The Great Repudiation: Why voters have had enough of conservative rule
By David Neiwert Friday Nov 07, 2008 10:00amThe Concern Trolls are roaming free in the Village these days: John King, Laura Ingraham, Charles Krauthammer, Tom Brokaw, Karl Rove, Ruth Marcus … I don't know how many talking heads I've heard claim that "America is still a center-right country" in the past few days, but if it were a drinking game, I'd have alcohol poisoning.
I guess I'm confused. I keep hearing from a lot of conservatives that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough -- that is, he was essentially a center-right candidate. And I think that's the consensus about where he sat on the political spectrum.
So if America is a "center-right country," then why didn't they elect the center-right candidate?
It's all bullshit, of course. As a CAF/Media Matters study found last year: "Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time." In fact, as CAF's Robert Borosage points out, "Voters didn't just elect Democrats, they elected progressives." This is a liberal mandate.
Yet it's probably true that the election doesn't necessarily reflect an all-out embrace of all things liberal. Obama largely succeeded by making clear that he has a moderate temperament on a number of issues, and more importantly, in his style of governance. So a certain caution is probably wise.
No, this election was about one thing primarily: a sweeping repudiation of movement conservatism.
The breadth and depth of Democrats' victory was a loud shout from the American public: We have had enough of this crap.
Specifically, we've had enough of two things: conservative governance, and conservative politics.
GOVERNANCE:
The swirling global economic crisis produced by Republican rule is only the most prominent debacle produced by eight years of conservative philosophy being put into action. Conservatives never met a deregulation scheme they didn't like -- and it was that very mania for breaking down well-established institutional barriers, particularly in the financial sector, that led to the housing bubble and the collapse on Wall Street. Certainly, Democrats played along, often eagerly -- but they were being conservative when they did.
No doubt the solutions to the economic crisis will entail re-regulating the financial sector and imposing strict government oversight. And when they do, no doubt conservatives will accuse Democrats of indulging "socialism". But it is to laugh: the right has earned all the credibility of Joe the Plumber on such matters.
Especially when you consider all the other fruits of conservative governance:
- Foreign-policy debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- A government that invades nations under false pretenses.
- A nation less secure and at greater risk of terrorist attacks than ever.
- A sinking economy.
- An expanding gap between rich and poor.
- Utter inaction on global warming.
- $5-a-gallon gasoline.
- An unresolved immigration problem.
- An incapacity to deal with natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
- A debacle in public-school education testing and funding.
- Declining food and consumer-product safety standards.
- A government that spies on its own citizens.
- A government that tortures prisoners held in their detention facilities.
These messes weren't the result of George W. Bush being too liberal and straying too far from the movement's party line. To the contrary -- they're the direct result of him toeing that line to the millimeter. They are all the direct product of the conservative philosophy of governance.
POLITICS:
Conservatives have practiced a politics of fear for the past forty years -- since 1968, when Richard Nixon perfected the technique. Since then, as Rick Perlstein has brilliantly limned, we've been living "Nixonland." In recent years, the right has turned politics into a dark art: a relentless parade of smears, demonization, and eliminationism that has profoundly poisoned the public well and deeply divided the country.
In the past decade, we've been subjected to a nonstop battering, cheapening, and demeaning of the nation's public discourse. Nonstop public attacks on liberals -- their policies and their persons -- have come in the form of vicious attack-dog pundits for whom "pushing the envelope" has entailed dredging into the very worst kind of ugly innuendo, and wingnut politicians for whom no smear is too low to stoop to.
Look at what has littered our landscape as a result:
- The absurd impeachment of Bill Clinton in spite of the public's broad disapproval.
- The caricaturization of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, in the course of foisting a Bush presidency upon an unsuspecting public.
- The relentless campaign to portray anyone dissenting from Bush's post-9/11 war plans as insufficiently patriotic and "soft on terrorism."
- The tireless recourse to a string of "Friedman units" in excusing the interminable extension of the Iraq war.
- The swift-boating of John Kerry.
- The Terri Schiavo fiasco.
- The Graham Frost fiasco.
- The ritual and ongoing demonization of Latinos as criminals, welfare bums, America-hating, job-stealing foreigners.
- The crude dog-whistle campaign run against Obama, depicting him as a terrorist-loving, America-hating, secret Muslim brown man.
- The deeply disturbing way that conservatives acted on this rhetoric: spewing hate, racism, and threatening violence.
The right threw all of its traditional smears at Obama: Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, the "birth certificate" -- you name it, they flung it at him. And this time around, it didn't take. Poll after poll demonstrated that these attacks actually hurt Republicans across the board.
This happened in dozens of races. The most prominent was Elizabeth Dole's desperate attempt to smear Kay Hagan with a last-minute round of ads accusing her of palling around with godless types -- and she lost by an even larger margin than polls indicated. It happened at the state and local levels, too; in Washington state, Republican Dino Rossi's relentlessly negative campaign against Democrat Chris Gregoire actually worked against him -- in 2004, he lost by a handful of votes, but in 2008, the margin was a wide one.
In this election, Obama remolded the Democrats into the party of hope -- in particular, the hope for a better America. In the process, we discovered that hope can defeat fear. That is a discovery that could profoundly reshape our national politics for generations.
If Obama's presidency is successful, the "Nixonland" era will finally be over. Voters in 2008, for the first time in memory, clearly repudiated this kind of politics and this kind of governance. But it took a supreme pushback effort to get there. Staying there will be even more work -- this defeat will not mean the right will go away.
Ironically, it will now be in movement conservatives' interest to make sure that an Obama presidency fails (so much for "Country First", eh?). It will be in the interest of everyone else -- liberal, progressive, centrist, even center-rightist -- to make sure that the failure, once again, is theirs.
Login or Register to post comments.
[Deleted. Off topic. If you continue to link to unrelated articles, you'll be banned for blogwhoring. Thank you. Site Monitor]
There is a huge culture of corruption that's gripped the GOP for the past eight years. Unfortunately, Bush is likely to try and wipe it clean with a slew of pardons in the next several weeks.
They would have preferred Candidate Clinton, as they were salivating with the mud they could sling at her.
Palin was a precise pick. Kristol thought that the Republicans needed to trump Clinton as the most powerful woman in Washington.
That's one of the reasons I wanted Obama to get the nomination. I didn't want to have to hear the same old clinton lies all over again, also I knew that his nomination would bring the racism to the forefront and severly hurt the republiCons.
Believe it or not, this country is center right, this has been proven by Obama being listed as the second most liberal in the Senate and then during the election moving towards the center.
He realized this, so he moved on many positions. As for those people who think McCain is a conservative...give me a break, you know very little of the base in the Republican party if you think McCain was a true conservative.
As for the race issue, over 90% of African Americans voted for Obama and this is not racism? I know for a fact many African Americans voted for him because he was black and that was it. Here is a great example, in Louisiana right now, there is William Jefferson, he is under indictment for numerous items. He was running against a Mexican American with a good record, yet the African Americans in the district want him instead. This is extremely sad to want someone because the color of their skin alone.
Only a racist mind would say that! I have without hesitation, voted for white men in Presidential elections all of my life! How many black men have you voted for President, John? It is so wrong that bigots like you can so freely race bait because it freaks you out that a n****r is your President.
You're an ignorant, racist troll John.
I(and every black person I know) believed Obama was head over heels the best candidate! I felt that way about Clinton, Gore, Kerry...all white men! Now I know for sure where you are coming from. Unless you can produce actual proof to buttress your sick, racist theory, you need to immediately STFU!!
Everybody says so... but why is a person whose father is African and whose mother is "white" "black"?
Does it really matter? Do you think he's black or white, or just a "mutt"? You right-wingers have serious issues you must deal with. Obama is the best man for the job, full stop. He could be purple for all I care.
When the actress Halle Berry won her Academy Award in 2001 for best actress, she accepted it as an African American, even though her mother was white. She was later asked the same question by someone apparently just as ignorant as you appear to be. She explained that she had been treat as a black woman all her life and that's why she considered herself "black". If Obama was on the news and had been arrested for murder, dopes like you would then call him black. Now that he's President, now you want credit. It really doesn't matter until race baiting assholes like you try to make it an issue. I'm willing to bet what Obama considers himself....thanks to treatment he's received all his life from fools like you.
Weren't there white people that voted for McCain because he is white?
Many whites voted for Obama, and not strictly because of the colour of his skin. They like him.
When they run the first gay candidate, I'll vote for him/her, or not vote for him/her, based on policies, not sexual orientation.
What is extremely sad is the way you view this country.
There is only one race sport. The Human race.
This is addressed to john.
Get over it john. Welcome to the 21st century.
You are dumb.
African Americans voted 88% for John Kerry(white). Get your head out of your ass idiot.
I've seen a lot of lists, John. Being on a list is not a meaningful distinction. You can read what the man has written and decide for yourself whether he's a right winger or left winger or whatever. I can't see anything in Obama's work that points to anything beyond a love of the Constitution and a commitment to improving the quality of life of all Americans. You're not responding to Obama; you're responding to published opinions of Obama.
Don't knock people for mistaking John McCain for a conservative; with all the fear-mongering and lust for power evident in the McCain-Palin ticket anyone could make that mistake.
Consider this.
We will still have a Corporate Republic.
...a racist media:
Fox News Inspires KKK Threats
abortion rights win every time, center right but not social conservative center right. center left socially.
mclame lost because he was the conservative candidate.
Because after 8 years of conservative horrors people are ready for a real president and a real presidency. Not another dumbya-esque puppet.
It wasn't because he wasn't conservative enough. It was because he was TOO conservative, perceived too much like Bush.
And Palin, well she was just candy for the right-wing fringe, so conservative that most people couldn't stand her on the left AND on the right.
Listen, this is nothing new. Every time the Republicans lose, they assure us that the reason the American people voted for the guy they insisted was the bastard child of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong is because the Republican candidate wasn't conservative enough. As if that argument made any sense at all.
Anyway, this is why they really lost.
If any of their candidates had spent the last few years dealing with the concerns of their constituents and doing their jobs rather than spending all their time shoveling the 'conservative agenda' into great heaping piles all over the place and making conservativism something people had to avoid stepping in, then they probably would have done a lot better.
True... I've had to replace numerous pairs of shoes since 2000.
"I've got political capital and I intend to use it." GWB
How's that working out for you George?
Like in all other things, he's into deficit spending.
Look, this is really simple. The GOP right still thinks that playing the old Rovian games..."repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth"...works.
This is their biggest mistakes. It may work in a literally homogenic society, with all due respect to our German neighbors, but the fact is that America is different. NONE OF US are real Americans, except for native Americans. The rest of us are all the sons and daughters of immigrants or slaves. Different nationalities, social mores, etc, etc. all thrown together. What joins us is our diversity...and most of all our independence. The United States was founded on principles of freedom and liberty...which both require a certain level of free thinking. Yes, there are pockets of us that are trapped inside of their cultural backgrounds, BUT...the fact is that we are joined by basic principles that demand that we think and act as individuals...take those individual views, find common ground and create a society. THAT is the great experiment and the great reality of AMERICA.
The GOP is boxed into a reality that simply doesn't exist. It may have existed for a time...but the fact is...the American people as a whole are simply to independent to be led on a lease for an extended period.
The GOP didn't offer conservatism in 2004, or 2008, all they offered was fear. In 2004 republicans won by scaring the crap out of people, overplaying terrorism, demonizing homosexuals, and making the democrats out to be pussies. There was no discussion of balancing budgets, cutting spending, cutting the size of government, because Bush had done the complete opposite the previous 4 years.
In 2008, it was different, all McCain did was spend a year telling us why you shouldn't vote for the other guy because he's a muslim, terrorist, socialist, with a crazy evangelical preacher. No substance, no issues.
Obama's victory isn't a big rejection of conservatism, it's a rejection of the direction the GOP have gone the last 8-12 years.
I disagree. The conservatives, or "cons" as Thom Hartmann calls them, always claim that when their candidates lose it's because they weren't "true" conservatives. There's always some mythical group of "cons" who would have been great...if only they got into power. Our local paper has a troglodyte who claims Bush was really a liberal. They had their chance. America saw what they were and soundly rejected their philosophy.
dumbya's a librul? Did he also mention what color the sky is on his planet? :D
philosophy is totally bankrupt, literally as well as figuratively. They're trying to distance themselves from the narrow-minded, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-environmental, regressive con policies. As Rachel Maddow said on Colbert, electing "cons" who hate government to govern is like having a vegan as a butcher.
I don't know if I agree with the idea that they're trying to distance themselves from xenophobic, homophobic, anti-everything rhetoric considering it's looking like they're going with the 'dumbya with boobs' model for the next election.
you're right. A lot of the "pundints" are shameless opportunists and front-runners who know their gigs would be limited unless they appear to be flexible. The con and neo-con base definitely loves them some Caribou Barbie.
He is liberal with other people's money.
used to say that they like to call it "movement conservatism" because they like to take dumps on the rest of us.
We had to go through 5 or 6 years of them blaming Clinton for their failures. Now they are blaming Obama for the stock market, Russia saying that they will put arms on the Polish border, etc. The new talking point is that conservatives did not come out for this election, so it still proves the country is center right. They are in denial that their brand of governing has failed.
It is a center right media, the education system has moved center right. Once you debunk the right wing "facts" that so many people use to base their opinion on most people are liberal. Cutting through the right wing horse puckie is almost impossible with a huge number people. The Fascists have done their propaganda job very well.
I agree, the conservatives only label themselves as that. They are not acting or legislating as conservatives, more like fascists. Kucinich is Center, proven. His platform, Kucinich, is inline with most Americans beliefs and wants.
So I argue that America is Left left, take that.
A conservative, Arlen Specter, he is a conservative.
I think I have that name right, Specter???
If you keep in mind that everything a Republican/rightwinger says is either a lie, a distortion or a delusion then everything they say makes perfect sense.
That's exactly right. This was about a repudiation of neo-conservatism and movement-conservatism.
Certainly, Obama is not a liberal's dream candidate. There are ways in which he is center-right. Many of them.
I'm not sure Americans are educated enough to understand the political spectrum, much less place themselves on it. However, ask them about basic issues on an issue-by-issue basis, and Americans are pragmatic centrists who lean slightly left. They want universal health care. They want Social Security. They want fiscal responsibility. They want religion in the public square, but not integrated with their state. They don't embrace "the other," but they're content to tolerate, to live and let live.
If we educated our country in civics and science, America would be center-left.
This is the real tragedy of NCLB. It is a sham that supposedly promotes education and achievement, but does exactly the opposite - churn out a generation more concerned with the 'right answer' than the process of determining it, or evaluating sources.
You can vote the bastards out of office, but you can't make them leave broadcasting.
they're still reading from the Cheney-Rove-Bush operations manual - If you say something enough times, it will become true.
I read somewhere, and this makes a lot of sense, that this was an election for 35ers and younger, that this was their first real president. It makes sense, because since the Reagan era, there has been this polarization in American politics and these 35ers and younger are sick of the fighting, the get-nothing-down BS. They want new blood, action and unity.
I maintain that the illusion of the 'mainstream media' was and is promulgated by the neoconservatives. It's cult thinking - isolate the subject and gradually control their worldview, so that they end up depending on you, begging you to bless them with your presence.
I think we'd also be better served if we shot half of the pundits in this country and forced people to think on their own. I'm sick of "Here to tell us what it all means is ..."
When are these clowns going away?!?!??! They make me want to vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO AWAY CLOWNS GO AWAY YOU LOST WE HATE YOU GO AND TAKE YOUR ILL GOTTEN BOOTY WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, throughout the campaign, we were told that Obama and the Democrats were so far left that they went into the territory of Marxism so, a CENTER Right country would vote for extreme leftists? Okay, sarcasm aside, I don't believe this country is center-right. I believe it's more center-left. There are significantly more self-identified Democrats that Republicans plus, over the last two elections, Independents have found themselves more in favor of Democratic policies that Republicans policies. This tells me that the country leans more center-left.
What we are hearing from these pundits are no more than Republican talking points, trying to scare Democratic politicians in not giving the Republicans a dose of what these "conservatives" have been doling out for the last 7+ years.
Just outright lies. The Republicans have lost the Latino vote, will never get the black vote, independents, losing women, etc. This party can either overhaul their hateful, paranoid, racial/economic caste system agenda or become extinct....I personally hope that they die....slowly.
"Specifically, we've had enough of two things: conservative governance, and conservative politics. " but we'll have to live with it for another 2 years with right-wingers like Pelosi and Welch in our House of Representatives. Do you people really believe that the same people who refused to stop funding for illegal wars, detentions, torture, and surviellance and refused to hold those who committed such crimes accountable are suddenly goin to do the right thing? I remember quite distinctly 2 years ago when everybody thought there was going to be some change in our government. That lasted about 6 months followed by 18 months of frustration and disappointment. I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to be one bit different this time. Sure Obama is a man of his word and will try to get some progressive policies implimented. Just don't expect that the Congressional Dems(and certainly not the rethugs) to go along with it.
As great as it is that we have an African-American president for the first time in our history, and as great as it is that we've ended the 8-year reign of the unelected George W. Bush, let's not ignore the fact that 48% - that is, close to half of all votes - went to the Republicans, and 52%, just over half, went to the Democrats. That is frightening to think about, especially since the right is still way better organized than any other group in the country, partly because of the network of right-wing churches plaguing the land.
My guess is that the youthful get-out-the-vote-for-Obama "movement" won't outlast the election, just like the last-minute but historically massive February 15, 2003, antiwar demonstrations did not constitute a movement but were a one-shot deal.
And Obama's record is pretty Clinton-esque, on the center-right of an increasingly right-wing Democratic party, despite his early, minor misgivings about the invasion of Iraq. The appointments he's made so far are not looking very "liberal" either, with a ruthless Zionist his first choice and threats against Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the truly progressive parts of Latin America. It's more of the same Clintonite crap.
And, yes, I know McCain would be worse, but let's not ignore what we can already see.
That is wrong, from what I have seen studying the map, closer to 60-40, or even maybe 65-35. Look for yourself.
The Boob Tube is not just saying we are center right they also are trying to paint the picture that McCain wasn't shut out. A Major Majority voted for Obama. McCain was shut out.
Senate and Congress, too.
We are getting down to reality. A 70-30 split, but still voter fraud exists, so I'll settle for 65-35. :P
Think about it.
http://tinyurl.com/54qe8a
"The reason for the change? Exhausted county officials had accidentally entered 24 for Franken instead of 124 when the county's final votes were tallied at 5:25 Wednesday morning."
http://tinyurl.com/54qe8a
Go Al!
I can't wait to say, Senator Al Franken! And hear that pussy O'Reilly say it.
chokes on it!
Thanks LeftandLeft!
frankin, i am sorry to report, is a putz, but still better than colman by a longshot... Dean Barkley was the only decent choice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2EUps0vxeE
Dude, your guy Barkley is a spoiler who (just like Paul, Nader) has nothing to lose. By voting for Barkley, the end result will be the re-election of that human bed pan Coleman....period.
None of us like to pay taxes. So if a fiscal conservative could thoughtfully cut spending and balance the budget the Republicans could win every time. Unfortunately so called conservatives start expensive wars, start new unfunded programs, bail out their Republican business CEO's and to add insult cut taxes.
The Democratic Party lets everyone in on social issues. If you're prolife that's okay, if you're a member of the NRA that's okay, if you oppose gay marriage that's okay. Meanwhile the conservatives in the Republican party begin a witch hunt against anyone who doesn't espouse what they believe.
Ironically they tried to impeach the President nearest their values, President Clinton. He reined in spending, cut welfare and brought us the first free trade agreement.
Hopefully the phony conservatives will force the GOP to nominate Sarah Palin as President, then Obama should win by a 47-3 state majority.
HA HA HA HA!!!!
The "man" increased the government by three times. He spent more than all other presidents combined. That is not an exaggeration.
He was far from a conservative.
Though Reagan is now seen as a paragon of conservatism, his deliberately reckless deficit spending and shoveling of money from social services and education into military, police, and prisons ended up ballooning the "big government" he claimed to hate into a monstrosity. Reagan was the greatest amasser of government debt before Bush II.
Those that were paying attention at the time saw this and referred to him as a "radical" rather than a conservative. Political analysts now recognize the precedent Reagan set as a deliberate strategy to destroy "big government" by making it indebted and dysfunctional, thus tying the hands of future administrations that might want to increase spending on social services and education.
So, while a right-wing administration's creation of a massive government through mass deficits may on the face of it violate "conservative" principles, in the long term it suits the "conservative" goal of destroying "big government," or at least making it impossible to utilize those government functions that right-wingers oppose, like education and social services.
suits their goal of moving as much as possible into the prvate sector from whence they - the corporatist, republican, neo-cons -
can put all that lovely money in their pockets. The ultimate "Trickle Up" theory in practice.
And so did Reagan. It is all a myth.
tried to turn america into a corporation. not conservative.
As he was "elected" twice, this, your news dispels the myth of America being a centre-right country, doesn't it wheyghey? Yet supposed conservatives love him. What gives?
Here is my 3-Point Plan for Republicans to regain standing with the American people:
1) Stop lying.
2) Stop cheating.
3) Stop stealing.
Simple as that. If they want to actually be liked, and not just tolerated, they could add Point 4) Mind your own business: If you don't want an abortion, or to marry a gay person, or to use medical marijuana, or to end your life with dignity, or to have sex before marriage, then don't. But leave us alone.
...but also stop hating and fearing us non-white folks.
of the day.
Tom Brockaw went on Dave Letterman and said Obama lied about taking campaign financing. Can you imagine calling the President Elect a liar the day after he just won in a major way? Even if you think he lied why would say that? Ugh... Good forbid we should make SP feel bad for choosing to remain uninformed during the campaign but it OK to call BO a liar... did I say that already...
not good for a so called journalist.
America IS a center-right nation and always has been. This election has helped pull us a little to the center - a great thing, but let's not think that there is any kind of viable left wing in this country.
There is a fine line between Obama, Clinton and McCain, with Obama tending toward the center right and McCain being on the other side of center-right. Bush is further to the right, and then you've got Inhofe et al over on the far right.
Kucinich, Frank and their colleagues on the "left" of the Democratic Party are centrists.
I think having a President and Vice President Elect who are willing to talk about the role taxation plays in supporting a working, fluid economy is a step forward. I think if the door opened to allow the future election of someone who was comfortable talking enabling workers to own the means of production, then that would be an even more welcome step. When someone (other than Ron Paul) shows up willing to talk about moving away from militarism and reducing defense spending, then we're actually making progress toward the left.
It is always fascinating to hear the exact same talking points spouted by different people. It makes me wonder who is in charge of Propaganda Central. Whoever it is, they do an excellent job of making sure everyone is on topic and repetitive.
This is just a charade to make it seem like they've won after all. It is called "saving face".
Center right? Perhaps being a fiscal conservative and not allowing trillions in deficit spending is center right, but that is about all there is to latch onto at this moment.
Universal Heathcare? Not exactly center right. Tax cuts for the middle class? Nope, not really.
All I see is panic in Spin City. Very amusing.
i belive people are becoming more progressive as we move along here in time... but the government, including barak and the dem leadership i am afraid, is center right... the country has never really seen libralism, so we can only compare it to what we know... socialism, allowing other political parties to compete, free health care, compasion for all people, regulation on industry, workers rights and worker ownership of industry... that is libral... this will be the cosmetic change needed to continue the rape of the worker, and it will continue until the next revolution...
Palin/Cheney 2012
I don't think conservatism is dead, just NeoConservatism. If they found a dude/dudette like Reagan, who would actually practice fiscal conservatism (who the hell has?), the Republican party would come charging back.
regan was a fiscal concervative? i think, but i could be wrong, that he spent more on "de(of)ence than all the other presidents combined, while demonizing the black welfare mother... reagan was not a fiscal conservative compared to, say ron paul...
Government grew under Reagan and so did the deficit. Just like Bush. Two peas.
That's what I'm saying. Foreign Policy like Reagan (I really doubt Reagan would have invaded Iraq), and a real fiscal conservative. I'm not saying Reagan was one, I'm saying the Republicans need one.
was far from fiscally conservative. Between the two bushes and Ronnie, they ran up 70% of America's debt incurred since its inception. Ronnie put it all on the credit card, and raised payroll taxes to boot. He was just a telegenic used car salesman.
..what all of these Repugs who espouse conservatism are just saying:
All You People out there in America, you need to live more conservatively.
YOU need to sacrifice in your daily lives, and give all your hard-earned money to us, so we can spend it raping other countries of their natural resources.
WE know what's best for you: here are the choices we've selected -
our religion, our values, our wars, oh and did I mention, it's OUR money.
I think it's hard to make sweeping generalizations about the results of the election. I think a number of folks that voted Democratic this time around may well still be GOPers at heart but figure that the official of the party are a bunch of incompetents and/or crooks, etc. These voters could easily be drawn back to the GOP column once the GOP has distanced itself from the current crop of failure.
However, the results do indicate that people are open to a new way of doing things. If Obama and the rest of the Democrats show them that things really will be better then many of those wayward GOPers may permanently switch their allegiance.
The other point is that it's really sort of silly to try and argue about the one dimensional conservative-liberal axis. Peoples interestes have many more dimensions than that. When the current set of policies and intentions offered by a party resonate with the voters they'll go to that party. For example, when people are worried about National Security they'll go to the party that they think will be better at handling it; the party may also be offering a set of other policies that the voters do not support, but those concerns are swamped out by the currently important policy.
When you try and project a multidimensional space into a single line, the result is often says more about the people making the projection than the space being projected.
What actually has happened is a bit more subtle. the American "center" has in fact embraced "progressive" positions, yet still thinks it is not "liberal." which is the same as saying some core liberal values have permanently become mainstream.
health care is the obvious one. there is now a national consensus it is the government's job to assure affordable health care for everyone. as Obama said in the debate, that it is a "right," not as McCain said, a "responsibility" (which meant, you're on your own). there is not yet a consensus on how to do it tho. but remember, Ronald Reagan called Medicare "socialism." conservatives have lost that war, just like their anti-New Deal assault on Social Security is dead forever now too.
the crusade against abortion is likely doomed now too. assuming Obama appoints several new Supreme Court justices, Row v. Wade is now secure and "choice" is now the nation's center. and yes, many voters realized the future of the Supreme Court was up for decision in this election.
moreover, Obama clearly argued for the progressive income tax, it was very high profile. the conservative's effort to repeal that part of the Teddy Roosevelt progressive era - the "flat tax" - is now dead once and for all too.
and then there is energy/environment/global warming, where the center has clearly embraced a strong government role of some kind - but yet to be determined.
but this all happened because people are now thinking about issues, not about labels. so if you ask them if they are a "liberal" the answer is still no. they see all the above as being "center."
which is the best outcome of all.
No matter his platform, Obama was elected to do five things 1) End USer military adventurism overseas; 2) create Universal Health Care ; 3) restore the civil liberties stolen by the Busheviks in the name of national security; 4) bring alternative energy resources to parity with conventional sources , and 5) to restore economic health to the middle and lower class. When we voted for him as president, those were the five major themes that voters wanted him to pursue.
Unfortunately: 1) he merely wants to move the base of operations to Afghanistan and ENLARGE the military; 2) he merely wants to bring 'insurance' to the uninsured, and not even all of them; 3) he voted to sustain the FISA, and to RENEW the fucking Patriot Act; 4) he's for that toxic oxymoron, "Clean Coal", and ethanol for fuel, and 5) he voted for the Big Banker's Bail-out. This record does not inspire hope, because:
Each and every one of those challenges involves conflict with wealthy, embedded, CorpoRat interests to whom he is beholden. He got their "quid" (campaign money, support); now he's gotta do the whole "pro quo" thing. These are not folks who are gonna roll over and show their bellies just because his election was 'historic.' It was, but it wasn't a "landslide" or anything like it. FDR, LBJ, Nixon (in 72), Reagan (in '84): those were landslides...Historical or not, his popular vote margin is too slim to effect real change against the prevailing currents of the hegemonic interest or to compel their cooperation or even their passivity....even in the (imho unlikely) event he actually meant to accomplish them...
I'll dispute that shifting the focus to Afghanistan is counter to ending military adventurism. It is - and, I'll grant that it may be too little, too late - an attempt to define our mission and focus on al-Qaeda, with the areas we neglected, Afghanistan and Pakistan, now at greater risk than when we went after Saddam.
As for enlarging the military, again, I don't find this particularly inconsistent with bringing things under control. We've overextended our forces, and the only way to relieve those troops that have been burdened with multiple deployments and a vague, amorphous mission is to bring new troops on-line and improve support capabilities.
...our focus is not now and has never been on getting terrorists, al-Qaeda or any one else. Our focus was on ensuring that Western global energy corporations would have total control over the vast oil and gas resources of the middle east region. Period.
American policy is, and always has been, control of world resources at any cost, and by any means: Republican and Democrat both.
Hey, I googled this and my comment, here at C&L, a year ago, was on page 1 of google, look:
Wolfowitz and his 1992 Strategy of World Dominance: "The Defense ...These hypothetical conflicts, coupled with the policy guidance document, .... " U.S. foreign policy has always been based on control of world resources. ...crooksandliars.com/2007/09/23/wolfowitz-and-his-1992-strategy-of-world-dominance-the-defense-planning-guidance/ - 113k - Cached - Similar pages
Long live teh free internets: may the tubes stay clean. We are the change. Cha-ching.
Your private sex shit sometimes shows up on Google too. Beware. But no one here does that ...right?
the american people have spoken. we're tired of authoritarian rulership designed by NEOCON thinktanks. we're ready to governed. we want checks and balances. we want seperation of powers. we want to be heard. that's the change we want
What do we mean by "right"? In the context of other nations globally, both the Repubs and Dems are probably centre right.
With essentially a two party system in the U.S., the GOP includes multiple factions - financial/social conservatives, the religious "right", rednecks/bigots/racists and a large faction of otherwise uninformed. I'd like to see them split apart to leave a new true Conservative party, a Nazi party and the historic GOP remnant.
The Dems also have more than one faction, they just united better for this election cycle and finally managed to get the vote out.
If you look at US politics in relation world wide politics, we are right of center.
This tool called the Political Compass maps this out pretty well. http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
The two parties candidates for 2008 US election are both right of center:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
The political attitudes of the states based on their Senator's views, still all right of center(click the boxes to show your state):
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?ia=o...
I encourage you to read through this website and take their "test" to see where you are on the compass.
"It's time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Joe Biden and Democrats paid for this statement, but let me ask: Is it patriotic to send our young men into combat on multiple tours while we are told to go shopping and party, and pile up the debt to be paid by generations of Americans not yet dreamed of? Not that I believe it is possible to repay $10,000,000,000,000.00 within generations while adding hundreds of billions annually to that debt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
While heaping much of the blame for America's, and the world's dilemma on republican politicians, I would suggest that much of the blame can be heaped on the media, principally FoxNews. How often have I heard smears on O'Reilly but more so from Hannity that appeared the following day. I first heard Jeremiah Wright on H&C (Hannity&Colmes) followed by daily repetition everywhere else. Same for Ayers, Rezgo, and then statements taken out of context such as Iran is not a threat, Iran is a tiny country and so on, in addition to the claim that Obama is not honest and can't be trusted. All this from Hannity, possibly the most dishoest person polluting the airways, the prime reason for cleaning up the media and hold them accountable. Huckabee, Giuliani, Gingrich, and the rest cabal repeated verbatim what Hannity has created, including 'non-repentant terrorist', which I thought was impossible that 20 people would say that of their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Then there is the hipocrisy of the religious nuts - they bring my blood to a boil, so I'll let that go until some time later
The CorpoRats held onto their de facto veto in the Senate, which "advises and consents" to Presidential appointments. This means Obama will be constrained in whom he can nominate, because the deference the Pukes demanded for the Chimperor's appointments will NOT EVER be extended to the new guy.
Obama will probably have three appointments, unless by some misadventure, one of the OPUS DEI guys gets called home. Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer (iirc) have said they wish to step down. Obama (here's the 'mandate' problem again) won't have the POPULAR mandate to nominate and expect confirmation of any nominee perceived to be 'liberal' in the vein of Douglas, Marshall, or Brennan, or Black. Hell, I doubt he could get a Harry Blackmun through. His nominees will have to be innocuous enough to pass the inspection of the likes of Mitch McConnell, for craps' sake...
...to get his appointments through that the Repukes placed on the Democrats all these years. Don't make the same mistake Grandpa made....Obama is tougher than you realize. The Emmanuel appointment(and the Repukes frightened reaction) should have served as a hint towards things to come.
I hope Reid or if he is replaced, will threaten, and if necessary, use the nuclear option.
"The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the presiding officer's ruling is upheld, the Senate will then hold a vote on the substantive measure under consideration. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate. The filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent."
I would have preferred a candidate/nominee/president-elect who actually repudiated 'conservatism.'
But I'm funny that way...
I hope that the Republican party will jetson the only pople who could save their party-the moderates. And I hope they become a theocratic christian party, and openly decare that we all must worship Jesus.
Why? They will be totally dicredited, be seen as a dangerous party of wackos, and it will be LONG time before they are in the white house again.
I hope the Republicans to go as far right as possible New
Fri, 11/07/2008 - 11:39 — Tom Servo
I hope that the Republican party will jetson the only pople who could save their party-the moderates.
He coulda saved the GOP?
http://www.kdheks.gov/ohi/kids_smiles/george_...
The ReBUBlicans can kiss the center right of my ass!
We've seen both neo(new)conservatism and neo-liberalism at work for some time now.The former in the areas of foreign policy and HL security,the latter in the rise of "free market" ideology.
...why do the Republicans, by their own admission, do better when turnout is low?
If the Republicans REALLY represent the majority view of Americans, wouldn't they want to increase overall turnout?
If you look at US politics in relation world wide politics, we are right of center.
This tool called the Political Compass maps this out pretty well. http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
The two parties candidates for 2008 US election are both right of center:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
The political attitudes of the states based on their Senator's views(click the boxes to show your state):
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?ia=o...
I encourage you to read through this website and take their "test" to see where you are on the compass.
The Democratic presidential candidate has won the popular vote 4 out of the last 5 elections. Further proof that the country is strongly Republican.
By the way, right now mine is "center-right" but that could change at any moment.
not socially, abortion rights win every time. center right but not social conservatively.
Great article, David. But you buried the lead:
"If Obama's presidency is successful, the "Nixonland" era will finally be over."
This is the heart of the matter now. This is the dividing point in the upcoming conservative civil war.
The Nixonland conservatives recognize that if Obama's presidency is successful, that the repudiation of (that brand of) conservatism will be complete.
So there will be two factions within the conservative movement.
One will be thoughtful, looking for elements of the Obama-led liberalism that can be compatible with mainline conservatism and looking for elements in mainline conservatism that will be palatable to liberals.
"Choice," for example, is a word everybody seems to want to own. Another would be regarding early childhood development programs, health care and social security as being inherently "pro-life." "Pro-the-whole-life" as I heard one conservative commentator put it.
But then there will be the other branch, which align their values to James Dobson and Pat Robertson and their tactics to Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
This school will not be interested in seeing positive results out of Obama's administration. As they see it, conservatives have lost but liberals haven't yet won. They will work to see that Obama's approval ratings are in the toilet in four years' time.
The problem they have, of course is that they've set the bar so low, cut into so much bone, that if they were to actually achieve their ends, our nation probably wouldn't survive.
Imagine what Obama would have to do to be less popular than George W. Bush by 2012. I don't know about you, but my mind is a blank. The only ideas that come close involve lotion and a basket.
I gotta believe that the "Palin 2012" meme will die before inauguration. Think about what Palin as a viable candidate in 2012 really means. It means that Obama will have taken this country so far astray that we're all thinking "hmmm, maybe Sarah Palin would be a better choice."
I just can't believe there's that much more astray we can go and still even have elections.
35% turned into 28%, which is turning into 22%. I think it's time for a new name for these people. "Conservatives" just doesn't cover it anymore but "dominionists" is a little too narrow.
I think its misleading to call what Bush-Cheney did "conservative governance". That implies that their hearts were in the right place but they just screwed up. Or they executed their plan incorrectly.
Oops, sorry, my bad.
Blowing the whistle too soon in a football game is a screw up.
What Bush-Cheney did was criminal. And it was deliberate with malice aforethought. It's called organized crime.
Their faces should be in every post office alongside Osama Bin Laden's.
Gore Vidal (iirc) once said the two 'parties" are naught but slightly divergent wings of the same Party of Property: the "right" wing (Dims) and the VERY RIGHT wing (the Pukes.)
people are forced to accommodate themselves to the party structure, which both pre-exists and out-lives them.
We make the same mistake in our interpretation of the relation of voters to the candidates that we make in our interpretation of the relation of the consumer to the advertiser. In both instances, "the people" are the product being sold, not the ostensible products of the advertisers/parties.
remember "Freedom at the 7-11?" You're free to buy your cheetohs and coke there. But not "free" to buy healthy foods, because they are not in stock. Similarly, you're free to select Obama or McCain from the Parties, but not select a democratic socialist, because the Parties never put one on offer...
that if you look at the popular vote, 57,000,000 American voters still went for McCain/Palin. So let's not get too happy with the "mandate" talk. I'm a liberal commie socialist myself, I'm just sayin' -- a helluva lot of people in this country are still drinking the kool-aid.
when they get universal health care, a decent job at a good wage, a stable stock market.
They can whine this is a "center/right" country all they want. That is not the truth, it is common knowledge this is now a liberal leaning country thanks to our great new President. Repeating a lie won't make it true, not anymore.
repeating a lie is still very effective. We must continue to speak out against the lies if we are to prevent another right wing perversion of our country!
it's happened before and we defeat it every time, but each time it gets a little harder to beat (or at least it seems that way)
stay informed, it's our only defence against the right wing agenda.
It's always good to stay vigilant, but nuts like Limpballs are just wild animals out in the wilderness at this point. Corporate media, that's still a problem but I think it will improve much next year.
what exactly is a Conservative Principal?
Stealing from the middle class to give to the wealthy?
Killing a Doctor to prevent someone from getting an abortion because of your strong views on preserving life?
Giving a BJ in a airport mens room to an undercover cop?
what is a Conservative Principal?
America has gone through a long stretch of what is often referred to as "Liberal Conservatism".
Bush embraced Laissez-faire Capitalism while maintaining a strong relationship with so called "traditional" values and religious convictions.
The "Liberal" in the phrase relates purely to 19th century economic theory,that under the guise of "Globalization" has been a boon to multinational corporate interests if not the World's working classes.
I'm hoping for a move toward a social democratic model in America,similar to N European models,as this influence would no doubt have a world wide effect.That said,I see Obama as a political moderate at best so I'm not holding my breath.I do see his ascension as quite positive however.Time will tell.
for myself an obama admin could start by re-enatcing those parts of the New Deal which have been dismantled in the last 25 years or so. Perhaps starting with Glass-Steagall?
I myself would of course go much further.
Americans are forever sick of the taste of Reslug SHIT. Republics are done!!
Normally, I read each post before I post my own thoughts, but this time I can't. Last night I traveled into Bizarro World (AKA Fox News) just to see what they were saying. I turned into Brit Hume a little before he went off the air. They were talking about whether or not America is a more liberal nation now. There consensus was no. And, would you like to know why they thought no...this was the rich part...Brit thought America was still center-right because Liberals still don't call themselves liberals. They call themselves progressives, as if progressive meant the same thing as being liberal. Un-fucking-believable.
..now go wash that filth off. We tried watching a tad of FOX on election night but every time Rove came on I found myself almost screaming at the TV "why aren't you in jail!!"
After Hume's show was over, I switched to watch Countdown. Fox News has become a caricature of a caricature of itself.
I wish I could agree with you that Obama's election represented a repudiation of conservatism.
I don't feel that way because neither Obama nor Biden have taken many progressive positions.
Neither of them did shit, for example, to defeat Proposition 8.
Obama's positions vis a vis Pakistan is identical to Bush.
He says he wants to send troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Both Obama and Biden voted for the extension of the Patriot Act.
Obama voted for FISA.
He hasn't said squat about ending the war in Iraq - even now, when it is safe to do so.
He doesn't say shit about the poor - only the "middle class".
Etc.
Pelosi - Reid - Obama - Biden - Schumer - Emmanuel - Progressive? Are you kidding?
Obama is lucky that the economy took its' nosedive in mid-September.
Bloggers and progressives who are patting themselves on the back are a bunch of chumps.
I see you're here.
So if you think Obama is "identical to Bush", what was all the Marxist, godless, terrorist, radical shit about? Just hateful bile overflow? Your gut coming up into your mouth a little?
What I said was that Obama's position vis a vis Pakistan is identical to Bush. It is.
I did not say Obama was identical to Bush. It's just that on many issues of foreign and domestic policy, his pronouncements, votes and actions are not far afield.
I am saying that Obama's positions thus far expressed re: civil liberties, Iran, Russia and Iraq are not progressive. I wish they were. He has also yet to speak about the poorest among us. His focus is on the middle class.
I'm glad McCain did not win.
But to call Obama's victory a repudiation of conservatism is pollyanna.
Just heard a portion of Obama's news conference.
His position on Iran is identical to Bush's also.
We're in for a bumpy ride.
Yes, aren't we all "lucky" the world economy is in the crapper.
No, we are not lucky that the economy is in the crapper.
Obama is lucky that it took the nosedive when it did.
Those around Obama acknowledge that the "oxygen" had gone out of his campaign after the Republican convention. Polls showed McCain getting close. Some had him ahead.
After the economy tanked, the polls all went to Obama's favor.
His own campaign staffers referred to Obama's "luck" in that regard, according to the NYTimes.
Wax-faced Brokaw is disgusting claiming the U.S. is a center right country. That's what one would expect from a rich celebrity news reader that has pretentions of insight. Being a member of the pampered and priviledge he is running scared for fear that his precious status quo is about to change. The people may have the power to vote criminals out of office but appartently they have to suffer a corrupt and complicit corporate media.
I've been trolling through the comments here and wanted to post my own thoughts about what occurred in the last two election cycles.
The Republican Party often claims the Democrats have nothing new to offer, that it is the GOP that is the party of ideas.
However, it seems to me that their "ideas" are at least 110 years old: laissez faire government, self regulation by corporate entities, non-progressive income taxes, free wheeling capitalism. This was Reagan's agenda, and it reached its fullfillment in the last 8 years under a 100% GOP led government.
It is as well an agenda that McKinley or Taft could have embraced at the turn of the previous century; with some modifications to tariffs as a nod to the more global reach of late 20th and 21st century corporations.
And once again we've seen what these policies result in: displaced workers, widening income gaps between the elite wealthy and the rest of us, credit systems in collapse, a stock market that swings wildly and is unpredicatble, a natural environment under siege from corporate polluters.
We saw it in 1929 with the collapse of the stock market.
We saw it in the 80's with the S&L scandal.
We 've seen it again and again with ENRON, WORLDCOM, Adelphia et alia. We're experiencing it now with the credit crunch and the stock market fluctuations.
The bottom line it seems to me is that markets REQUIRE regulation. That, indeed they thrive in a stable and predictable environment where the predations of human greed are largely regulated to its margins.
We had decades of growth and stability. So much so that by 1980 Reagan's "ideas" seemed fresh to voters. Those same policies have now proven themselves for what they've always been - an engine to drive the middle class into eclipse and make the rich that much richer.
I hear all this America is centre-right stuff, then change the channel and see what America is pumping out on the "world airwaves" and it certainly doesn't look very "right" to me. You might say, but that is liberal elite Hollywood, but it's also all the top-rated shows.
Conservative talk radio. Limbaugh, and all those other irrelevant people on the other thread should all take a nice, long sabbatical so someone with special equipment can come along and give our precious airwaves the sanitizing scrubdown that they're so in need of at this point.
They've been Hannitized enough already.
If Pres-Elect Obama is going to succeed in making the Democrats the party of hope, the DINOs are going to have to go.
/I mean you, Pelosi, Reid,...LIEberman...etc.
I have to go take a consevitive movement....be back in a jiff!
I am more than surprised to see NC as 'Carolina Blue' I really felt we would end up as red as Santa's drawers.Well now the real work begins doesn't it? How will we ever get the conservatives or liberals for that matter to even look at the gorilla in the closet. What I mean by that is the complete failure of the body politic to keep the role of corporations to the levels outlined by the Founding Fathers. The one thing which has been a revelation to me is the disdain many of them had for the whole notion of this country being as dominated as it has become by the Corporate Consciousness. It the attempt to "gird my loins" for discourse with my fellow employees, bosses, etc a whole new series of concepts not even taught in such a liberal college as UNC-A came forth. Without becoming too long winded it does seem the States themselves should have always been keeping a grip on the Chartering process along with constant review to assure that the corps action never trumped or disadvantaged in any form the wellbeing or rights of the citizen.Yet it does seem that everyone went to sleep from the very beginning. That might be the problem which would arise from an agrarian based Document[Constitution]. They just didn't have the ability to foresee the rise of industrialism and the dominance those entities would take. Yet by Lincoln's time it surely had. Thus his statement to the effect that the army of bankers behind him and their alliance with the corporations were of a much graver threat than the Confedreacy before him.
So here we are 230 years later suddenly faced with the fact we left the barn door open and the horses have built a fence around us. To even make such an analogy will draw looks and stares and then probably an invitation to either go to Russia or to hell or to an insane asylum by most listeners. The conservatives do actually believe that any restraints on free market principals are totally a liberal idea or worse. Liberals can't be allowed to destroy the ability of the market to preserve it's self. So how do we get thru the impasse imposed by ignorance?
Obama IS "center-right" there is very little policy difference between he and McCain - there's just that "Palin" thing and the fact that the republican party is simply off the goddamn rails (the other republican candidates were brazen corporate facists and flakes). He is also a far more inspiring person.
Kucinich was the best actual "left" candidate on policy issues, and polled highest when people were polled on issues. Always.
These right wing nutjobs calling Obama "marxist" and so forth are contributing greatly to the political confusion in this country.
"wealth distribution" is a fact of all industrial economies that aren't feudalistic.
no, he is a pragmatist...something that kucinich has never learned to be
kucinich looks like an elf for a reason...he lives in a magical world that will never be
change does not come overnight...it must come incrementally
mlk understood this....a short 40 years after he was assasinated, we have a black president
kucinich thinks he can spinkle his pixie dust and the world will change...aint gonna happen
and kucinich polls well with progressives....so fucking what...we are a tiny percentage of the electorate...
hey, when obama announces robert kennedy as head of the epa, will you libs shut the fuck up then???
all the pundits seem to get THE talking point across the board all at once?
if this country was truly center-right, why did nixon create the southern strategy?
why was there ever a need for atwater?
why did reagan need to create the myth of the welfare queen?
why, for 24 years did the repugs have to lie to a certain section of the electorate about their love of marriage and hate for roe?
the first 2 years of clintons presidency were not terrible...the progressives had no answer to the scurge that was talk radio...where on a daily basis, rush and all the copycats would tell everyone how not to accept that things were fine, clinton was destroying the world
its a different world now
now, hannity and others are attacking rahm emanuel...and guess what? it sounds exactly what it is...jew hate
rahm is no different than a newt gingrich...and he sure as shit aint a liberal progressive
obama doesnt have to govern from the center, he just has to act presidential
watch the hate spew from the right over the next 2 months...watch them eat each other....its gonna be a wild ride
Brokaw, who I refuse to watch on principle, was at his moronic best pointing out that John McCain carried more acreage than Obama. I went through the same kind of thing with some Wingnuts after the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election. They pointed out that Rossi had carried a lot more area than Gregoire. It doesn't do much good to argue with people who are so willfully stupid, but someone really does need to impress upon them (Brokaw included) that it is:
One person, one vote
not
One acre, one vote
It is obvious that the only thing that could change these Bozo's minds would be to have the electorates somehow magically switch so that Republicans were winning densely populated urban areas and Democrats were winning sparsely populated rural areas. Then, we'd never again here the one acre, one vote argument.
You got that right. All week, every single Republican Politician and Republican Pundit used the phrase "Center-Right." Brokow is an under cover Republican and has been for decades. What I still do not understand is where the "talking points" of the Republican Party emanate from. Who is writing the material now that Rove is gone?
Just asking? Was it Karl or Bill? It has to be someone who needs to be repudiated/called out on the floor so we can STOP THE MADNESS.
you are correct that Obama's election, combined with gains for democrats in the house and senate, represent a repudiation of both conservative governance and conservative politics. but with the 'rise of palin' (god only knows why) are we threatened by a future morphing of traditional conservatism into some right-wing, anti-intellectual, joe-the-plumber (with neither portfolio nor plumber's license), hate and fear mongering, neo-populist cult?
oh, for a kinder and gentler republican party. has there been such a thing since hoover?
Center right country?, the country is becoming more and more liberal/left if that means respecting other peoples differences, cultures races and religions which the republicans and conservatives don't seem to wanna understand or do, liberals are more tolerant of other people, conservatives and republicans tend to make fun, disrespect blacks, hispanics, muslims, asian they seem to just close their little party to everyone except dumb whites and rednecks, this country is becoming more and more tolerant of different types of people and they need to get with the program and be doomed to being irrelevant
http://www.barackobamacans.blogspot.com/
I think we have just seen a bloodless revoultion. Which was the idea of the founding fathers. Throw the bums out. I am glad that the repugs still don't see it that way.
It was a rejection of all the partisan power politics which has gripped our country for so long, hindering our progress and almost causing a total collapse of our society. Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter - all of us have been guilty for going along with it because we really didn't know any other way. American politics has always been more about taking power away from the other party than it has been about improving our government and our way of life. Every time we held an election one party celebrated their victory, and the other party started planning ways to take the power back. The American people were always the losers because nothing ever changed, no matter which party won the election. The country remained polarized and the congress continued its stupid game of 'let's stop their legislation'. Nobody ever thought about cutting the crap and getting together to brainstorm problems and looking for plausible solutions.
I hope that everyone will log onto www.change.gov and take a look at the agenda which Obama and Biden are proposing. Keep in mind that these are proposals, not policies which they will try to dictate to the Democratic members of Congress. The new administration will be seeking input from everyone, and this means you and me - whoever cares enough to think about the issues and discuss them sensibly. None of this is about taking money from the rich and spreading it around among people who refuse to work (as some people have been saying). This is a new way of doing democracy, and I hope that everyone will study it and think about what works and what doesn't work. If we sit back like a bunch of couch potatos and expect our new President to do all of the work, we will be greatly disappointed. But if we keep an open mind and if we are willing to stop the trash talk for a while, we might just get something accomplished for a change.
A very smart post. A very satisfying read, too. Better than cupcakes.
One of the best things about being hit in the bean with a hammer is how good it feels when it stops. After eight years of emotionally draining, sustained outrage at the enormity of the crimes against humanity and passionate disregard for the greater good, he wore us all out like the boy who cried wolf, while simultaneously damn near ruining the whole world.
I'm still a bit abashed at fully disclosing how nakedly hopeful I really am. I'm so accustomed to being distrustful and cynical that idealism and trust in our ability to affect the weekly perfect storm and save ourselves.
These are quality people, the no-drama-Obamas, the good guy down deep, whose leadership has pleased the world that a mature, thoughtful man we can trust to keep a steady hand on the ship of state also won the election.
And to John several comments down--can you take any comfort in realizing how obviously this man is half white? It's obviously a glass half empty thing for you now. Switch it up.
Have you seen this guy dance? He almost makes that little jutted chin we all love so much in white guy dancing. He's not in the Katherine Dunham School with a strong African pelvic center of gravity that so singularly distinguishes African American dance.
I'm not knocking him at all. I married two men from Kansas, and he dances better than either one of them. So, John, I hope you find some solace knowing the kinship you share with this great man. There are corncobs in both your woodpiles.
May the healing begin.
Login or Register to post comments.