America Is a Center-Left Country No Matter How Much the Corporate Media Say Otherwise

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you remember the rist of William Hague? He spoke at a conservative conference when he was barely out of college and was hyped to be something big. In the end, he was just a damp squib.

Brown has an edge now the economy is in focus. I think people understand that despite everything, having someone in charge who has fiscal responsibility and a comprehensive understanding of how the economy works is absolutely crucial. Unless the Tories have someone credible on that score in the wings, I think they have to be sunk - that or the economy improves to the point where the electorate aren't focusing on it.

If I remember rightly Hague had some sort of schoolboy photo-op with Maggie Thatcher when he was a kid - which for him was probably the equivalent of being given a Blue Peter badge. They floated him to be the next Tony Blair - presumably because they thought that youth and talent were not mutually exclusive (Tony Blair for all his faults was talented). The big problem with the Tories is the kerfuffle over Europe - basically fractured the party and they've never been able to get over it.

Iain Duncan Smith was worse than Hague IMO - just seemed generally incompetent. Though I always felt a bit sorry for John Major, who seemed like a decent enough guy - but he just didn't have the strength to keep that party in line.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A recent poll says 64 percent of Republicans want Sarah Palin to run in 2012.

She's a pariah for the GOP...

The 2 statements above are at odds with each other.

Not really. A lot of Republicans are angry with the current Party's leadership and there aren't any real personalities who can fill that void. If they continue to think she's the future of the Party, they're in for a rude awakening, IMO.

So you're saying she'll become a pariah but isn't right now.

Yes...I think a large number of Republicans already know it now, but give her more time in the limelight, put a microphone in front of her, and she'll be another Pat Buchanan.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A recent poll says 64 percent of Republicans want Sarah Palin to run in 2012.

She's a pariah for the GOP...

The 2 statements above are at odds with each other.

Not really. A lot of Republicans are angry with the current Party's leadership and there aren't any real personalities who can fill that void. If they continue to think she's the future of the Party, they're in for a rude awakening, IMO.

So you're saying she'll become a pariah but isn't right now.

Yes...I think a large number of Republicans already know it now, but give her more time in the limelight, put a microphone in front of her, and she'll be another Pat Buchanan.

Well given that they're trying to blame her for losing the election - I think its doubtful that she'll be able to come back from that.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yep. Plus people really need to internalize that this latest round of government bailouts is the most expensive form of socialism ever practiced in this country. People really need to get over their indoctrinated fear of living in a modernized society.

Agreed - it is ironic that people are shrieking that Obama is somehow going to turn the USA into the USSR while this bailout has been enacted in full public view.

"Change" is scary, it seems.

And some of those folks continue to confuse totalitarian/authoritarian regimes that intrude upon civil liberties that also have economic ideologies that are the way they are- and complaining as if both were the same- with aspired authoritarian regime practices right here under their noses in the name of protecting the liberty part without the civil. Odd.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A recent poll says 64 percent of Republicans want Sarah Palin to run in 2012.

She's a pariah for the GOP...

The 2 statements above are at odds with each other.

Not really. A lot of Republicans are angry with the current Party's leadership and there aren't any real personalities who can fill that void. If they continue to think she's the future of the Party, they're in for a rude awakening, IMO.

So you're saying she'll become a pariah but isn't right now.

Yes...I think a large number of Republicans already know it now, but give her more time in the limelight, put a microphone in front of her, and she'll be another Pat Buchanan.

Well given that they're trying to blame her for losing the election - I think its doubtful that she'll be able to come back from that.

While she tried to paint herself a maverick like McCain, she hasn't built the camaraderie that McCain has

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep. Plus people really need to internalize that this latest round of government bailouts is the most expensive form of socialism ever practiced in this country. People really need to get over their indoctrinated fear of living in a modernized society.

Agreed - it is ironic that people are shrieking that Obama is somehow going to turn the USA into the USSR while this bailout has been enacted in full public view.

"Change" is scary, it seems.

And some of those folks continue to confuse totalitarian/authoritarian regimes that intrude upon civil liberties that also have economic ideologies that are the way they are- and complaining as if both were the same- with aspired authoritarian regime practices right here under their noses in the name of protecting the liberty part without the civil. Odd.

Its got to come back to McCarthyism and the values instilled in that generation being passed on to subsequent generations.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While she tried to paint herself a maverick like McCain, she hasn't built the camaraderie that McCain has

That whole Maverick thing was stupid - and they never substantiated it in terms of anything current. It was pretty weird at the end, during the last debate, when McCain seemed to abandon the idea completely and talked about how he was a safe pair of hands.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Danno 1,228]

A recent poll says 64 percent of Republicans want Sarah Palin to run in 2012.

She's a pariah for the GOP...

The 2 statements above are at odds with each other.

Not really. A lot of Republicans are angry with the current Party's leadership and there aren't any real personalities who can fill that void. If they continue to think she's the future of the Party, they're in for a rude awakening, IMO.

So you're saying she'll become a pariah but isn't right now.

Yes...I think a large number of Republicans already know it now, but give her more time in the limelight, put a microphone in front of her, and she'll be another Pat Buchanan.

Well given that they're trying to blame her for losing the election - I think its doubtful that she'll be able to come back from that.

While she tried to paint herself a maverick like McCain, she hasn't built the camaraderie that McCain has

On the left?

She doesn't want to go there... we all saw where that gets you......the opportunity to make a great concession speech.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A recent poll says 64 percent of Republicans want Sarah Palin to run in 2012.

She's a pariah for the GOP...

The 2 statements above are at odds with each other.

Not really. A lot of Republicans are angry with the current Party's leadership and there aren't any real personalities who can fill that void. If they continue to think she's the future of the Party, they're in for a rude awakening, IMO.

So you're saying she'll become a pariah but isn't right now.

Yes...I think a large number of Republicans already know it now, but give her more time in the limelight, put a microphone in front of her, and she'll be another Pat Buchanan.

Well given that they're trying to blame her for losing the election - I think its doubtful that she'll be able to come back from that.

While she tried to paint herself a maverick like McCain, she hasn't built the camaraderie that McCain has

On the left?

She doesn't want to go there... we all saw where that gets you......the opportunity to make a great concession speech.

Danno, I'm not if you were into politics back when Pat Buchanan was making a formidable run, but if you weren't, you should look into his rise within the GOP and why he fizzled.

[HAL 9000 96]

Huh?

According to the same logic that puts McCain on the left of right would mean that voters opted for someone far more left than that.

Meaning anyone further to the right field would make an even faster concession speech. Logic indeed.

[Dan J 277]

While she tried to paint herself a maverick like McCain, she hasn't built the camaraderie that McCain has

That whole Maverick thing was stupid - and they never substantiated it in terms of anything current. It was pretty weird at the end, during the last debate, when McCain seemed to abandon the idea completely and talked in favour how he was a safe pair of hands.

It was. Calling yourself a Maverick is narcissistic. Nor did it make much sense.

Palin was definitely not a maverick. Her positions were poltically convienient, not out of any sense of pricinipals.

For McCain, Maverick was his reputation because he did on many occasions go against the Republican party. However, it became meaningless when he fell in line with the party.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While she tried to paint herself a maverick like McCain, she hasn't built the camaraderie that McCain has

That whole Maverick thing was stupid - and they never substantiated it in terms of anything current. It was pretty weird at the end, during the last debate, when McCain seemed to abandon the idea completely and talked in favour how he was a safe pair of hands.

It was. Calling yourself a Maverick is narcissistic. Nor did it make much sense.

Palin was definitely not a maverick. Her positions were poltically convienient, not out of any sense of pricinipals.

For McCain, Maverick was his reputation because he did on many occasions go against the Republican party. However, it became meaningless when he fell in line with the party.

Well his campaign never really got beyond appealing to the base - the Sarah Palin selection was aimed at the base, as was that Joe the Plumber nonsense.

[alienlovechild 75]

Its got to come back to McCarthyism and the values instilled in that generation being passed on to subsequent generations.

Bollocks. McCarthy placed more emphasis on the national security threat aspects of communism than in the American government's intervention in the economy.

Now the term, "McCarthyism" means:

"Since the time of McCarthy, the word "McCarthyism" has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of distasteful practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

And some of those folks continue to confuse totalitarian/authoritarian regimes that intrude upon civil liberties that also have economic ideologies that are the way they are- and complaining as if both were the same- with aspired authoritarian regime practices right here under their noses in the name of protecting the liberty part without the civil. Odd.

If you don't recognize private property rights as a liberty that defends our other civil liberties then you probably won't unphold it as such and instead prattle on about American "authoritarism" as if it really exists now or ever.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its got to come back to McCarthyism and the values instilled in that generation being passed on to subsequent generations.

Bollocks. McCarthy placed more emphasis on the national security threat aspects of communism than in the American government's intervention in the economy.

Now the term, "McCarthyism" means:

"Since the time of McCarthy, the word "McCarthyism" has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of distasteful practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

And some of those folks continue to confuse totalitarian/authoritarian regimes that intrude upon civil liberties that also have economic ideologies that are the way they are- and complaining as if both were the same- with aspired authoritarian regime practices right here under their noses in the name of protecting the liberty part without the civil. Odd.

If you don't recognize private property rights as a liberty that defends our other civil liberties then you probably won't unphold it as such and instead prattle on about American "authoritarism" as if it really exists now or ever.

Property rights are included in the civil liberties umbrella under my brush with defining the difference between authoritarian governmental practices versus identifying it in other governments when its convenient to do so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its got to come back to McCarthyism and the values instilled in that generation being passed on to subsequent generations.

Bollocks. McCarthy placed more emphasis on the national security threat aspects of communism than in the American government's intervention in the economy.

Now the term, "McCarthyism" means:

"Since the time of McCarthy, the word "McCarthyism" has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of distasteful practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

And some of those folks continue to confuse totalitarian/authoritarian regimes that intrude upon civil liberties that also have economic ideologies that are the way they are- and complaining as if both were the same- with aspired authoritarian regime practices right here under their noses in the name of protecting the liberty part without the civil. Odd.

If you don't recognize private property rights as a liberty that defends our other civil liberties then you probably won't unphold it as such and instead prattle on about American "authoritarism" as if it really exists now or ever.

And yet - during the 8 golden years of Bush we had a fair few people (including folks in the administration) make claims to the effect of "anyone who doesn't agree with us is a traitor".

Doesn't seem very rational to me.

So I don't think its implausible to wonder why so many people in this country seem to be so afraid of socialism (translation: anything remotely left-leaning) when they haven't directly experienced it to really know what socialism is.

The fact is - there are quite a few people who simply regurgitate the politics of their parents.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Paul Daniels