It's amazing how far the Republican Party has downgraded itself.
The two main hot products (no pun intended) in the GOP are Michelle Bachmann, who is making a serious run for the Presidency, and Sarah Palin, who is basically the right wing's version of Obama in terms of idolizing her. I've gone on Conservative message boards and boy, she has a wall of defenders. If even another CONSERVATIVE so much as criticizes or questions Sarah, his Conservatism is called into question--To far rightists, if you don't support Sarah, you're not a conservative.

Yeah, sure, you've got other guys like Cain and Romney but Cain IMO is another Goldwater. Far right Conservatives love him but he says wacky things and has crazy ideas (Make Muslims ONLY swear loyalty oaths, eliminate the capital gains tax), and would be crushed in the national election. Conservatives it seems are hoping since he's black and he speaks well that he could be their Obama. But I see Cain as a sort of "See, we're really, really not racist! We promise!" kind of candidate. Romney is to my mind the only GOP candidate who could conceivably win against Obama, and he'd have to pick a more conservative running mate to appease his party, but let me tell you--Romney is DESPISED amongst the far right. They see him as a RHINO, a traitor.  

Huntsman and the others--I'm not sure. Huntsman could pull an Obama I suppose and do a come from behind sort of surprise end run, maybe net a few votes, maybe beat Obama depending on how the economy is next year. I mean no one I know has heard of Huntsman and I didn't hear of himself myself until a few months ago. But then again who really knew about Obama outside of Chicago before 2004/2007?

But right now it seems like Bachmann and Palin are the party's stars, and that's why I put them up against all of the GOP's Presidents of the past 100 years. Can either of them two sit at the table with Nixon, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Calvin Coolidge or hell even Bush the Elder in terms of intellectual strength, historical knowledge, a curiosity to learn and embrace new ideas, or even common decency? The only ones I could see them being on par with are Bush the Younger in terms of intelligence and Goldwater in terms of radicalism.

How far the GOP has fallen. Yes the Democratic Party bends often, too often, compromises too much, gives a little too much away. But we've not come to a point where we've essentially let the fringe elements become the face of the Party. Obama may not be the best Democrat ever, but he's also not a nutbag. He's not a radical, a conspiracy theorist, a quitter, nor does he want to reverse 100 years of progress towards making this Union a greater and richer place to live for ALL.

50 years ago, Bachmann and those like her would be ostracized, called the radical fringe, and limited to attending to John Birch Society meetings. That's where her ilk was in the days of Ike. For those who don't know, the John Birch Society recently co-sponsered the latest CPAC (Conservative Convention). This is the same group that accused Ike of being a Communist agent in the '50s. If Dwight D. Eisenhower was alive today and ran on the same platform (with social issues adjusted for 2012 of course) he ran on in 1956, the modern GOP would call him a Socialist, a European wanna be, etc.

Hell, imagine if NIXON was President today given his record. Wage and Price controls? Founding the EPA? Doubling the Great Society? Creating OSHA? Glenn Beck's head would explode live on television out of sheer terror and confusion!

If they think Obama is a communist (I've heard many right wing forum members say Obama is the "most left wing President we've ever had", anti-American, worse than FDR, etc), Nixon would be viewed as the reincarnation of Karl Marx by the Gophers of today.

What happened to the reasonable Republicans? Look at Thomas Dewey. Two time GOP runner, respected across the board by his party. Yes, he lost, but let's face it--NO ONE was going to beat FDR in 1944, and Dewey still got the closest to beating FDR. And he had 1948 in the bag. He just didn't try. He figured the Democrat's being splintered and Truman's unpopularity would hand him the election, plus he didn't want 1948 to be as dirty and vicious a campaign as 1944 had been. He pushed hard for Eisenhower to get the nomination and some believe it's due to Dewey's efforts that Ike got it. Now Dewey was a Republican who lived right in the midst of the McCarthy era, yet he sternly and clearly rejected Red Baiting and said, "You can't shoot an idea with a gun."

Now take someone like Dewey and try to find a place for him in today's GOP. Today's GOP sees Communism and Gay Marriage as bigger threats to our society today than Terrorism or Climate Change. Today's GOP wants to go back to that McCarthy "Them or US", "Me or You", "If you disagree with me, you're an anti-American communist" mindset. Their leaders deny Science and insist on pushing Christian theocracy. They want to govern the nation with a moral law, rule this land with a bible in their hands.  They want to get rid of unions, destroy Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as we know them. They want to get rid of or render ineffective nearly every regulatory agency on the books while at the same time dropping taxes even lower for the rich and corporations.

What happened to the GOP? Even Reagan didn't want to kill the New Deal and realized how important it was. When accused of wanting to destroy the New Deal, he reminded people that he voted for FDR four times. In his private notes he got angry at being accused of wanting to destroy the New Deal--He was against the Great Society adamantly as he felt the Great Society's programs messed things up but felt the New Deal was a moral set of reforms.

Dwight Eisenhower on preventive war (and he, unlike Palin or Bachmann or even Obama knew a thing or two about warfare):

"A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war."

Dwight Eisenhower on what our military institution:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Dwight Eisenhower on what would become the modern Tea Party in 50 years:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Wow, Ike is starting to sound like an out and out Hippie Communist Radical Muslim from Kenya.

Btw--Conservative forums are really funny places. Obama is called "Barry", "Obamort", the First Lady is called "Mooshelle", he's compared to Hitler on a near daily basis and his wife is compared to Marie Antoinette often. He's called a Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Totalitarian, Fabian Socialist, Euigenics supporting Dictator who is just waiting to herd the Tea Party into gas chambers.

Btw--Conservative forums are really funny places. Obama is called "Barry", "Obamort", the First Lady is called "Mooshelle", he's compared to Hitler on a near daily basis and his wife is compared to Marie Antoinette often. He's called a Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Totalitarian, Fabian Socialist, Euigenics supporting Dictator who is just waiting to herd the Tea Party into gas chambers.

I'd noticed that, too.  I even wrote a song about it.

I'd noticed that, too.  I even wrote a song about it.




Clever! I love it. It could really be a fun sort of song! Karma added.

I think Batty Bachmann and Simple Sarah would be good nicknames for them by the way.

Clever! I love it. It could really be a fun sort of song! Karma added.

Thanks :)


I think Batty Bachmann and Simple Sarah would be good nicknames for them by the way.

In case you missed me pimping them in other threads, I've done songs for both Bachmann and Palin recently, too

Karma 1.  Great essay.

I watched Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and the Christian Right work in concert to exorcise the Republican Party -- and the public at large - of reasonable thought.  Reagan, of course, was so much in the pocket of big business he had no idea there was life outside the pocket!  Conservatives learned to stay on message and sanction anyone in their ranks who dared question the ideology.  As with other simplistic dogma packaged for the sheeple (cf. Soviet Communism) the American Right's media is the message.  Sarah Palin embodies the message.  She is the media.  Therefore, if you criticize her, you are not just criticizing a person or a politician, you are breaking ranks with the entire ideology.  You become a heretic.  That is the phenomenon at play on the right-wing message boards.

If you showed my parents news stories from 2011 in 1971, they would think the content came from a scary dystopian novel about a brainwashed fascist state forty years in the future.  Even before Watergate, Nixon and his administration was about as cynical and crazy as they thought our politics could get.  They couldn't imagine a world in which Nixon would seem liberal.  And yet it was so by 1985.

You can't really compare the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt or the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.  TDR was all in favor of using government to limit the power of big business.  He was a trust buster.  Eisenhower mentioned Howard Hunt (much akin to the Koch Brothers) as an example of how absurd it would be to let greedy millionaires take charge of national policy.  Today we have supreme court justices partying with those guys -- the same SCOTUS justices who ruled in favor of letting greedy millionaires (now billionaires) pull the puppet strings.  The Republican party of TDR and Eisenhower would have impeached every last one of them.  

::)

Karma 1.  Great essay.

I watched Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and the Christian Right work in concert to exorcise the Republican Party -- and the public at large - of reasonable thought.  Reagan, of course, was so much in the pocket of big business he had no idea there was life outside the pocket!  Conservatives learned to stay on message and sanction anyone in their ranks who dared question the ideology.  As with other simplistic dogma packaged for the sheeple (cf. Soviet Communism) the American Right's media is the message.  Sarah Palin embodies the message.  She is the media.  Therefore, if you criticize her, you are not just criticizing a person or a politician, you are breaking ranks with the entire ideology.  You become a heretic.  That is the phenomenon at play on the right-wing message boards.

If you showed my parents news stories from 2011 in 1971, they would think the content came from a scary dystopian novel about a brainwashed fascist state forty years in the future.  Even before Watergate, Nixon and his administration was about as cynical and crazy as they thought our politics could get.  They couldn't imagine a world in which Nixon would seem liberal.  And yet it was so by 1985.

You can't really compare the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt or the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.  TDR was all in favor of using government to limit the power of big business.  He was a trust buster.  Eisenhower mentioned Howard Hunt (much akin to the Koch Brothers) as an example of how absurd it would be to let greedy millionaires take charge of national policy.  Today we have supreme court justices partying with those guys -- the same SCOTUS justices who ruled in favor of letting greedy millionaires (now billionaires) pull the puppet strings.  The Republican party of TDR and Eisenhower would have impeached every last one of them.  

::)


And Karma in return my friend.

So what do you think the solution is? How can we stem this tide--turn things back around? Personally as horrible as things were, I think the political landscape of 1971 was pretty much perfect. You had Conservatism, Moderates firmly in the middle and actually listened to, and Liberals. In the background there were the Libertarian types, but they were just a background voice. In any case, you had choices.

Now you simply have a Right, and a Center Right. Pick how far Right you want the country to go--Vote Democratic if you want to steadily drive to the Right through compromise, or Republican if you want to full steam roll straight back to Laissez-Faire economics. That's really the only two choices you've got and it's been that way since Clinton. He took the DNC and turned it into the party of Republican appeasers.

The Left has been firmly branded as Communist, Radical, Scary, Anti-American. The Moderates and reasonable neutral types have been driven from both parties in large measure. I suppose you could say Obama and Clinton were/are moderates, but they're moderates who'll sell their principles for the sake of compromise. A true moderate isn't an ideological weakling or a principle-less worm as some might claim.

It is truly amazing how a man like Richard Nixon--Mad anti-communist who hated the "Liberal media" would be called a dirty Liberal or Communist today. It's like, what the Hell happened? Though as much I love Nixon, I blame him and LBJ for the shift to the right. Their misdeeds and mistakes allowed for an unhealthy level of distrust in the government to seep into our culture and pervade amongst an already cynical generation (The Boomers), and the Far Right fed on that like a vampire feeds on blood.

At the same time, the social issues of the '70s (Acid, Abortion, Amnesty, Vietnam, Hippies, Drugs, Women's Lib and Gay Rights) pushed a lot of the older, more socially conservative by nature older folks--the WWII and Korean War generation--to the GOP. Many of the same people who voted en masse for FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ in the 30s-60s now voted for Reagan and Bush. Not for any real economic reason IMO but because they felt the GOP could defend their values, could uphold "traditional American values"--And that's the message Reagan and his boys pumped to them. And I suppose to a measure they were right in that sense--The Democratic Party of the 30s-60s was a lot more socially conservative or moderate than it was in the 60s.

Karma 1.  Great essay.

I watched Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and the Christian Right work in concert to exorcise the Republican Party -- and the public at large - of reasonable thought.  Reagan, of course, was so much in the pocket of big business he had no idea there was life outside the pocket!  Conservatives learned to stay on message and sanction anyone in their ranks who dared question the ideology.  As with other simplistic dogma packaged for the sheeple (cf. Soviet Communism) the American Right's media is the message.  Sarah Palin embodies the message.  She is the media.  Therefore, if you criticize her, you are not just criticizing a person or a politician, you are breaking ranks with the entire ideology.  You become a heretic.  That is the phenomenon at play on the right-wing message boards. If you showed my parents news stories from 2011 in 1971, they would think the content came from a scary dystopian novel about a brainwashed fascist state forty years in the future.  Even before Watergate, Nixon and his administration was about as cynical and crazy as they thought our politics could get.  They couldn't imagine a world in which Nixon would seem liberal.  And yet it was so by 1985.

You can't really compare the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt or the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican Party of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.  TDR was all in favor of using government to limit the power of big business.  He was a trust buster.  Eisenhower mentioned Howard Hunt (much akin to the Koch Brothers) as an example of how absurd it would be to let greedy millionaires take charge of national policy.  Today we have supreme court justices partying with those guys -- the same SCOTUS justices who ruled in favor of letting greedy millionaires (now billionaires) pull the puppet strings.  The Republican party of TDR and Eisenhower would have impeached every last one of them.  

::)                 
I think that is a little far fetched what your saying about Palin. I mean I hear her negative numbers have gone up as time has worn on.

It's amazing how far the Republican Party has downgraded itself.
The two main hot products (no pun intended) in the GOP are Michelle Bachmann, who is making a serious run for the Presidency, and Sarah Palin, who is basically the right wing's version of Obama in terms of idolizing her. I've gone on Conservative message boards and boy, she has a wall of defenders. If even another CONSERVATIVE so much as criticizes or questions Sarah, his Conservatism is called into question--To far rightists, if you don't support Sarah, you're not a conservative.

Yeah, sure, you've got other guys like Cain and Romney but Cain IMO is another Goldwater. Far right Conservatives love him but he says wacky things and has crazy ideas (Make Muslims ONLY swear loyalty oaths, eliminate the capital gains tax), and would be crushed in the national election. Conservatives it seems are hoping since he's black and he speaks well that he could be their Obama. But I see Cain as a sort of "See, we're really, really not racist! We promise!" kind of candidate. Romney is to my mind the only GOP candidate who could conceivably win against Obama, and he'd have to pick a more conservative running mate to appease his party, but let me tell you--Romney is DESPISED amongst the far right. They see him as a RHINO, a traitor.  

Huntsman and the others--I'm not sure. Huntsman could pull an Obama I suppose and do a come from behind sort of surprise end run, maybe net a few votes, maybe beat Obama depending on how the economy is next year. I mean no one I know has heard of Huntsman and I didn't hear of himself myself until a few months ago. But then again who really knew about Obama outside of Chicago before 2004/2007?

But right now it seems like Bachmann and Palin are the party's stars, and that's why I put them up against all of the GOP's Presidents of the past 100 years. Can either of them two sit at the table with Nixon, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Calvin Coolidge or hell even Bush the Elder in terms of intellectual strength, historical knowledge, a curiosity to learn and embrace new ideas, or even common decency? The only ones I could see them being on par with are Bush the Younger in terms of intelligence and Goldwater in terms of radicalism.

How far the GOP has fallen. Yes the Democratic Party bends often, too often, compromises too much, gives a little too much away. But we've not come to a point where we've essentially let the fringe elements become the face of the Party. Obama may not be the best Democrat ever, but he's also not a nutbag. He's not a radical, a conspiracy theorist, a quitter, nor does he want to reverse 100 years of progress towards making this Union a greater and richer place to live for ALL.

50 years ago, Bachmann and those like her would be ostracized, called the radical fringe, and limited to attending to John Birch Society meetings. That's where her ilk was in the days of Ike. For those who don't know, the John Birch Society recently co-sponsered the latest CPAC (Conservative Convention). This is the same group that accused Ike of being a Communist agent in the '50s. If Dwight D. Eisenhower was alive today and ran on the same platform (with social issues adjusted for 2012 of course) he ran on in 1956, the modern GOP would call him a Socialist, a European wanna be, etc.

Hell, imagine if NIXON was President today given his record. Wage and Price controls? Founding the EPA? Doubling the Great Society? Creating OSHA? Glenn Beck's head would explode live on television out of sheer terror and confusion!

If they think Obama is a communist (I've heard many right wing forum members say Obama is the "most left wing President we've ever had", anti-American, worse than FDR, etc), Nixon would be viewed as the reincarnation of Karl Marx by the Gophers of today.

What happened to the reasonable Republicans? Look at Thomas Dewey. Two time GOP runner, respected across the board by his party. Yes, he lost, but let's face it--NO ONE was going to beat FDR in 1944, and Dewey still got the closest to beating FDR. And he had 1948 in the bag. He just didn't try. He figured the Democrat's being splintered and Truman's unpopularity would hand him the election, plus he didn't want 1948 to be as dirty and vicious a campaign as 1944 had been. He pushed hard for Eisenhower to get the nomination and some believe it's due to Dewey's efforts that Ike got it. Now Dewey was a Republican who lived right in the midst of the McCarthy era, yet he sternly and clearly rejected Red Baiting and said, "You can't shoot an idea with a gun."

Now take someone like Dewey and try to find a place for him in today's GOP. Today's GOP sees Communism and Gay Marriage as bigger threats to our society today than Terrorism or Climate Change. Today's GOP wants to go back to that McCarthy "Them or US", "Me or You", "If you disagree with me, you're an anti-American communist" mindset. Their leaders deny Science and insist on pushing Christian theocracy. They want to govern the nation with a moral law, rule this land with a bible in their hands.  They want to get rid of unions, destroy Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as we know them. They want to get rid of or render ineffective nearly every regulatory agency on the books while at the same time dropping taxes even lower for the rich and corporations.

What happened to the GOP? Even Reagan didn't want to kill the New Deal and realized how important it was. When accused of wanting to destroy the New Deal, he reminded people that he voted for FDR four times. In his private notes he got angry at being accused of wanting to destroy the New Deal--He was against the Great Society adamantly as he felt the Great Society's programs messed things up but felt the New Deal was a moral set of reforms.

Dwight Eisenhower on preventive war (and he, unlike Palin or Bachmann or even Obama knew a thing or two about warfare):

"A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war."

Dwight Eisenhower on what our military institution:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Dwight Eisenhower on what would become the modern Tea Party in 50 years:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Wow, Ike is starting to sound like an out and out Hippie Communist Radical Muslim from Kenya.

Btw--Conservative forums are really funny places. Obama is called "Barry", "Obamort", the First Lady is called "Mooshelle", he's compared to Hitler on a near daily basis and his wife is compared to Marie Antoinette often. He's called a Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Totalitarian, Fabian Socialist, Euigenics supporting Dictator who is just waiting to herd the Tea Party into gas chambers.
Well with Romney I don't get why conservatives call moderate republicans like Romney RHINO's its just the Northeast and the West Coast are just more socially liberal than the South or the Midwest are.

Herman Cain-He's the Republican's version of Jessie Jackson when Jackson ran for the Democratic Nomination for President in the 1980's. I mean Cain might finish 2nd or 3rd for the Republican Nomination like Jackson did in 1984(3rd) and 1988(2nd) but like Jackson he won't win his respective parties nomination.

Nobody has called Obama a communist or a dictator they call him a socialist on the extreme right.

I don't think Huntsman is gonna win the Republican Nomination for President. He is precieved as a "moderate" and moderate is a bad word in the GOP these days.

I think both political parties have lost their way. I mean why do stuff that is out of the mainstream? Stuff like ObamaCare, Cap & Tax, stimulus, The Ryan Plan, Union Busting, and declaring a war on Plan Parenthood are just senseless policies.

And Karma in return my friend.

So what do you think the solution is? How can we stem this tide--turn things back around? Personally as horrible as things were, I think the political landscape of 1971 was pretty much perfect. You had Conservatism, Moderates firmly in the middle and actually listened to, and Liberals. In the background there were the Libertarian types, but they were just a background voice. In any case, you had choices.

Now you simply have a Right, and a Center Right. Pick how far Right you want the country to go--Vote Democratic if you want to steadily drive to the Right through compromise, or Republican if you want to full steam roll straight back to Laissez-Faire economics. That's really the only two choices you've got and it's been that way since Clinton. He took the DNC and turned it into the party of Republican appeasers.

The Left has been firmly branded as Communist, Radical, Scary, Anti-American. The Moderates and reasonable neutral types have been driven from both parties in large measure. I suppose you could say Obama and Clinton were/are moderates, but they're moderates who'll sell their principles for the sake of compromise. A true moderate isn't an ideological weakling or a principle-less worm as some might claim.

It is truly amazing how a man like Richard Nixon--Mad anti-communist who hated the "Liberal media" would be called a dirty Liberal or Communist today. It's like, what the Hell happened? Though as much I love Nixon, I blame him and LBJ for the shift to the right. Their misdeeds and mistakes allowed for an unhealthy level of distrust in the government to seep into our culture and pervade amongst an already cynical generation (The Boomers), and the Far Right fed on that like a vampire feeds on blood.

At the same time, the social issues of the '70s (Acid, Abortion, Amnesty, Vietnam, Hippies, Drugs, Women's Lib and Gay Rights) pushed a lot of the older, more socially conservative by nature older folks--the WWII and Korean War generation--to the GOP. Many of the same people who voted en masse for FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ in the 30s-60s now voted for Reagan and Bush. Not for any real economic reason IMO but because they felt the GOP could defend their values, could uphold "traditional American values"--And that's the message Reagan and his boys pumped to them. And I suppose to a measure they were right in that sense--The Democratic Party of the 30s-60s was a lot more socially conservative or moderate than it was in the 60s.


Funny you mention Nixon I mean Liberal Dems love him now.

Obama is a moderate liberal and Clinton would be branded as Blue Dog Democrat nowadays like Dem House Members Jason Altmire(D-PA) and Heath Shuler(D-NC) are but your right Clinton did move to the center after the 1994 Gingrich/Republican Revolution happened.

Bottom Line: I think the parties moves towards the extreme left and extreme right have been regional maybe in part but not all. I mean in the 70's the Republicans were a Northeast Moderate Party and the Dems were a Southern Party. Between 1980-2006 this changed and after the 2006 mid term elections the change was complete: the Dems were a West Coast and Northeast Party and the GOP were a Southern and a Mountain West Regional Party.

Well with Romney I don't get why conservatives call moderate republicans like Romney RHINO's its just the Northeast and the West Coast are just more socially liberal than the South or the Midwest are.

Herman Cain-He's the Republican's version of Jessie Jackson when Jackson ran for the Democratic Nomination for President in the 1980's. I mean Cain might finish 2nd or 3rd for the Republican Nomination like Jackson did in 1984(3rd) and 1988(2nd) but like Jackson he won't win his respective parties nomination.

Nobody has called Obama a communist or a dictator they call him a socialist on the extreme right.

I don't think Huntsman is gonna win the Republican Nomination for President. He is precieved as a "moderate" and moderate is a bad word in the GOP these days.

I think both political parties have lost their way. I mean why do stuff that is out of the mainstream? Stuff like ObamaCare, Cap & Tax, stimulus, The Ryan Plan, Union Busting, and declaring a war on Plan Parenthood are just senseless policies.




Check out some right wing message boards sometime. Or turn on Glenn Beck or Fox in general.

Obamacare is pretty moderate historically. Nixon's plan for Universal Healthcare which he unveiled in his 1974 State of the Union address was MUCH more to the left than Obama's. Obama's plan is closer to the plan that Bob Dole offered to counter Bill Clinton's back in the 90s. It's much, much, much more moderate than the all encompassing New Deal and Great Society programs, or FDR's vision of a Second Bill of Rights.

Improving the quality of our country's healthcare system and/or increasing the number of people who have health insurance has been a subject of national debate since at least 1912 and both the GOP and DNC have taken part in it. Even hard core conservatives like President Harding reformed our healthcare. It's a debate which has ebbed and flowed as being a matter of importance for just about 100 years.

Stimulus packages are often introduced, put forth or at the very least PROPOSED during recessions, and we hadn't had a recession that was as bad as it was in '08-'09 since the Great Depression. Hell, Clinton did a (much smaller) stimulus package to combat the (much smaller) recession that the economy was in when he came into office in 1993.

It's the other stuff you mentioned that's far out of the mainstream. Busting up and trying to destroy Unions? That's something more in line with 19th century Laissez-Faire economics than anything of the last 100 years. I can't think of any serious effort to kill the Labor movement since the late 19th or early 20th centuries. The Ryan Plan? Basically gut regulatory agencies that protect our food and water and de-establish Medicare as we know it? Agencies that have been in place for over 100 years? It's the Republicans who are shaking up the system. At this point, the Democrats are trying to conserve the system we've had and run well for over a century.

The  "War" on Planned Parenthood is more common--fodder for the Socially Conservative wing of the GOP that's been with them since the 1970s. Republicans have made anti-abortion part of their agenda since Roe v. Wade; Intensifying efforts to limit a woman's access to abortions is par for the course for them, at least since the '70s/80's.

Funny you mention Nixon I mean Liberal Dems love him now.

Obama is a moderate liberal and Clinton would be branded as Blue Dog Democrat nowadays like Dem House Members Jason Altmire(D-PA) and Heath Shuler(D-NC) are but your right Clinton did move to the center after the 1994 Gingrich/Republican Revolution happened.




Liberal Dems love him now because the GOP has moved so far to the right wing since him that he now resembles more a Liberal Democrat than a Conservative Republican, even though in his own day he was considered a hardcore conservative Republican, a close friend and defender of Joe McCarthy and Robert Taft.

Obama isn't a moderate liberal. He's a centrist. Clinton had no ideology--He was a pragmatist who ran with the political winds. He ran in 1992 as a moderate Democrat, a reform Democrat, promising something new other than Liberalism. When it was good to put on a Liberal face, he did so to appease his base. When it was politically expedient to act like Mr. Conservative in 1996, he declared that the "era of Big Government" was over. Words that sounded more like something a Republican would say moreso than any Democrat.

Did you know that he and Gingrich were secretly planning in 1997 and 1998 to privatize Social Security? Both he and Gingrich were in agreement on the plan, the only thing which a stop to that effort was the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. He couldn't propose privatizing Social Security when he needed his Liberal base to vote against convicting him. He couldn't politically anger them at the very moment he most needed their support. By the time the impeachment was over, he was a lame duck President who had turned more to foreign policy and a looming recession.

The Left has been firmly branded as Communist, Radical, Scary, Anti-American.
It's one of the things that annoys me most about US politics, that people who come across as either too stupid or simply overwhelmingly ignorant use terms like these: describing Obama as a Communist either means you're too stupid to know what a Communist is or you're telling lies intentionally to scare those people who are too stupid to know what a Communist is, and all they know is that the Commies are the bad guys.

What doesn't happen over there, except possibly on the Jon Stewart show ;), is ridiculing these people to the extent that they deserve.  Over here, you have a slightly left-of-centre Ed Milliband being labelled as "Red Ed".. but anyone calling him "Communist" would be openly laughed at - and he's considerably to the left of Obama.

Nobody has called Obama a communist or a dictator they call him a socialist on the extreme right.
A "socialist on the extreme right"????

What low-life scum-sucking pissant idiots are calling him that?  After all.. that's longhand for "National Socialism", and you should be able to work out what that used to get shortened to.

..besides, they definitely *have* called Obama both a Communist and a dictator.  Some Republican senator managed to call him both in consecutive sentences on a Newsnight interview a while back (it was one of the things that inspired the parody I linked to above, and even had my daughter's jaw dropping)

Check out some right wing message boards sometime. Or turn on Glenn Beck or Fox in general.

Obamacare is pretty moderate historically. Nixon's plan for Universal Healthcare which he unveiled in his 1974 State of the Union address was MUCH more to the left than Obama's. Obama's plan is closer to the plan that Bob Dole offered to counter Bill Clinton's back in the 90s. It's much, much, much more moderate than the all encompassing New Deal and Great Society programs, or FDR's vision of a Second Bill of Rights.

Improving the quality of our country's healthcare system and/or increasing the number of people who have health insurance has been a subject of national debate since at least 1912 and both the GOP and DNC have taken part in it. Even hard core conservatives like President Harding reformed our healthcare. It's a debate which has ebbed and flowed as being a matter of importance for just about 100 years.

Stimulus packages are often introduced, put forth or at the very least PROPOSED during recessions, and we hadn't had a recession that was as bad as it was in '08-'09 since the Great Depression. Hell, Clinton did a (much smaller) stimulus package to combat the (much smaller) recession that the economy was in when he came into office in 1993.

It's the other stuff you mentioned that's far out of the mainstream. Busting up and trying to destroy Unions? That's something more in line with 19th century Laissez-Faire economics than anything of the last 100 years. I can't think of any serious effort to kill the Labor movement since the late 19th or early 20th centuries. The Ryan Plan? Basically gut regulatory agencies that protect our food and water and de-establish Medicare as we know it? Agencies that have been in place for over 100 years? It's the Republicans who are shaking up the system. At this point, the Democrats are trying to conserve the system we've had and run well for over a century.

The  "War" on Planned Parenthood is more common--fodder for the Socially Conservative wing of the GOP that's been with them since the 1970s. Republicans have made anti-abortion part of their agenda since Roe v. Wade; Intensifying efforts to limit a woman's access to abortions is par for the course for them, at least since the '70s/80's.
True Obama Care and Stimulus are less out of the mainstream than The Ryan Plan, Union Busting or declaring a war on Planned Parenthood. It would have been nice if The Stimulus Package was paid for in full instead of not being paid for at all.

On your second point yes Obama Care was more in line with Health Care Plans like Bob Dole's and other US Senators in that time period like former Senate Majority Leader's like Howard Baker's(R-TN) and Tom Daschle's(D-SD.)

Liberal Dems love him now because the GOP has moved so far to the right wing since him that he now resembles more a Liberal Democrat than a Conservative Republican, even though in his own day he was considered a hardcore conservative Republican, a close friend and defender of Joe McCarthy and Robert Taft.

Obama isn't a moderate liberal. He's a centrist. Clinton had no ideology--He was a pragmatist who ran with the political winds. He ran in 1992 as a moderate Democrat, a reform Democrat, promising something new other than Liberalism. When it was good to put on a Liberal face, he did so to appease his base. When it was politically expedient to act like Mr. Conservative in 1996, he declared that the "era of Big Government" was over. Words that sounded more like something a Republican would say moreso than any Democrat.

Did you know that he and Gingrich were secretly planning in 1997 and 1998 to privatize Social Security? Both he and Gingrich were in agreement on the plan, the only thing which a stop to that effort was the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. He couldn't propose privatizing Social Security when he needed his Liberal base to vote against convicting him. He couldn't politically anger them at the very moment he most needed their support. By the time the impeachment was over, he was a lame duck President who had turned more to foreign policy and a looming recession.
Nixon was more of a moderate or liberal republican I feel. He wasn't a liberal dem or a conservative republican. I wasn't in the world then but just hearing stuff about Nixon I get the vibe he was a moderate or liberal republican.

Obama a centrist? No.

I agree with you what you wrote about Clinton though.

Didn't know he and Gingrich were planning to privatize Social Security though.

Nixon was more of a moderate or liberal republican I feel. He wasn't a liberal dem or a conservative republican. I wasn't in the world then but just hearing stuff about Nixon I get the vibe he was a moderate or liberal republican.

Obama a centrist? No.

I agree with you what you wrote about Clinton though.

Didn't know he and Gingrich were planning to privatize Social Security though.




By today's standards he'd be a liberal Republican. But by the standards of his own era, he was a Conservative. Part of the reason he was added to the Ike ticket in 1952 was to bolster Ike (who was a true moderate, very non-ideological) amongst the Conservative wing of the GOP.  Ike was a guy who was known as a moderate and who had flirted with running as a Democrat once if I'm not mistaken. I think the only reason Ike ran as a Republican was because no Democrat stood a chance of winning in 1952. The point being that Nixon was a politician, a politician who had made his position as a ring wing conservative well known by 1952. He attacked President Truman as being soft on Communism, viciously attacked Secretary of State Dean Acheson as possibly being a Communist sympathizer, defended Joe McCarthy even when it was politically untenable to, backed Goldwater in 1964 even though he could've chosen to back the more Liberal candidate, Nelson Rockefeller.  He had made his bones, if you will, as a hard core conservative. I mean this is the guy who practically started Red Baiting with the Alger Hiss case--predating McCarthy himself. That's how he made a national name for himself. And he attacked his opponent for Congress, Helen Douglas, as being a Communist--"Pink right down to her underwear."

However, he was also a skilled pragmatist who knew how to work the system and adjust within existing confines. The 60s-late 70s was probably the most Liberal period in America after the 1930s. You know why he made the EPA, or OSHA? Because he had to, politically. The environmental movement was gaining strength in the 70s and pushed him to action. He really didn't care too much about these issues. But it was a matter of political opportunism--take the issue out of the hands of the Democrats and gain new Republican supporters. He dabbled in Keynesian economics in 1972-1973 to stir up the economy in time for the election; it paid off.

Nixon had a definite, core ideology, and it was Conservative. However, the '70s were a Liberal period. He couldn't pull one way if the winds were dragging him another way. It's sort of like Clinton, except Clinton never really had any ideology. Nixon until the early '70s was a committed, card carrying conservative. He had a program called New Federalism--His dream was to return more responsibilities to the States as President, to diminish the powers of the Federal Government. That was his platform just like LBJ had his Great Society. Look up revenue sharing--An idea the Founding Fathers first toyed with, only to be brought by Nixon--Empowering the states. The man was paranoid about Communism even while in office. He thought the Hippie movement was a communist conspiracy, that Hippie leaders were on the payroll of Moscow and were being duped. He detested Liberals and the "Eastern Establishment" while in office. It was his undoing, too.

Really, his major liberal accomplishments were done to meet political realities, or to one up his opponents. Like I said, sort of like Clinton, but the inverse. Clinton was malleable. Nixon was a manipulator. He knew what he wanted, but what he wanted and what he could do or should do given the circumstances were two different things. Clinton on the other hand was open to any voice that spoke the loudest; in 1993 it was Hillary, in 1995 it was Dick Morris.

By today's standards he'd be a liberal Republican. But by the standards of his own era, he was a Conservative. Part of the reason he was added to the Ike ticket in 1952 was to bolster Ike (who was a true moderate, very non-ideological) amongst the Conservative wing of the GOP.  Ike was a guy who was known as a moderate and who had flirted with running as a Democrat once if I'm not mistaken. I think the only reason Ike ran as a Republican was because no Democrat stood a chance of winning in 1952. The point being that Nixon was a politician, a politician who had made his position as a ring wing conservative well known by 1952. He attacked President Truman as being soft on Communism, viciously attacked Secretary of State Dean Acheson as possibly being a Communist sympathizer, defended Joe McCarthy even when it was politically untenable to, backed Goldwater in 1964 even though he could've chosen to back the more Liberal candidate, Nelson Rockefeller.  He had made his bones, if you will, as a hard core conservative. I mean this is the guy who practically started Red Baiting with the Alger Hiss case--predating McCarthy himself. That's how he made a national name for himself. And he attacked his opponent for Congress, Helen Douglas, as being a Communist--"Pink right down to her underwear."

However, he was also a skilled pragmatist who knew how to work the system and adjust within existing confines. The 60s-late 70s was probably the most Liberal period in America after the 1930s. You know why he made the EPA, or OSHA? Because he had to, politically. The environmental movement was gaining strength in the 70s and pushed him to action. He really didn't care too much about these issues. But it was a matter of political opportunism--take the issue out of the hands of the Democrats and gain new Republican supporters. He dabbled in Keynesian economics in 1972-1973 to stir up the economy in time for the election; it paid off.

Nixon had a definite, core ideology, and it was Conservative. However, the '70s were a Liberal period. He couldn't pull one way if the winds were dragging him another way. It's sort of like Clinton, except Clinton never really had any ideology. Nixon until the early '70s was a committed, card carrying conservative. He had a program called New Federalism--His dream was to return more responsibilities to the States as President, to diminish the powers of the Federal Government. That was his platform just like LBJ had his Great Society. Look up revenue sharing--An idea the Founding Fathers first toyed with, only to be brought by Nixon--Empowering the states. The man was paranoid about Communism even while in office. He thought the Hippie movement was a communist conspiracy, that Hippie leaders were on the payroll of Moscow and were being duped. He detested Liberals and the "Eastern Establishment" while in office. It was his undoing, too.

Really, his major liberal accomplishments were done to meet political realities, or to one up his opponents. Like I said, sort of like Clinton, but the inverse. Clinton was malleable. Nixon was a manipulator. He knew what he wanted, but what he wanted and what he could do or should do given the circumstances were two different things. Clinton on the other hand was open to any voice that spoke the loudest; in 1993 it was Hillary, in 1995 it was Dick Morris.
Nixon sounded like a conservative on the foriegn policy issue of communism.

Nixon was a sly fox no doubt about that when it came to one upping his opponents.

It was Dick Morris that told Clinton in early 1995 I think he should move to the center if he wanted to be re-elected in 1996!

Nixon sounded like a conservative on the foriegn policy issue of communism.

Nixon was a sly fox no doubt about that when it came to one upping his opponents.

It was Dick Morris that told Clinton in early 1995 I think he should move to the center if he wanted to be re-elected in 1996!




Correct. Dick Morris and Clinton had a history together going back to Clinton's first term as governor. Sort of a love/hate relationship, really. And Morris had started off in the 70s as a devoted Democrat but became one of the GOP's top pollsters by the '90s. And he had a real, definite feel for politics then--not so much now. I think in retrospect Morris was playing Clinton--using Clinton and Clinton's irrelevance after 1994 to get what he (Morris) wanted--a President further to the right.

I think Clinton was politically capable enough to have started a more Left course in the '90s if he really tried, but going the Conservative route was much easier, much more politically expedient. It was quicker. Did it buy him re-election? I don't know. Dole was sort of like a 1996 version of McCain: A center-right but ultimately boring Republican, little charisma, few truly new ideas--Basically Dole would've been like a second term for Bush I.

Clinton's problem I think was he tried to do too many things at once, for one, and he took too many radical steps too quickly. I mean didn't he start on the "Gays in the Military" issue only weeks after he took office? I support the idea of gays in the military but I realize it was still a simmering, hot, divisive topic in 1993, and Clinton dumped it in America's lap as soon as he took office--Not a good way to start off, dividing the nation, annoying the military.

People can say "Well, Obamacare was the same." Not really. Obamacare is an economic issue, divisive yes, but not as deeply divisive as the Gays in the Military thing was for Clinton. That was a social issue, and we Americans are very, very sensitive about social issues for some reason--This was seen as a challenge to our traditional values, to our traditional military ideals, a divisive challenge to one of America's most respected institutions. It was too much too soon.

Then, right after, he went into the Hillarycare thing--A good idea but horribly mismanaged and misrepresented. It wasn't sold to the public because it was too complex, and it was another case of too much too soon.

One thing Clinton was committed to throughout the course of his Presidency was deficit reduction. That seems to be something he truly did care about, and frankly, it was a pressing issue--The national debt had grown ENORMOUSLY between 1980 and 1992. What Clinton should've done was done a two prong approach: Tackle the recession, and  tackle the deficit--Beat the Republicans at their own game. Than once you gain the public's confidance with that, then you can do what you want--Gays in the military, Hillarycare. He did it backwards, basically.

And this ass-backwards way of running things colors much of Clinton's first term. There was so much unneeded crap in those early years due to a young, not well organized or disciplined staff, and a President who still had the mindset of a governor during his first year as President. Consider Hairgate, Travelgate--all these little nothings seemed like huge dramas at the time, which only derailed from more important work.

I'm not saying Clinton was a bad President; We did prosper under him. But his first year and a half or so was pretty subpar. From all the accounts I've read, even his supporters thought in 1994 that they were looking at another Carter situation with regard to '96. But the Comeback Kid, with the help of Dick Morris, did it.

What the Clinton White House needed was less Hillary and more Morris. I'm not saying he should've gone totally Conservative but he should've surrounded himself with a more professional team, and not let his wife be a partner in the White House. I don't mean that to sound sexist, but while a First Lady often has her own agenda and her own causes which she champions, they should never dominate her husband's political agenda. Bill would've been a much better President without Hillary.

Personally, I think what he needed was a hardass Chief of Staff--think Al Haig or Haldemen type people--A more hawkish Secretary of Defense; Better coordination between the FBI and CIA, and he should've called Henry Kissinger out of retirement to serve as his Secretary of State.

Dick Morris worked for George H.W. Bush in 1980 and 1988.  He also worked for the late Jesse Helms (R-NC).  Bill Clinton sold his soul to the devil.  It was Morris who urged him to support the screw-the-poor "Welfare Reform Act" of 1996.  Clinton's support of so-called welfare reform and his signing of NAFTA are the main reasons I didn't vote for him in 1996.  I wrote in Ralph Nader.  My friends said I was "throwing my vote away."  I said I'd rather throw it away than give it to either of those two azzwholes (Clinton or Dole). 

I always said what we needed foremost was campaign finance reform.  What we got instead was the coup de grace of our republic: Citizens United v. FEC.
>:(

Cain IMO is another Goldwater. Far right Conservatives love him but he says wacky things and has crazy ideas (Make Muslims ONLY swear loyalty oaths,


No dispute on many of the other things you've said, but I gotta pick that nit.  Cain might be loved by the extreme right, but Goldwater would have had none of Cain's crap.  Goldwater's the guy that said, regarding don't-ask-don't-tell, "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight".  Were Goldwater still around, I suspect he'd have had a similar opinion regarding religious tests and loyalty oaths.  Back in the day, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" meant something.


I'd noticed that, too.  I even wrote a song about it.


And Philbo, that's fracking awesome :)

No dispute on many of the other things you've said, but I gotta pick that nit.  Cain might be loved by the extreme right, but Goldwater would have had none of Cain's crap.  Goldwater's the guy that said, regarding don't-ask-don't-tell, "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight".  Were Goldwater still around, I suspect he'd have had a similar opinion regarding religious tests and loyalty oaths.  Back in the day, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" meant something.



Ron Paul is the closest to Goldwater on today's political stage.  True libertarian.  Not interested in telling anybody what God to pray to, what drugs they can or cannot take, or who they should or shouldn't party with. 

(My big problem with libertarians is while they are rightly suspicious of government power, they give a free pass to accumulated power in private hands.)

Cain can say whatever TF he wants.  It's his constitutional right.  It's my constitutional right to call him a cynic trying to cash in on the anti-Muslim bigotry rampant in the Republican party.  The color of his skin shouldn't enter into it, but it does.  Not so long ago politicians made hay vowing to keep the "n*gg*rs" down.  That should weigh heavy on his conscience.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/nono.gif

And Philbo, that's fracking awesome :)

:D

No dispute on many of the other things you've said, but I gotta pick that nit.  Cain might be loved by the extreme right, but Goldwater would have had none of Cain's crap.  Goldwater's the guy that said, regarding don't-ask-don't-tell, "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight".  Were Goldwater still around, I suspect he'd have had a similar opinion regarding religious tests and loyalty oaths.  Back in the day, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" meant something.

And Philbo, that's fracking awesome :)


Yeah but I'm referring to his comments like how he wished he could saw off the East Coast, stuff like that.

Correct. Dick Morris and Clinton had a history together going back to Clinton's first term as governor. Sort of a love/hate relationship, really. And Morris had started off in the 70s as a devoted Democrat but became one of the GOP's top pollsters by the '90s. And he had a real, definite feel for politics then--not so much now. I think in retrospect Morris was playing Clinton--using Clinton and Clinton's irrelevance after 1994 to get what he (Morris) wanted--a President further to the right.

I think Clinton was politically capable enough to have started a more Left course in the '90s if he really tried, but going the Conservative route was much easier, much more politically expedient. It was quicker. Did it buy him re-election? I don't know. Dole was sort of like a 1996 version of McCain: A center-right but ultimately boring Republican, little charisma, few truly new ideas--Basically Dole would've been like a second term for Bush I.

Clinton's problem I think was he tried to do too many things at once, for one, and he took too many radical steps too quickly. I mean didn't he start on the "Gays in the Military" issue only weeks after he took office? I support the idea of gays in the military but I realize it was still a simmering, hot, divisive topic in 1993, and Clinton dumped it in America's lap as soon as he took office--Not a good way to start off, dividing the nation, annoying the military.

People can say "Well, Obamacare was the same." Not really. Obamacare is an economic issue, divisive yes, but not as deeply divisive as the Gays in the Military thing was for Clinton. That was a social issue, and we Americans are very, very sensitive about social issues for some reason--This was seen as a challenge to our traditional values, to our traditional military ideals, a divisive challenge to one of America's most respected institutions. It was too much too soon.

Then, right after, he went into the Hillarycare thing--A good idea but horribly mismanaged and misrepresented. It wasn't sold to the public because it was too complex, and it was another case of too much too soon.

One thing Clinton was committed to throughout the course of his Presidency was deficit reduction. That seems to be something he truly did care about, and frankly, it was a pressing issue--The national debt had grown ENORMOUSLY between 1980 and 1992. What Clinton should've done was done a two prong approach: Tackle the recession, and  tackle the deficit--Beat the Republicans at their own game. Than once you gain the public's confidance with that, then you can do what you want--Gays in the military, Hillarycare. He did it backwards, basically.

And this ass-backwards way of running things colors much of Clinton's first term. There was so much unneeded crap in those early years due to a young, not well organized or disciplined staff, and a President who still had the mindset of a governor during his first year as President. Consider Hairgate, Travelgate--all these little nothings seemed like huge dramas at the time, which only derailed from more important work.

I'm not saying Clinton was a bad President; We did prosper under him. But his first year and a half or so was pretty subpar. From all the accounts I've read, even his supporters thought in 1994 that they were looking at another Carter situation with regard to '96. But the Comeback Kid, with the help of Dick Morris, did it.

What the Clinton White House needed was less Hillary and more Morris. I'm not saying he should've gone totally Conservative but he should've surrounded himself with a more professional team, and not let his wife be a partner in the White House. I don't mean that to sound sexist, but while a First Lady often has her own agenda and her own causes which she champions, they should never dominate her husband's political agenda. Bill would've been a much better President without Hillary.

Personally, I think what he needed was a hardass Chief of Staff--think Al Haig or Haldemen type people--A more hawkish Secretary of Defense; Better coordination between the FBI and CIA, and he should've called Henry Kissinger out of retirement to serve as his Secretary of State.
Yeah Dick Morris was a conservative southern Dem in the 80's-to mid 90's I think before he became a Repubican.

On Bob Dole well he had run like 2 different times for the Republican Nomination for President(1980 and 1998)and then he was defeated by Clinton in 1996.

Yeah I know Hillarycare was complex I mean even a liberal republican like Arlen Specter was against it at the time. I saw on TV  a couple years ago from 1994 Specter standing next to a poster board of Hillarycare on the US Senate Floor and the model of Hillarycare looked like a game of "Shoots N' Ladders" to me.

I agree the first lady should never dominate the president's agenda.

Dick Morris worked for George H.W. Bush in 1980 and 1988.  He also worked for the late Jesse Helms (R-NC).  Bill Clinton sold his soul to the devil.  It was Morris who urged him to support the screw-the-poor "Welfare Reform Act" of 1996.  Clinton's support of so-called welfare reform and his signing of NAFTA are the main reasons I didn't vote for him in 1996.  I wrote in Ralph Nader.  My friends said I was "throwing my vote away."  I said I'd rather throw it away than give it to either of those two azzwholes (Clinton or Dole). 

I always said what we needed foremost was campaign finance reform.  What we got instead was the coup de grace of our republic: Citizens United v. FEC.
>:(
I never knew Dick Morris worked on George H.W. Bush's 2 presidential campaigns in 1980 and 1988 nor did I know he used to work for conservative stalwart Jessie Helms.

Yeah it was Dick Morris that urged Clinton to adopt some Republican Policies(aka welfare reform) but I think welfare reform was a good thing but you guys on the left don't like policies like that. NAFTA is a policy that is a catch 22 now.


Dick Morris was a triangulator in that he belived 3rd way politics always worked back then.

I never knew Dick Morris worked on George H.W. Bush's 2 presidential campaigns in 1980 and 1988 nor did I know he used to work for conservative stalwart Jessie Helms.

Yeah it was Dick Morris that urged Clinton to adopt some Republican Policies(aka welfare reform) but I think welfare reform was a good thing but you guys on the left don't like policies like that. NAFTA is a policy that is a catch 22 now.


Dick Morris was a triangulator in that he belived 3rd way politics always worked back then.


"Conservative stalwart" is an awfully polite description of Sen. Helms!
::)

My beef with "welfare reform" is the cynicism behind it.  If the government guaranteed a living wage job for every welfare recipient drummed off the rolls, and daycare for their children, then I would be all for it.  But no.  The best the screw-the-poor crowd was willing to offer was onerous "workfare" requirements under which the recipient had to scrape bubblegum off the sidewalk for two bucks an hour while the kids fended for themselves.

It's one of the things that annoys me most about US politics, that people who come across as either too stupid or simply overwhelmingly ignorant use terms like these: describing Obama as a Communist either means you're too stupid to know what a Communist is or you're telling lies intentionally to scare those people who are too stupid to know what a Communist is, and all they know is that the Commies are the bad guys.

What doesn't happen over there, except possibly on the Jon Stewart show ;), is ridiculing these people to the extent that they deserve.  Over here, you have a slightly left-of-centre Ed Milliband being labelled as "Red Ed".. but anyone calling him "Communist" would be openly laughed at - and he's considerably to the left of Obama.
A "socialist on the extreme right"????

What low-life scum-sucking pissant idiots are calling him that?  After all.. that's longhand for "National Socialism", and you should be able to work out what that used to get shortened to.

..besides, they definitely *have* called Obama both a Communist and a dictator.  Some Republican senator managed to call him both in consecutive sentences on a Newsnight interview a while back (it was one of the things that inspired the parody I linked to above, and even had my daughter's jaw dropping)
I know MANY people who call Obama a "Socialist"...they are primarily "Tea Partiers" who, interestingly enough, DENY being such, but support most (if not ALL) of the "Tea Party-endorsed" candidates.

Oh, and Rhett, +1, not only for a well crafted post, but for mentioning my great, great, great, (great?) uncle, Thomas Dewey :)