Posts with the tag 'liberalism'
Being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver states clearly the need for injecting faith into politics:
HH: Now Archbishop, let’s dive into the book. Again, for the benefit of people tuning in, it’s Render Unto Caesar: Serving The Nation By Living Our Catholic Beliefs In Public Life. And I want to emphasize, it’s not just for Catholics, though that’s obviously the intent of this. I was trying to figure out your motive, and then I came across a quote from a Vietnamese bishop, later made a cardinal, which was, “The greatest failure in leadership is for the leader to be afraid to speak and act as leader.” Is that part of the motive, Archbishop?
CC: Well, I have a responsibility as a bishop to clearly proclaim the Gospel in its entirety, even when people don’t want me to do that, and even when it’s difficult. So I wouldn’t claim to be particularly courageous, but I feel responsible. And if I don’t speak on the issues that I think the Lord calls me to speak, I feel guilty about that. So for me to be quiet on these issues would have been a harder burden for me to carry, perhaps, than speaking about it. Actually, I mentioned two reasons why I wrote the book. One is some Catholic political folks asked me to, people who ran for office, and were having struggles because of that. But more importantly, I’ve grown tired of so many people in our culture saying to believers that they ought to be quiet, that there’s no place in the public square for the voice of faith. I wanted to make a distinction between separation of Church and state, and separating our faith from our politics. You can embrace the concept of separation of Church and state, but that’s not at all the same thing as separating our faith from our actions, from our political actions.
Bravo, Archbishop! All of the people must be allowed to bring their beliefs into the public square and be allowed argue that their worldview should be adopted, in whole or in part, in law and custom. What the secularists of today are trying to do - especially through such things as the ACLU’s war on Christmas - is to say that the believer, especially the Christian believer, must check his beliefs that door to politics. This attitude is unjust, un-American and, fundamentally, a fascist point of view, and it must be fought against tooth and nail.
I don’t have a right to insist that my fellow citizens worship in the Catholic Church or believe any of the dogmas of the Church. We are free in our consciences. But it is not an imposition of my religion if I convince a constitutional majority of my fellow citizens to enact into law some thing which also happens to be in accordance with Catholic teaching. If what I advocate seems good and true and appears to meet some need identified by the citizenry and the resultant law is enacted under whatever constitutional reguirements prove necessary, then all I’ve done is creat a law - not established a religion or imposed a particular religion on everyone.
Outside of that, I also argue that our secularists are not just wrong to attempt this separation of faith and politics, but are also foolish. The plain fact of the matter is that our way of life is built upon a Judeo-Christian base. The fundamental concept that we, as individuals, are valuable and have endowed rights is a Judeo-Christian concept - cut our politics off from its wellsprings and it will dry up and die. At bottom, if you wish to live your life as an agnostic secularist, you desperately need the cooperation of believers who sustain the concepts which allow you to live as you do.
In our faith we find our true political beliefs, and as long as our political beliefs are grounded in our faith, so they will be healthy and beneficial to the world. Seperate the two and faith will continue to thrive, but politics will die - and with it many of the liberties we cherish.
Tags: Archbishop Charles Chaput, Catholic Church, Christianity, church and state, Judeo-Christian Civilization, liberalism
August 21st, 2008
Stop. And. Think.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Dueling delegations pitting Ron Paul’s Nevada supporters against those of John McCain vow to take their fight to the Republican National Convention.
That’s just one sign that the outsider, Internet-fueled movement led by the feisty Republican congressman from Texas remains afloat in the wake of McCain’s victory in the GOP primaries.
In the libertarian-leaning West, where Paul’s message of distrust of the federal government and ardent individualism played particularly well, there is talk of Republicans straying from McCain. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr has emerged as a favorite alternative for Paul activists, followed by Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Even if the numbers of such dissenters are small, in tight contests in key Western states they could spoil McCain’s chances, experts say.
"In Nevada, there’s absolutely enough to have an effect on the election," said Chuck Muth, a leading conservative activist in a state in which early polls show McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama in a statistical tie.
"I think that you will see not just Libertarians who always vote for the Libertarian candidate but conservative Republicans saying we’ve had it, we’ve had enough and they’re going to go ahead and vote Libertarian," Muth said.
Paul — or "Dr. Paul," as his followers reverently refer to the obstetrician-turned-politician — ran as the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. But this year he carved out a following as an antiestablishment Republican. His campaign won more than 1 million votes and became a catchall for anti-war, anti-government voters and disaffected Republicans.
Now I’m sure you’re thinking that 2008-2012 will be transitional years. Either Obama wins, FUBARs the nation, serves a one-term presidency, and loses in 2012; or McCain wins, FU the nation (but not beyond all recognition); gets old, and we get another shot at 2012. So, you say, either way it’s all good, right?
But there will be three reasons to vote for, and yes, even work to help elect John McCain this go-round: and those reasons are, to put it simply, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, and, oh, did I mention Supreme Court?
John Paul Stevens, 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 71
Stephen Breyer, 69
David Souter, 68
Clarence Thomas, 60
Samuel Alito, 58
John Roberts, 53
There’s no way that Stevens is going to last til 2012, and Ruth Vader Ginsberg will no doubt follow him out the door. Hell, Scalia ain’t getting any younger, either. That leaves two or more openings before 2012. To put it simply, a Barack Obama presidency (not to mention a continuing dem majority in both Houses) will most certainly poison an already-precariously balanced Supreme Court for years to come. An Obama presidency will be the catalyst in a perfect storm that will leave this nation saddled not with liberalism, but with out-and-out socialism for the foreseeable future.
Scorched earth. Is that what you really want? In the process of "sticking it" to the Republican party, you’ll be able to kiss conservatism, and yes, libertarianism goodbye. Put those ideals into a storm shelter, and perhaps take them out in a couple of decades. If we’re still around by then.
So, Paulbots– you still want to "stick it" to the Republicans?
Think hard. Think long and hard before you answer.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism, libertarianism, Ron Paul, Supreme Court
July 31st, 2008
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing S.E. Cupp and Brett Joshpe, authors of Why You’re Wrong About The Right: Behind The Myths - The Surprising Truth About Conservatives, which debunks 20 negative stereotypes about Republicans and conservatives.I have posted the interview below:
MATT MARGOLIS: Did your experiences growing up and living in the liberal northeast inspire you to write this book? Was there any particular incident that made writing book feel more like a necessity to you?
S.E. CUPP: Although I grew up in the liberal northeast, I didn’t necessarily grow up in a particularly political household. My parents were patriotic, hardworking and compassionate, so that was my largest immediate influence — not politics. It wasn’t until college really that I understood how conservative I was, and until I realized that the Republican Party best addresses my political interests. This book is a direct result of our circumstance, being conservative fish-out-of-water in liberal Manhattan, and finding ourselves inexplicably at the business end of a verbal firing squad on a near-daily basis.
BRETT JOSHPE: Yes, for sure. My experiences in college and law school probably contributed to my desire to write this book more than anything. It is very frustrating being lectured to by left-wing professors and having relatively little recourse. It made me want to respond in other ways, hence the book. Also, I witnessed a great deal of anti-Americanism given the post 9/11 world we live in, which was also frustrating and inspired me to want to work on this project.
MATT: How did you choose which stereotypes to address in your book?
S.E.: It wasn’t hard to come up with a list of 20 stereotypes that are regularly and inaccuarately used to sum up conservatives in catchy sound bytes and clever bon mots. I think anyone with a pulse and a television could come up with 20 stereotypes about Republicans.
MATT: How can Republicans overcome these stereotypes?
BRETT: Well, it certainly won’t happen lying down. It’s important for conservatives to disprove these stereotypes by not only showing people that they do not embody the myths, but by educating themselves on the facts so that these accusations can be refuted. Our book is a good place to start, and there are also some other new books filled with facts that show why some of these stereotypes are grossly inaccurate. Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Makers and Takers” is one such example.
MATT: Have any of your liberal friends read your book? Were they convinced by it?
S.E.: Many of our liberal friends have read the book, which is a feat in itself. And while they’ve all said how much they enjoyed it, how funny it was, and how informative it was, few have actually changed their own political ideologies. But I think a number have realized that conservatives and Republicans are far more intellectually diverse than they thought. I think they appreciate how nuanced our positions on race, reproduction, poverty, foreign policy, faith, gun control, and the rest are, and I think many will think twice now before using the same, hackneyed rhetoric to describe conservative points of view.
BRETT: Yes, many liberal friends have read it and enjoyed it. One such friend said that although it didn’t push him over the edge from liberal to conservative, it provided about a 20% swing towards conservatism. Not bad. If we could get a 20% swing in everyone, we would have no trouble in November. In general, I think most people, liberals and conservatives, who have read the book have enjoyed it and definitely have a more complete view of our movement now.
MATT: Did you ever consider writing a book about positive stereotypes about Democrats/liberals and debunking them, rather than a book debunking negative stereotypes about Republicans?
BRETT: No, because we have a very real and personal understanding of the negative stereotypes cast on conservatives since we have experienced them first-hand. And, to some extent, in addressing the stereotypes thrust on conservatives, we also touch on some hyprocritical liberals. However, the focus is still the defense of conservatism and the Republican party.
S.E.: We were very serious about making this book defensive, not offensive. I didn’t want to be another attack book on the shelves. I wanted to write positive things about conservatives, not negative things about liberals. And while we do point out some liberal hypocrisy (by necessity in some cases) the book is largely a defense of conservative ideals.
MATT: Are Republicans/conservatives at all to blame for perpetuating these stereotypes? Are we not doing enough to fight our negative image?
S.E.: Absolutely. Thanks to a few bad seeds who brazenly cling to the stereotypes like their badges of honor, some have been hard to erase. Also, we have collectively decided to ignore them. To their credit, most Republicans are more concerned with getting the job done than winning popularity contests, but someone needs to re-write the image. We’ve been racist, homophobic, warmongering, sexist, boring, money-grubbing and uncaring for way too long.
MATT: S.E., in the introduction you wrote about the dilemma of writing such a book as you did. Specifically, you wrote, “our friends are already repulsed by us.” Do you believe that political differences put major strains on friendships?
S.E.: Unfortunately they can. Tucker Carlson adroitly pointed out in our book that liberals don’t have categories for people they like personally but dislike politically. And we’ve definitely run across this. I couldn’t imagine “de-friending” someone because of their politics, but I think conservatives are far more used to dealing with liberals than liberals are conservatives, especially in urban, liberal environments like Manhattan. But even in conservative strongholds, Republicans are still explosed to liberal influences, like television and the media, the liberal ethos of Hollywood, underground youth subcultures. So yes, being conservative sometimes makes us unpopular. But Brett and I really celebrate our minority status.
MATT: Brett, I grew up near Boston, and found that despite the dominating presence of liberals, especially in the Peoples’ Republican of Cambridge, that there were quite a few conservatives out there, but were a very silent majority. While you went to school at Harvard Law School, did see similar evidence of conservative oppression? How did you deal with it?
BRETT: I agree. I’m not sure conservatives constitute a majority but they are certainly a silent presence. When I formed an organization in law school that supported the war in Iraq, we held a rally near the Cambridge T station one Saturday afternoon. We had a few dozen people waiving American flags, and suddenly cars were stopping in the intersection honking their horns in support. You could tell that people were relieved that a group of students was finally showing a love of this country in Cambridge. Even in the classroom, conservatives constituted a rather vocal minority. I think in every liberal, big city in America, there are more conservatives than people often assume. I encourage those people not to be intimidated by their surroundings because they will be surprised by how many similar minded people are among them.
MATT: Do you think liberals in conservative areas have similar problems?
BRETT: Not nearly as much. I think conservatives in conservative areas tend to be a bit more tolerant than liberals in big cities. As S.E. mentioned, one of our contributors discussed how liberals tends not to have a category for people they like personally but dislike politically. I like to think that conservatives are better able to separate the political from the personal. Of course, I am biased, but that has been my experience.
MATT: Democrats claim to be the party of tolerance and diversity, why is it then conservatives in liberal areas feel they can’t be open about their politics?
S.E.: The wrath of angry liberals is disturbing. And militant groups like Code Pink, for example, scare the bejesus out of me. For such supposed tolerance, liberals are surprisingly exclusionary, preferential and judgmental. And there’s the presumption on the part of liberals that everyone agrees with them (and if they don’t, it’s because they’re dumb). So overhearing a couple liberals in Whole Foods asserting that people who don’t eat organic, drive hybrids, and oppose drilling should be tried and executed for mass murder can be really intimidating. I completely understand why conservatives in liberal places keep their politics to themselves. But hopefully this book gives some people courage to “come out,” as it were.
MATT: Lastly, how has the response been your your book, from both conservatives and liberals?
S.E.: Really excellent. For the most part people find the book engaging, provocative, funny and surprising. We get tons of mail and it’s mostly positive. When we get disagreement, it’s generally thoughtful and insightful, and we appreciate that too. Of course, we also get the occasional piece of vicious hate mail, but that’s to be expected from some members of the Church of Tolerant Liberalism.
BRETT: It has been really great so far. As I mentioned, even liberal friends have found the book persuasive and many conservatives who have shared our frustration in being stereotyped are happy that we have tried to set the record straight.
MATT: Thanks you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Once again, the book is called Why You’re Wrong About The Right: Behind The Myths - The Surprising Truth About Conservatives, and is written by S.E. Cupp and Brett Josphe.
Tags: Brett Joshpe, Conservatism, interview, Liberal hypocrisy, liberalism, S.E. Cupp, Why You're Wrong About The Right
July 28th, 2008
For all the talk of how the black vote or Hispanic vote might go, not much talk is expended on the white vote - but it will be at least 70% of all voters, so its going to matter, as Peter Brown notes:
It is more than a little ironic that it has taken the first African-American to win a major party presidential nomination to make clear to everyone what has been the case for more than 40 years in presidential elections: Democrats have a problem with white voters.
Suddenly, the topic du jour on television and radio talk shows, at water coolers and the most exclusive cocktail parties is how well Sen. Barack Obama can do among whites, especially the demographic group pundits call the “white working class.”
The truth is these voters have been around for decades. They’re “The Silent Majority,” “Jill and Joe Six-Pack” and “Reagan Democrats,” and whatever the name, they have given Democratic presidential candidates the back of their hands since 1964. That was the year Lyndon Johnson won in one of the biggest landslides in American history, and any demographic group he did not carry probably held its meetings in a telephone booth.
Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton, the last Democrats to occupy the Oval Office since then, won a majority of white voters. Mr. Clinton came relatively close in 1996 and might have done so in 1992 had Ross Perot not been in the race. But focusing on those near misses overlooks the larger point: Sen. Obama, the son of a white mother and black father, could lose this election badly and still outdo the very pale — Sen. George McGovern in 1972, former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984, former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988 and possibly Sen. John Kerry in 2004 – among white voters.
Such discussion as there has been on the subject of white voters revolves around the tired argument of whether whites have gotten enough past their racism (something inherent to white people, according to one of the more ironic leftwing opinions) to vote for Obama - but as Brown points out, the fact that Obama is a liberal and weak on national security might be far more important to his weakness amongst white voters than the fact of his skin color.
Right now, the only reason Obama has a shot is because President Bush and the GOP are so very unpopular - if President Bush’s approval rating were even 45% right now, this election would be in the bag for McCain; but its not, so Obama is ahead and still has to be considered the inside favorite to win in November. But, in the end, will the American people - forget about race - vote for someone as unqualified as Obama when he is also on the extreme end of the American left? That is the question we’ll answer in November - and while liberals are convinced that President Bush’s unpopularity will carry Obama over the finish line no matter what, I am of the opinion that Obama is as high as he’s going to get in the polls based on his now-fading aura of change and President Bush’s unpopularity. To get to a majority of the vote, Obama is going to have to show - to voters who distrust the left intensely - that he will be there man, or at least enough of there man to convince working class whites to vote for the liberal egghead over the American war hero.
It can be done, but it won’t be easy - and thus I see the November election being excruciatingly close, all else being equal from this moment in time.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism
June 30th, 2008
From Canada:
What could Mark Steyn’s punishment look like, if he’s convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?
It could look like this order, issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission.
The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That’s her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her “remedy”.
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I’ll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…
That’s insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh — and for his “suffering”. Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint”. People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint — as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who’s going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There’s a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He’s a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him “Mr. Boissoin”. No “Rev. Boissoin” for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
But nothing “disparaging”? That means nothing critical.
She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful”. She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop “hate speech” — whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to shut up, period.
Its from Canada, but this is precisely what the left wants to bring to the United States - and if we don’t stop them, cold, it is whaat they will do. They don’t want the free play of ideas amongst thinking people, but unthinking acceptance of liberal orthodoxy in all matters. In the United States they are handicapped by the First Amendment and a staunch desire for liberty amongst the American people…but if, say, they ever get a solid, leftist majority on the Supreme Court, you just watch them push this sort of thing through via judicial fiat.
Each election matters; each battle matters and as we’re dealing with people who’s concept of freedom is sexual license coupled with slavery in all other matters, we daren’t compromise. Its fight for freedom, or become the mindless robots of liberalism.
Tags: Christianity, Conservatism, gay rights, liberal lies, liberalism, religious liberty
June 8th, 2008
So says Rasmussen:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure…
…Republican voters overwhelmingly prefer fewer government services—83% of the GOP faithful hold that view while just 13% prefer more government involvement. Democratic voters are evenly divided on this question: 46% prefer more government services, while 43% prefer less government services.
Not surprisingly, conservative voters like less government while liberal voters favor a bigger government. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of politically moderate voters prefer smaller government. A separate survey found that most adults (56%) are worried that the next president will raise taxes too much.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters think American society is generally fair and decent. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think it is unfair and discriminatory. Those numbers have become slightly more positive over the past month.
A lot of bad news in there for Obama and the basic leftwing worldview…this, though, tends to confirm (with the proviso that polls are always weak reeds) my long held view that America is at bottom a center/right nation; any politician who can bring together the center and the right will have the majority, while any attempt to curry favor with the left will make a politician just about un-electable. This year is the best year for the left to win not because the left is popular, but because the right is less popular than usual, and many consevatives are threatening to sit it out…but if McCain can re-energise the right and carry with him the center he’s already got, then he will win in November.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism, spending, taxes
May 27th, 2008
Time Magazine cheapens the sacrifices made by WWII vets:
Comparing what amounts to tilting at windmills (literally) to the threat once posed by imperial Japan and Nazi Germany shows a blatant level of ignorance.
But mind you, this is the same magazine that took the jihadists’ word that there was a “massacre” at Haditha, and ran with it.
Then again, could anyone expect any more from the bunch of self-centered liberal ingrates that make up the editorial board at Time?
Tags: Environmentalism, Iwo Jima, liberalism, Time Magazine, WWII
April 18th, 2008
One of the most liberal RINOs out there is getting a taste of his own medicine:
Silver Introduces “Courtesy” Pricing Bill, Wants a Millionaire Tax
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver introduced a congestion pricing bill yesterday, but was quoted as saying “we have a long way to go” before it clears his chamber.
The Times reports that Silver, introducing the plan “as a courtesy to the new governor,” agreed not to “block” it “in exchange for some version of the new tax on anyone making more than $1 million.” But some Republican lawmakers who might otherwise support congestion pricing are opposed to the “millionaire tax” (as is Mayor Bloomberg).
Heh. Live by liberalism, die by liberalism, I say.
Tags: liberalism, Mayor Bloomberg, taxes
April 11th, 2008
Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO’s The Corner:
Most Americans simply cannot imagine their president as the topic of a two-hour encomium by Farrakhan, or why an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers would have once been associated with him. Those are legitimate issues, and the Obama campaign needs to come up with a comprehensive defense against them before they arise: e.g., “All sorts of diverse people are attracted to various causes under the umbrella of social change; what distinguishes Obama is his singular devotion to working within the system and avoiding the extremism that plagues the movement.”
Until there is some systematic preemptive exegesis, I think more and more of these disturbing hard-Left embarrassments will turn up — none of them alone a problem; all of them in sum finally devastating.
Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President. If this is true, then so be it - but I don’t think it is. What this means for Obama is that he’s going to be running in a center/right America as a liberal/left politician. As long as Obama can keep it to high sounding rhetoric, all is well - but just as soon as Obama is forced down into the nitty gritty of politics, his liberalism will prove an obstacle to winning.
Americans are tired of Iraq - but do Americans want to lose in Iraq?
Americans are tired of the mess in health care - but do Americans want socialised medicine?
Americans are tired of endless government debt - but do Americans want tax increases, or would they prefer spending cuts?
These are the sorts of questions we are going to answer between now and November and while Obama can, perhaps, answer them in a way which leads to his being sworn in on January 20th, 2009, the plain fact of the matter is that it won’t be easy - especially not easy against a seasoned campaigner like John McCain, who is popular, highly respected and has a vastly more substantial resume’ than Obama.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, John McCain, liberalism
February 26th, 2008
Yep:
I think what we are watching in the Democratic primary is historic. First, there has not been a candidate nominated for President more liberal than Barack Obama since George McGovern — not Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. This is unapologetic liberalism in the classic European-socialist sense, and for the first time in many years we will see its envisioned agendas without Clintonian trimming or apologetics — the flip side of the purist Goldwater in 1964. Obama will put the best face on this ultra-liberalism and the voters can freely decide. A real cut-and-dry choice.
Second, I don’t think there has been this much acrimony for so long in a Democratic primary since the Humphrey campaign of 1968, much more venom than Kennedy-Carter in 1980 or Hart-Mondale in 1984. But more importantly, the fault-line this time is not ideological so much as personal, with ugly undertones that will be hard to heal, given there can’t be horse-trading over policies. In the end, the Clintons are livid that the upstart Obama cut in front of the line and destroyed what was otherwise a near-decade long carefully planned and scripted return to power until 2016.
Our liberal friends are already convinced that they’ve won in November by a massive landslide - this is because liberals live in a dream world entirely divorced from reality (and in a really ironic twist, they call themselves the “reality based community”); but be that as it may, in a McCain/Obama contest, the battle will be between liberalism and conservatism in very stark terms. Ever since Dukakis was creamed in 1988 mostly due to the fact of his liberalism, Democrats have shied away from that label, but Obama is embracing it (though not, of course, actually spelling out what his liberal policies will entail) - and liberals are convinced that America has turned left, and are ready for an unabashedly liberal President and government. We shall see - so far, when we battle between liberalism and conservatism, the record is Conservatism 6-1…will 2008 make it 6-2? So far, only Goldwater failed to convert the battle of conservatism vs liberalism into victory for conservatism…but that was back in 1964, before liberalism poisoned itself with “new left” ideology from 1968 forward.
Tags: Barack Obama, Conservatism, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, liberalism
February 22nd, 2008
Older Posts
