. You want to take me to the metaphorical woodshed because “[W]hen you’re wrong, you’re wrong.” The only problem for your tirade against me is that almost everything you attributed to me was written by coulterfan. Gee, why do I feel like Harry Whittington about now?
66. SteaM | February 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Almiranta,
You need a hug!
I’d do it but you are not a tree and as a “lib” I only hug trees, minorities, and polar bears.
67. DM | February 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
”I don’t know if you actually believe the stuff you post, or if you are, as I have always suspected, a plant whose job is to sound superficially intelligent while promulgating the lies of the radical Left.” - Almiranta
I second that statement.
68. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
DM has seconded Almiranta’s statement that she doesn’t know. Wait. Maybe, DM is seconding that he or she doesn’t know. Hmm