Are conservatives continuing to get behind Barack Obama? If this conversation is any indication, it appears that Obama may be bringing precisely the bipartisanship he pledged on the campaign trail:
quote:
MALVEAUX: Are you looking forward to an Obama administration? A change?
ROBERTSON: I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he's come in forcefully, intelligently. He's picked a middle of the road cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president.
So, I'm very pleased so far.
Yes, that's Pat Robertson. Of 700 Club fame.
This has to be the first time that he's said even marginally kind things about a Democrat, right? Surely he's the only partisan Republican who feels a tingle in the leg, right?
Well, no:
quote:
McCain has had "kind words" for President-elect Obama's nominees, including Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser, and Bob Gates as secretary of defense.
"You look at the national security team; this is a team you could have picked," Stephanopoulos said. "Sure, sure. Absolutely," McCain responded.
McCain? Really? I thought Obama was getting all his advice from far-left loons!
quote:
"You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody -- right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. And so, I don't know all the details of the relationship between President-elect Obama's campaign or his people and the governor of Illinois, but I have some confidence that all the information will come out. It always does, it seems to me."
Wait, John, isn't this more evidence of Obama's bad influences? No?
Well, maybe we'll be able to put this election past us and get some governing done after all.
I can already sense Rush Limbaugh opening up another bottle of Oxycontin.
quote:
LIMBAUGH: Back to this October surprise. I am just wondering � as I say, it can�t be proven � I�m just wondering if a lot of this was by design to create economic panic. Remember now � the Iraq war had dominated everything, and the economy was said to no longer be an issue in the campaign for the first time. Corruption, other things were � ethics (well, the Republicans had those problems) � but the economy wasn�t. They wanted to create economic crisis, a mindset of this.
So Chuck Schumer starts a run � a $1.3 billion run on IndyMac, and then all of a sudden, look what we learn! All these mortgages are worthless. All the mortgage derivatives and the mortgage-backed assets are worthless. Everything was worthless. There was no there there. Every institution, every guy in the institution was an empty suit. We had to bail out this, we had to bail out that; it didn�t help. I just wonder if what was a planned attempt to scare people economically � starting a run on the bank, doing this, that, and the other thing � has spun so far out of control, it�s gone so far beyond what the intention was, just to win an election, that nobody knows what to do about it.
The only mitigating argument against is that the number one, the primary beneficiary of this � and you have to look that even in an economic collapse like ours there are beneficiaries � Who�s benefiting? Aside from the people being bailed out. The Democrat party and Barack Obama are benefiting.
They got elected, they increased their numbers in the House, they increased their numbers in the Senate, they got the White House now, and they�ve got a crisis that people think can only be fixed with the all-mighty and powerful government interceding to save this or to save that, when in fact, the government is going to nationalize the automobile industry. It�s going to nationalize some banks. It�s going to nationalize the mortgage industry, and may end up nationalizing the automobile industry. [�]
So the Obama team and the Democrat party are benefiting tremendously from this, even if it has spun out of control. It�s spun out of control, but they�ll make due with a new crisis they created a la Rahm Emanuel. But the reason I think it has spun a little out of control and gone a little further than they intended is that even the Obama people are saying, �Hey, it�s going to be really bad for a really long time.�
The division of the Republican Party continues and so too does the devolution of the wingnuts into more and more radical nutjobbery.
With a large faction of conservatives able now to see the woods through the trees, it appears that we may have an Administration truly capable of working with both sides of the aisle toward goals common among all Americans. It manages to throw the shrieking on the far, far right into starker relief, eh? Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh may be on the verge of discovering that "Real America" is much smaller than they previously thought.
To paraphrase Bill Murray, Rush's mindset right now has to be something like the following: "This is real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
Posted by The17sss on Dec-24-2008 03:00:
Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Yes, that's Pat Robertson. Of 700 Club fame.
You can only trust a glorified televangelist as far as you can throw him. This fuck believes dinosaurs were walking around 4000 years ago, or at least he says he does... that pretty much sums it up for me on how serious to take someone like him. He's just jockying for some position of relevance during the next term... doesn't want to be left out in the cold (like McCain who's doing the same thing).
quote:
McCain has had "kind words" for President-elect Obama's nominees, including Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser, and Bob Gates as secretary of defense. "You look at the national security team; this is a team you could have picked," Stephanopoulos said. "Sure, sure. Absolutely," McCain responded.
"You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody -- right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary.
Yep... I'm not surprised one bit that McCain is back to his old true self; scolding Republicans and actually thinking that acting more like Democrats and finding ways to move left are the keys to GOP victory. Compromise for Democrats is only compromise when people on the right move in their direction. McCain is pathetic.
As for Rush, I've been keeping up with him... he's not at all spinning out of control; he fully expected what McCain is doing and saying. He's right, people haven't been listening to him, which is exactly why the GOP is tattered and losing with their foolish "expanding tent" strategy. I mean, obviously that tactic didn't work... the "wizards of smart" as he calls them pimped McCain as the only candidate who could beat a Democrat because of his "bi-partisan" nature and willingness to cross the aisle. He alienated his base, started playing identity politics trying to get the "hispanic vote" and the "jewish vote" and the "female vote," etc... and millions of republicans stayed home because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone so uninspiring.
Edit: "Aim for the flat-top!"
Posted by Krypton on Dec-24-2008 05:18:
Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Yep... I'm not surprised one bit that McCain is back to his old true self; scolding Republicans and actually thinking that acting more like Democrats and finding ways to move left are the keys to GOP victory. Compromise for Democrats is only compromise when people on the right move in their direction. McCain is pathetic.
lol, when the right moves left......dude, they've already done that without anyone's help...Posted by The17sss on Dec-24-2008 15:37:
Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
lol, when the right moves left......dude, they've already done that without anyone's help...
wrong, they've done that with the advice of the RINO's and "moderates," moderate pundits and people like the ever-drifting Schwartzenegger who desperately tried to convince the GOP that moving left was the way to win. The results speak for themselves. The "Regan Democrats" that helped Ronny get 2 landslides moved right based on his ideas and leadership... he didn't have to pretend to be a hat-in-hand bi partisan or any of that other nonsense McCain failed at doing
Posted by Krypton on Dec-24-2008 16:27:
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
wrong, they've done that with the advice of the RINO's and "moderates," moderate pundits and people like the ever-drifting Schwartzenegger who desperately tried to convince the GOP that moving left was the way to win. The results speak for themselves. The "Regan Democrats" that helped Ronny get 2 landslides moved right based on his ideas and leadership... he didn't have to pretend to be a hat-in-hand bi partisan or any of that other nonsense McCain failed at doing
Oh, so all these stimulus packages, and bailouts...It's all the Dem's, Lib's, and Moderate's doing huh? So by your statement, the GOP should have gone more to the right! That is truly incredible logic. When policy fails, well, just make it more radical!
Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Dec-24-2008 17:14:
Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
You can only trust a glorified televangelist as far as you can throw him. This fuck believes dinosaurs were walking around 4000 years ago, or at least he says he does... that pretty much sums it up for me on how serious to take someone like him. He's just jockying for some position of relevance during the next term... doesn't want to be left out in the cold (like McCain who's doing the same thing).
I wholeheartedly disagree - a diehard conservative loses relevance with his own people when he starts agreeing with a "liberal" Democrat. Robertson isn't gaining relevancy by going out on a limb and praising the "enemy" - if anything, those like Rush that stay in the far corner of the right-wing are becoming the new face of the (albeit shrunken) Republican Party.
quote:
Yep... I'm not surprised one bit that McCain is back to his old true self; scolding Republicans and actually thinking that acting more like Democrats and finding ways to move left are the keys to GOP victory. Compromise for Democrats is only compromise when people on the right move in their direction. McCain is pathetic.
I don't know how you can be an impartial observer of the last two months and make the claim that Obama hasn't steered far more moderate than he has needed to. He won a majority of the vote, he has large majorities in both houses of Congress, polling suggests 65% of the US is in favor of his major policy initiatives, and 70% is optimistic about his first year in office. That's a pretty demonstrative mandate, and he doesn't need to be appointing Republicans or Moderates in his cabinet. It's interesting that you can't acknowledge the fact that liberals move to the center just as frequently as conservatives. Because it isn't far enough for your own personal political preferences, you decry it as more liberal posterizing.
quote:
As for Rush, I've been keeping up with him... he's not at all spinning out of control;
Then can you explain those statements in the first post? Surely you don't agree that the economic crisis is a calculated political move by the Obama campaign and his allies in Congress? That's straight out of Toon Town.
quote:
He alienated his base, started playing identity politics trying to get the "hispanic vote" and the "jewish vote" and the "female vote," etc... and millions of republicans stayed home because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone so uninspiring.
If Obama has done anything, it's shown that having cross-appeal does not necessitate a lack of inspiration in the base. McCain just ran a sloppy campaign - the tactics weren't to blame (in fact, remember in September they looked pretty successful) - poor management and very sloppy handling of Palin and the economic crisis are solely to blame for the bad showing on Nov. 4.
I think we're going to continue to see signs of good faith emanate from the conservative ranks - exactly because those good faith demonstrations are being made by the Obama transition team, despite your failure to acknowledge them. For God's sake, liberals are more vocal in opposition to Obama than moderates or regular conservatives. Rev. Rick Warren is a lightning rod among liberals symbolizing Obama's move to the center.
In any case, this is a movement I can get behind - it could lead to some real progress in Washington over the next few years, and really, given the electoral realities, the Republicans should be glad they're getting such a large role. It's within the Democrats' ability to largely cut them out of lawmaking next session of Congress, but they're "moving to the middle" by incorporating Republicans into policy discussions.
Now, the only reason I can think of for not being pleased by that is that it ruins your campaign slogan for 2012 - a supermajority of Dems might not be so bad after all.
Posted by adi_hanson on Dec-24-2008 20:59:
Didnt the last influential evangelical guy get booted out for bumming a rent boy?
Not that american policitics interests me
Posted by The17sss on Dec-24-2008 23:23:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Oh, so all these stimulus packages, and bailouts...It's all the Dem's, Lib's, and Moderate's doing huh? So by your statement, the GOP should have gone more to the right! That is truly incredible logic. When policy fails, well, just make it more radical!
You're not understanding me. By advocating for stimulus packages and bailouts (which are doing nothing but creating more problems), the GOP's so-called conservatives are moving away from their core principles. It's hurting the GOP because they are moving to the left.... not that they need to move more towards the right.
Posted by The17sss on Dec-24-2008 23:47:
Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I wholeheartedly disagree - a diehard conservative loses relevance with his own people when he starts agreeing with a "liberal" Democrat. Robertson isn't gaining relevancy by going out on a limb and praising the "enemy" - if anything, those like Rush that stay in the far corner of the right-wing are becoming the new face of the (albeit shrunken) Republican Party.
As a conservative, yes... you do lose relevance if you agree to liberal principles. To do so diminishes one's core conservatism. As a conservative and a republican, it is clear to me that the reason the GOP is in such trouble is because it has abandoned its principles and tried to become more like the democrat party. It is obvious that this does not inspire the republican base, which is largely to the right of the center. Robertson is simply an opportunist doing what he can to get a seat at the table.
quote:
I don't know how you can be an impartial observer of the last two months and make the claim that Obama hasn't steered far more moderate than he has needed to. He won a majority of the vote, he has large majorities in both houses of Congress, polling suggests 65% of the US is in favor of his major policy initiatives, and 70% is optimistic about his first year in office. That's a pretty demonstrative mandate, and he doesn't need to be appointing Republicans or Moderates in his cabinet. It's interesting that you can't acknowledge the fact that liberals move to the center just as frequently as conservatives. Because it isn't far enough for your own personal political preferences, you decry it as more liberal posterizing.
I do think Obama has steered more right than I expected, but what's ironic is that he had to become more conservative to win. The question that remains to be seen is, was it just talk to get elected and will he really push a far left agenda? Only time will really tell. With a majority in congress and the senate, and the ability to appoint judges, etc... he can say all he wants right now about bi-partisanship and working together, because he won't have to put up much of a fight at all to pass the kind of legislation he wants. He can easily make the appearance that he is moving towards the middle by including republicans for positions, but it's just a smokescreen (or at least it can be in theory) because they still won't be able to stop him from doing what he wants. Plus, and very importantly, do you realize that it is a huge strategy to have republicans in the fray at all times rather than have a Democrat supermajority? Because, with a Dem. supermajority, if anything goes wrong, all of the blame will get solely placed on their shoulders.
McCain on the other hand, thought he had to become more liberal (if that's possible to do and still call himself a republican), and it backfired. As for polls... I've also read polls that show a majority of people do not favor the bailouts and their tax dollars being squandered. I don't pay attention to polls about "Obama optimism" when he hasn't served a day; much of that could simple be people hoping things get better regardless of who is in office. After some time passes, those polls will become relevant I think. And, yes I do find it hard to believe that liberals move towards the center; people on the left try to get people to the right of them to move in their direction.
quote:
Then can you explain those statements in the first post? Surely you don't agree that the economic crisis is a calculated political move by the Obama campaign and his allies in Congress? That's straight out of Toon Town.
No I can't agree with that... but you can't deny the fact that Chuck Schumer did start a run on IndyMac with his irresponsible talk. Rush is definitely taking an extreme personal theory on that way too far. I think he was trying to stir the pot a little too much on that one.
quote:
If Obama has done anything, it's shown that having cross-appeal does not necessitate a lack of inspiration in the base. McCain just ran a sloppy campaign - the tactics weren't to blame (in fact, remember in September they looked pretty successful) - poor management and very sloppy handling of Palin and the economic crisis are solely to blame for the bad showing on Nov. 4.
I think we're going to continue to see signs of good faith emanate from the conservative ranks - exactly because those good faith demonstrations are being made by the Obama transition team, despite your failure to acknowledge them. For God's sake, liberals are more vocal in opposition to Obama than moderates or regular conservatives. Rev. Rick Warren is a lightning rod among liberals symbolizing Obama's move to the center.
In any case, this is a movement I can get behind - it could lead to some real progress in Washington over the next few years, and really, given the electoral realities, the Republicans should be glad they're getting such a large role. It's within the Democrats' ability to largely cut them out of lawmaking next session of Congress, but they're "moving to the middle" by incorporating Republicans into policy discussions.
Now, the only reason I can think of for not being pleased by that is that it ruins your campaign slogan for 2012 - a supermajority of Dems might not be so bad after all.
Well, you're right... McCain did run a sloppy ass campaign. Real conservatives were practically begging for inspiration from him but it never came. But still, I think the Democrats would have won no matter what this time after serious Bush fatigue. Once McCain got the nod, I knew in my heart it was over. I'm actually not as pessimistic and bitter as you think, because if this turns out to be another Jimmy Carter type presidency, it will totally revamp conservatism like it did 30 years ago. And, if Obama does stay more towards the center for real, then I will be pleased. We just have to wait and see man.
2010-2011 will be so fucking interesting IMO with that upcoming rounds of elections.
Posted by Krypton on Dec-25-2008 00:03:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
You're not understanding me. By advocating for stimulus packages and bailouts (which are doing nothing but creating more problems), the GOP's so-called conservatives are moving away from their core principles. It's hurting the GOP because they are moving to the left.... not that they need to move more towards the right.
Wasn't it the GOP who deregulated the financial industry allowing for highly leveraged trading, mergers, and acquisitions to take place?
Posted by The17sss on Dec-26-2008 01:43:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Wasn't it the GOP who deregulated the financial industry allowing for highly leveraged trading, mergers, and acquisitions to take place?
That's too simplistic. As a strategy, all the regulation or deregulation in the world means nothing when you have shitty management by the people running those companies.
Posted by Krypton on Dec-26-2008 05:31:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
That's too simplistic. As a strategy, all the regulation or deregulation in the world means nothing when you have shitty management by the people running those companies.
Let me analogize your statement.
---> As a strategy, all the traffic laws in the world means nothing when you have shitty drivers on the road. <---
Macro-management of the economy is the most influential method of guiding the overall economy. If they don't get it right, how do you expect micro-managers to? With all this deregulating stuff...as well as...traffic laws bring order to the streets. If the laws aren't adequate, how do you expect drivers to govern themselves?
Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Dec-27-2008 21:16:
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Sign of the Apocalypse
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
As a conservative, yes... you do lose relevance if you agree to liberal principles. To do so diminishes one's core conservatism. As a conservative and a republican, it is clear to me that the reason the GOP is in such trouble is because it has abandoned its principles and tried to become more like the democrat party. It is obvious that this does not inspire the republican base, which is largely to the right of the center. Robertson is simply an opportunist doing what he can to get a seat at the table.
You're going to have to connect these dots for me then. How can it be opportunist for a conservative to purposely alienate other conservatives?
quote:
I do think Obama has steered more right than I expected, but what's ironic is that he had to become more conservative to win.
I disagree with this. He ran a lot more liberal than his appointments suggest he might govern. It's true that we can't pass judgment until he starts passing laws, but you have to admit that he has been much more conservative thusfar than either the election or the state of today's political climate would logically indicate.
quote:
Plus, and very importantly, do you realize that it is a huge strategy to have republicans in the fray at all times rather than have a Democrat supermajority? Because, with a Dem. supermajority, if anything goes wrong, all of the blame will get solely placed on their shoulders.
Perception in politics is reality. Whether the Republicans are included in the process or not, the Democrats will always be blamed for mistakes that occur under their supermajority. Including Republicans is not a political necessity - it is a gesture of good faith in bipartisanship. And it's an example of liberals moving to the center in order to cooperate (as you say they never do).
quote:
McCain on the other hand, thought he had to become more liberal (if that's possible to do and still call himself a republican), and it backfired.
When? McCain didn't run as a moderate Republican... he ran as a Republican. He was far more conservative during the election in 2008 than he had been in the election in 2000. Palin is a pretty condemning indication of how far to the right McCain really ran. That's what backfired - he didn't do much at all to distance himself from the neo-conservatives currently in power.
quote:
As for polls... I've also read polls that show a majority of people do not favor the bailouts and their tax dollars being squandered.
Polls always indicate that the majority is against spending public money - the purpose is more or less irrelevant.
quote:
I don't pay attention to polls about "Obama optimism" when he hasn't served a day; much of that could simple be people hoping things get better regardless of who is in office. After some time passes, those polls will become relevant I think.
Agreed here.
quote:
And, yes I do find it hard to believe that liberals move towards the center; people on the left try to get people to the right of them to move in their direction.
To be fair, reverse this and it is the conservative ideal. Of course both sides try to move the other - but in the end, I think it's something we can agree on that both sides have proven willing to move to the center in order to get things done (often at the disdain of the hardcore elements of their own party). McCain has done this (in the past), and Obama is doing it now. I think the difference here is that I don't think much of it when Obama does it, but you hate it when McCain does.
Posted by Alex on Dec-28-2008 13:58:
A little unrelated, but I think Pat Robertson should be checked out by a Psychiatrist. Well, maybe not, something tells me he doesn't believe half the BS he spouts.
He's anti just about everything, I honestly can't believe he believes his own bull shit anymore...I wish I could point that out to his hundreds of thousands of followers who think he's some sort of prophet.
Posted by Fir3start3r on Dec-28-2008 17:52:
Sorry, I just saw the word, "Apocalypse" and immediately thought of this...
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You're going to have to connect these dots for me then. How can it be opportunist for a conservative to purposely alienate other conservatives?
He is being an opportunist by trying to curry favor with whoever happens to be in power at that particular time. If that means alienating other conservatives in his mind, then so be it... doesn't matter to him as long as he can continue to practice Utilitarianism.
quote:
I disagree with this. He ran a lot more liberal than his appointments suggest he might govern. It's true that we can't pass judgment until he starts passing laws, but you have to admit that he has been much more conservative thusfar than either the election or the state of today's political climate would logically indicate.
Well, let's take into consideration that he hasn't started serving yet. I have to believe that his shift to the right is based solely on strategy and is merely the illusion of conservative behavior until he proves otherwise because when you look at his actual voting record (when he wasn't voting "present" ) you can see just how liberal it is.
quote:
Perception in politics is reality. Whether the Republicans are included in the process or not, the Democrats will always be blamed for mistakes that occur under their supermajority. Including Republicans is not a political necessity - it is a gesture of good faith in bipartisanship. And it's an example of liberals moving to the center in order to cooperate (as you say they never do).
You're right... perception is definitey reality in politics. But I don't really believe any respectable percentage of either Democrats OR Republicans truly believe in bi-partisanship. It's just a catch phrase to make the constituents feel good and believe that people are working together for the good of everyone idealistically, when in reality most people on both sides are sharks with a personal or party driven agenda. Again, until legislation and/or voting proves otherwise, the appointment of some Republicans is just a bi-partisanship or good faith smoke screen (IMO) because the Democrats will still be able to pass almost anything they want with or without their help.
quote:
When? McCain didn't run as a moderate Republican... he ran as a Republican. He was far more conservative during the election in 2008 than he had been in the election in 2000. Palin is a pretty condemning indication of how far to the right McCain really ran. That's what backfired - he didn't do much at all to distance himself from the neo-conservatives currently in power.
Yeah he ran as a Republican, but nobody from the conservative base was fooled into thinking he was anything other than moderate or left-leaning. It took an act of god to stop him from picking Lindsay Grahmnesty or Joe Leiberman as his running mate (not that Palin was a better choice). He HAD to pick someone like Palin because there was zero excitement among the conservatives in the Republican party, not at all because it indicates how conservative he is. In fact, it illustrates how far to the right McCain isn't, because he needed her to balance him out. So, with Palin he went as far to the right as he could go, and as much as people think Palin hurt the election, McCain would have done even worse if he would have picked Grahm or Lieberman.
quote:
To be fair, reverse this and it is the conservative ideal. Of course both sides try to move the other - but in the end, I think it's something we can agree on that both sides have proven willing to move to the center in order to get things done (often at the disdain of the hardcore elements of their own party). McCain has done this (in the past), and Obama is doing it now. I think the difference here is that I don't think much of it when Obama does it, but you hate it when McCain does.
An interesting point. My take on this statement is that McCain has been doing this as a strategy to appeal to more people with the idea that it will get him more votes, and it backfires on him because he shows less actual leadership skills and more of an appearance that he's a pandering politician. I mean, what was that shit about him stopping corruption in Washington with the whole "you will know their names... I will make them famous!" Then, he supports the initial bailout that had an extra $150 billion in pork. I think maybe you don't think much of it when Obama does it because you know this country is a center-right country, and that bodes well for Obama if he shifts to the right even a little with having such a liberal voting record. Maybe I'm wrong; that's just an assumption
Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Dec-28-2008 20:10:
Yeah, I think that's where our fundamental disagreement is - I don't believe this is a right-leaning country at all.
And I would also argue that conservatives didn't lean left to curry favor under Clinton... that is a uniquely Obama phenomenon thusfar.
Posted by The17sss on Dec-28-2008 22:29:
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Yeah, I think that's where our fundamental disagreement is - I don't believe this is a right-leaning country at all.
And I would also argue that conservatives didn't lean left to curry favor under Clinton... that is a uniquely Obama phenomenon thusfar.
Check out the exit polls- 22% of people who voted consider themselves liberal, while 34% conservative. In 2004 it was 21% liberal and 34% conservative. If the past two elections were a reflection of a notworthy leftward shift in the national ethos, shouldn't there be a serious increase in the number of people that view themselves as liberal, and a decrease in conservatives?
Look at what happened when conservatives supported Prop 8 in CA... when that base is actually inspired, you see their true numbers show. They just stayed home for McCain or voted for Obama. McCain only got 78% of the conservative vote and only 89% of the Republican vote. If McCain actually moved to the right to appeal to the base, shouldn't he have done better with that base? After all, Obama got 88% of those claiming to be liberal.
About Clinton- you're right, conservatives didn't lean left; he won with 42% of the vote thanks to that little fly in the ointment Ross Perot who pretty much neutralized Bush. There wasn't any independant this time around that could get any respectable vote percentage.
EDIT: How can you not believe this country is right-leaning with more people believing in the devil and hell than evolution? lol
Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Dec-28-2008 23:38:
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Check out the exit polls- 22% of people who voted consider themselves liberal, while 34% conservative. In 2004 it was 21% liberal and 34% conservative. If the past two elections were a reflection of a notworthy leftward shift in the national ethos, shouldn't there be a serious increase in the number of people that view themselves as liberal, and a decrease in conservatives?
Look at what happened when conservatives supported Prop 8 in CA... when that base is actually inspired, you see their true numbers show. They just stayed home for McCain or voted for Obama. McCain only got 78% of the conservative vote and only 89% of the Republican vote. If McCain actually moved to the right to appeal to the base, shouldn't he have done better with that base? After all, Obama got 88% of those claiming to be liberal.
About Clinton- you're right, conservatives didn't lean left; he won with 42% of the vote thanks to that little fly in the ointment Ross Perot who pretty much neutralized Bush. There wasn't any independant this time around that could get any respectable vote percentage.
EDIT: How can you not believe this country is right-leaning with more people believing in the devil and hell than evolution? lol
Well, for one I don't see religion as a left and right issue - it's not politics, it's just religion. Christianity isn't limited to conservatives (though I agree that more radical manifestations of it seem to be).
For another, I look at how Americans view specific issues with more weight than their self-identification. A third of the country can't even identify their home state on a map - I certainly don't trust them to identify correctly as conservative or liberal. I've met way too many "conservatives" in my time in favor of universal access to healthcare and education to put much credence in numbers like that.
Rasmussen puts together a fairly good poll on which side Americans "trust" more on specific issues - I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with the exact stance of the party, but it's difficult to trust someone on education when you disagree with their philosophy on education, no?
And in any case, self-identification is beginning to catch up to stances on issues.
From 2007:
quote:
Rasmussen Reports has taken a look at how conservative or liberal the voters are in different aspects of their every day life. They found that 41% of the voters think of themselves as conservative when it comes to the issues of taxes, government spending and the regulation of private business while 41% consider themselves to be moderates and 12% say they are liberal.
...dude, they've already done that without anyone's help...
) you can see just how liberal it is. 