How Obama Revolution Came to America

Accuracy in Media ^ | April 6, 2009 | Robert Chandler

[fretzer]

There are ten easy steps toward a progressive-socialist-Marxist civil society: change the popular consensus; destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores; transform the culture; install a radical Left mind-control; attain political power; impose strict control of the military and law enforcement; restrict freedom; socialize the economy; erase American sovereignty; and embrace a world without borders.

[fretzer]

Fascinating excerpt from Chandler's book "Shadow World" which is in part, an expose' of Soros' takeover of the Democratic party.

[Berlin_Freeper]

“God Damn America!!”

[nathanbedford]

In my view if one wants a starting point in understanding the undermining of America, one must start with "THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL" and the best place to read about that is here:

The Thread of 'Cultural Marxism'

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/PsychicIronCagePartII.html

I also offer my own views written before the election warning of the danger of an Obama victory for precisely the reasons set forth here:(I flatter myself that I might have predicted Mr. Chandler's book in the last couple of paragraphs of my previous post)

Are We at an Inflection Point?

So Barone believes as I do that Obama is likely to win the election. What is truly scary follows, " the Democrats will (likely) expand their congressional majorities possibly even to the 60 votes they need to effectively control the Senate."

This means there is nothing to stop a "Manchurian Marxist" from taking over almost total control of the American economy. If this scenario obtains, Republicans will not even have resort to the filibuster to defend the Republic. Because there will be no check or balance, Obama's socialist policies, as they fail, will be compounded with more socialist policies to rescue the failures.

Worse, Obama has displayed a frightening tendency to enlist the power of the state to squelch free speech. His gang of Democrats in the House and Senate share his views and have already threatened talk radio. Obama has invoked the threat of prosecution against radio stations and in general, evidently, in the state of Missouri even against private citizens. The Kerry campaign intimidated television stations running the Swift boat film. Conservatives have every reason to fear that the country may enter a new dark age under a Putin like administration.

Nor can we sleep well expecting the courts to come to our rescue. There's not the slightest realistic hope that any federal court will declare the bailout unconstitutional as an impermissible usurpation of powers. We have already seen the court waffle on matters such as campaign finance reform so, we are entitled to nourish but little hope that free speech, if not the free market, will be protected.

Across the board of American life there is virtually no institution apart from government which could stand up against the power of an engrossed state. Our educational institution is corrupted from top to bottom with leftists. The higher the learning and the more prestigious the institution the greater the departure from common sense. Our great charitable institutions such as Ford or Rockefeller have been thoroughly infiltrated and are now controlled by leftists. Witness Bill Ayers and Barack Obama's plundering of the Annenberg foundation, originally founded by a conservative. It is now so commonly understood that the media is so given over to leftism that it requires no comment or proof here. Apart from a remnant of the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelicals, the American Christian Church is best exemplified by the United Church of Christ which is practically a leftist front. The executive branch bureaucracy, not excluding the CIA and especially the State Department, are largely given over to undermining conservative principles and policies which are the expressions of our democratically elected leaders.

Take away talk radio, and the void leaves the playing field to the leftists virtually unopposed.

This is the specter that awaits us the day after the election.

These are the nightmares which prompt some of us on these threads to become testy at times when we see posts which are nothing but cheerleading and boosterism. These are the times which call every one of us to dig deep and face courageously the realities that confront us. I am not in the slightest deterred by replies to this post which recite that I am a defeatist. It may be true that I am an alarmist but I believe we have much to be alarmed about. Small wonder that we could become testy when we see a campaign slipping away or an opportunity missed. The stakes are really and truly high this time. It is my hope that Freepers, knowing that the barbarians are really at the gate, will turn their collective genius toward averting a catastrophe

later, in the same thread I added the following thoughts:

At the end of the day we see the thefts of property through thuggery. A good Marxist like Saul Alinsky-or Mao Tse Tung for that matter- are never above easing the travail of their own lives with such perks, but their ideological goal is the distruction of the concept and sanctity of property. There is a reason for that ideological goal.

The basic institutions of Western society which come out of the Judeo- Christian tradition and which were hammered out in our culture over the millennia and refined in the Enlightenment and in the American experience have served as bulwarks against the advance of communism. Foremost among the institutions which stand against the advance communism are the family, the church, the rule of law, the school, private property, and the military with its commitment to patriotism.

Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals lays out a guerrilla against these institutions which frustrate socialism. Barak Obama was an acolyte of -indeed he was an instructor for- Saul Alinsky's operation.

To complete the picture, someday a conservative historian (presuming they are allowed to publish) will draw a straight line to Barak Obama which passes through Saul Alinsky, showing feeder lines off to people like Bill Ayers, and originating in The Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School was expressly founded by a George Soros like figure in 1923 in Germany for the express purpose of providing the intellectual methodology to destroy the institutions which protect Western civilization. These intellectuals did provide rationalizations which today motivate the Barak Obama's of the world. The rationalizations are called: feminism; critical theory; conservationism; world order; political correctness; economic democracy, etc. and they all find their origin in The Frankfurt School.

When I say the barbarians are at the gate, I do not mean to diminish the sophistication of the enemy. We must make no mistake, we are dealing with an extremely crafty and dedicated foe whose ultimate aim is and remains despite the fall of the Soviet Union to break through the gates. Indeed, "barbarians at the gate" and "breaking through the gate" are the wrong kinds of imagery. The war is not being fought at this point with violence. It has been fought and mostly won by the other side by infiltration into the institutions which I mentioned in my previous post including the churches, the charitable foundations, the education establishment, the bar, and, as you point out, the unions.

If these people get their hands on the levers of power in America they will not let go.

[IbJensen]

If these people get their hands on the levers of power in America they will not let go.

This would mean that Americans will undergo a revolution in order to eradicate these nation destroying evil traitors.

[sickoflibs]

April 6, 2009 . Robert Chandler reposted above (this thread) : ”So Barone believes as I do that Obama is likely to win the election. What is truly scary follows, “ the Democrats will (likely) expand their congressional majorities possibly even to the 60 votes they need to effectively control the Senate.” This means there is nothing to stop a “Manchurian Marxist” from taking over almost total control of the American economy. .....If these people get their hands on the levers of power in America they will not let go.”

Not exactly working out that way is it? See any of the town hall meetings the past two weeks? Looks like that 60 seat majority has not got him health care reform public option.

Too much unrealistic doomsday talk last year. There was similar talk in 1992 and Clinton win then gave birth to republican majority Nov 1994. This was the typical panic post on FR last year. "Run for your lives Obama is coming, McCain is our only hope with 'Bailout Bush' as his advisor ."

[nathanbedford]

This means there is nothing to stop a “Manchurian Marxist” from taking over almost total control of the American economy.

Not exactly working out that way is it?

Hello? Where have you been when Obama took over the automobile industry, banks, insurance? Where were you when he got Cap and Trade passed through the House of Representatives regulating virtually every industry in America and imposing the biggest tax increase in the history of the Republic-lacking only passage in the Senate? Where were you when he passed a three quarter trillion dollar porkulus package? Where were you when he busted the budget?

Do you want to rethink your reply?

Too much unrealistic doomsday talk last year.

What do you want, a celebration?

Where are your posts from before the election?

[GOPJ]

There was a story in the Wall Street Journal ( or USA Today - I get them both) about the "lone wolf" concept. Obama has teams of people looking into the "lone wolf" - well, only conservative "lone wolfs" becaues this is a totalitarian intimidation move.

We know it's a control freak move because there are more people killed in LA than have been killed by all the conservative lone wolves in history. Same with any city. Dems don't care about deaths - they care about taking down a their political opposition. Conservatives are not a danger to anyone statistically. If you run into a conservative in a dark alley, he's probably lost - and no threat.

Conservatives are the law biding citizens. Check out your local prison if you have any doubt. Conservatives are not among the inmates. I've NEVER met a conservative who wanted to riot or burn down a city. But I HAVE SEEN LIBERALS RIOT AND BURN DOWN CITIES...

And yet, Obama is NOT looking into those groups. NOPE. This is a form of harrassement against conservatives. And when Republicans get back in office I want us to use the same tactics against people who use the term "teabagger". It's a reflection of hate - and a person who hates conservatives that much might want to kill one of us... Isn't that how the sick twisted liberal logic goes? So we'll set up police groups to look into liberals by what kind of language they use. They'll wish we were just checking out their library books.

We'll treat them the way they treat us. Eff each and every one of the liberal pigs. And if their goons and thugs are looking for someone to "check out", I'm here. And I hate liberals. Hate their goons. Hate their thugs. Hate their liars and trolls. Hate their union SS storm troopers. Hate their lying totalitarian ways.

I am tired of turning the other cheek with liberals. They are the party of liars. When we get back in office, let's investigate them - every liberal who has ever written the word, "teabagger" or trashed Rush Limbaugh. Those liberals might be dangerous - maybe even part of a vast left wing conspiracy... /s

[sickoflibs]

Hey, calm down. I am anti-democrat but it turned out that the Bush administration had the Maryland state police spy on anti-war groups here. Republicans defended Bush expansion of federal power. Now Obama wants to use whatever power he can get away with to stop opponents but he is finding that difficult. There was no FNC in 1993+1994

Yes, the democrats appeal to the seedier of groups. Maryland offered drivers licenses to illegals and voting to ex-felons. But to get national power dems had to elect Blue Dogs who dont represent criminals and have different interests than them.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Hello? Where have you been when Obama took over the automobile industry, banks, insurance? Where were you when he got Cap and Trade passed through the House of Representatives regulating virtually every industry in America and imposing the biggest tax increase in the history of the Republic-lacking only passage in the Senate? “

I mean nothing personal against you, that post was the typical hysteria here and on talk radio last year. That was Bush (a republican president) that took over automobile industry, banks, insurance and handed them to Obama. Bush also passed (at least signed and promoted) a similar stimulus last year that didnt work either, a little less than half the size of the Obama one but still loaded with crap and all debt. And the republican candidate McCain called for Cap and Trade too. So the 'if Obama wins...doomsday' talk falls flat.

Cap and trade died in the Senate. It would have passed if McCain was president. Your post predicted nothing would stop Obama from signing bills, not that the house would pass stuff that would die in the Senate. It's both the stimulus and the cap and trade failure that are making it so hard for Obama to get health care now. Your post didnt predict a train wreck after a few months.

I tried to warn republicans that Obama would win, try some big stuff, face a backlash, then get stuck. It wasnt rocket science but it contradicted the popular talking points.

[GOPJ]

It's impossible to defend some of the things Bush did - so I won't. But I doubt he was trying to intimidate a political party - but if he was, he was wrong. That said, the dem thing goes back to the "vast right wing conspiracy". I knew about that months before Hillary mentioned it. And I thank God she did - a "secret" is powerful in that it can't be challenged - but when she went public with that bullshit - we were able to counter it. It became a joke - people were laughing about decoder rings and liberal black helicopters etc... It was a close call. This newest group of dem lies is just annoying next to that.

That said, you are right, sickoflibs - dems had to run honest people in order to win in conservative/on the line - districts. Those blue dogs will slow down the worst of their corruption. And much of what they could get away with when they controlled all the media - they can't get away with today. The icing on the cake is once people have their eyes opened to dem lies, they are less likely to believe anything they say.

There are people on both sides who were genuinely surprised dems would hire people to pretend to care about the health issue. Now that they know, they will never see those "protesters" the same. They will never see dems the same.

[sickoflibs]

Democrats are running ads against elected Blue Dogs and there are many youtube videos attacking them for holding up the public option as are some on MSNBC. To the democrat base the Blue Dogs are DINOs as we think on RINOs. Blue Dogs are what give dems their overwhelming majority but not overwhelming ability to pass anything Dem leadership wants As the public opinon drops Blue Dogs will run for cover.

And Obama will sign anything and call it a success but without republicans he has to unite Blue Dogs and Liberals. Blue Dogs already bit the bullet on both Stimulus and cap and trade, ironically liberals think they bit the bullet on those both too (giving up too much) leaving Obama with a challenge

Who has the Butter for my pop-corn ?

[sickoflibs]

I forgot you, see #12

[GOPJ]

LOL = I have butter for your popcorn. Can you pass the salt...

[nathanbedford]

I am at a loss to know how to respond seriously to your last post.

First you defend the indefensible by resort to relativism. Although I did not explicitly state in my original post that one of the tools used by the left to undermine resistance to the leftist takeover is "relativism", I did mention the "critical theory," a component of which is relativism. You use relativism to justify what Obama has done, or at least minimize its significance, by alleging that George Bush and John McCain did or would have done the same. Do you understand the fatuity of that kind of argumentation? You are saying that one evil is okay because there is another evil! An argument grounded in relativism is hardly worth rebutting but let's put it to rest:

You relieve Obama of responsibility for Cap and Trade because you allege that John McCain would've done worse and he would have succeeded in doing worse where Obama has failed because "Cap and trade died in the Senate." In point of fact, Cap and Trade did not die in the Senate and is liable to be passed this fall, although the odds are diminishing. You further say the following:

And the republican candidate McCain called for Cap and Trade too. So the 'if Obama wins...doomsday' talk falls flat.

Cap and trade died in the Senate. It would have passed if McCain was president.

Apart from being an argument grounded in relativism, this assertion is preposterous. Although McCain at one point did favor a form of Cap and Trade, his position today is as follows:

McCain Slams Obama Cap-and-Trade Climate Change Proposal

Sen. McCain calls the proposed legislation aimed to stop global warming by giving industries a limit on greenhouse gas production is an "irresponsible, ill-conceived and distorted version of a cap-and-trade system."

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/21/mccain-slams-obama-cap-trade-climate-change-proposal/) So now we have relativism based on a false premise.

The assertion that you make:

That was Bush (a republican president) that took over automobile industry, banks, insurance and handed them to Obama.

Suffers from the same fatal deficiencies.

Finally, you assert as follows:

Your post didnt predict a train wreck after a few months.

I tried to warn republicans that Obama would win, try some big stuff, face a backlash, then get stuck. It wasnt rocket science but it contradicted the popular talking points.

Where are your warnings? I already asked you once, where are your pre-election posts?

You say that your reply is not personal but you come perilously close to making it personal when you say:

I mean nothing personal against you, that post was the typical hysteria here and on talk radio last year.

I think you missed the point of the entire article as well as fundamental truths which are embedded in it and in the articles which are referred to in the article and in my own replies. Evidently I am guilty of hysteria for accurately predicting an attempted takeover by Obama but for failing to precisely define the time limits and not predicting Cap and Trade would fail in the Senate. If that is proof of hysteria you need produce no more proof, I plead guilty but I count myself in good company among the good but no doubt hysterical burghers of the land who are out there in force at tea parties and town halls trying to save the Republic from those to whom the apathetic would so cavalierly yield up our liberties.

[nathanbedford]

As the public opinon drops Blue Dogs will run for cover.

To assume the blue dogs will go off the reservation is to discount a whole series of factors that none of us might be aware of and that is the power that George Soros wields over the Democratic Party.

The point of the original article on this thread was show the real and present danger to the republic by the power in the hands of George Soros who controls the purse strings of the Democratic Party, can deploy foot soldiers without end into the Townhalls, streets and precincts of America, and who can exercise enormous influence over what gets published on the Internet and in the conventional media. It is not just that George Soros and a few plutocrat chums of his will contribute their own money into the Democrat machine, it is that Soros has managed to take control over most of the 527s and has gained a chokehold around the party's purse. Finally, every blue dog knows that he is only a primary away from a George Soros financed opponent.

Before we count the blue dogs off the reservation, we might be better informed political scientists. We ought to understand that there is more at stake here than popcorn.

[GOPJ]

Finally, every blue dog knows that he is only a primary away from a George Soros financed opponent.

Yes, the "rub"...

[MissesBush]

Thanks for including me! I have to wonder if the Blue Dogs really will be as compliant this time. They had their butts left hanging in the wind on crap and tax and for nothing—the bill is basically dead in the Senate—and the porkulus is also causing them to take a big hit politically.

Pelosi got greedy. Obama considers his healthcare takeover his most important priority, but Pelosi insisted on jumping the line with cap and trade and word is Blue Dogs feeled burned over the arm twisting they got. They voted for a tremendously unpopular bill and all for naught. She burned up a lot of political goodwill with those people as a result. She’ll have much less pull with them this time in a case of “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” She’s going to have a much harder time getting them on board after she used them up on cap and trade. Obama should be livid at her for jumping the gun on that and making it much harder for him to get the Blue Dogs on board with what he calls his most important priority. She is a flaming idiot—which is great news for us.

On the other hand, we know most of the Blue Dogs are phonies—including my Congresshag Jane Harman. So they may go walking over the cliff with the rest of the lemmings in the Democratic caucus on this all in the service of the Obama cult. But they should start updating their resumes. Many of them elected in very red districts that voted overwhelmingly for Bush and McCain and always had GOP representation previous to 2006 will be sent to the political gallows in November 2010 for their votes on cap and tax and on ObamaCare if they do vote for it.

[sickoflibs]

Not sure why you just posted this article from April 2009 now. Maybe back then the writer thought the democrat stimulus was confirmation of the doomsday predictions from last year were true and Obama could get anything passed forever. Except June-July 2009 was the end of the honeymoon.

RE :” First you defend the indefensible by resort to relativism ’

It's not that these things Obama did are good, it's that we were screwed with both parties, not just Obama.

RE :” Although McCain at one point did favor a form of Cap and Trade, his position today is as follows. McCain Slams Obama Cap-and-Trade Climate Change Proposal ”

rabs, please explain why McCain's actions now have little meaning wrt what he would do as president. Remember the ‘reformer who works with democrats to get things done’? Unlike Obama McCain would get significant republican votes for cap and trade with democrats and republicans would get the heat for rising electric prices.

RE :” Where are your warnings? I already asked you once, where are your pre-election posts? ”

Posts saying things wont be as bad as the hysteric-acs claim probably would have got zotted before the election but I know you wont find posts from me predicting anything better if McCain wins. I had to be careful not to get hanged by the panicking lynch mob at the time

We may be screwed, but it's both parties.

[sickoflibs]

I am optimistic because congressional democrats walked the plank for Clinton in 1993 and 1994 with taxes, gun control and almost health care (by then it fell apart.) The result was a massive loss in 1994 for democrats and Clinton re-elected easily in 1996. All we need to do is remind Blue Dogs of 1993 and 1994 history and tell them Obama can win in 2012 by making THEM walk the plank in 2010.

The elected in power’s biggest fear is to lose power.

[sickoflibs]

See #20 on Blue Dogs

[MissesBush]

SICKOFLIBS: You’re probably right—I think many of the Blue Dogs will want to keep their jobs rather than keep Haglosi happy. On the other hand, I worry that many could be ideologues who will say “The goal of national healthcare is more important than any one man’s career—including my own.” And I don’t underestimate Witchlosi and Oscumbo’s powers of arm twisting and threatening. You can bet all kind of threats will be made to pull campaign funding from these Blue Dogs if they stray on healthcare and any support from the party’s campaign committees. But who knows? Wretchlosi may prefer to keep a seat in Democratic hands even if it means losing the healthcare vote.

[nathanbedford]

This is approaching the level of Franz Kafka incoherence.

First, I never posted any article on this thread, although I did allude to one and furnish a link.

Second, I utterly reject an argument that those who warned against Barack Obama were hysterics because Bush was bad too. Think about it for a moment, besides being an argument resorting to relativism it is an utter non sequitur. What do Bush's sins have to do with being hysterical because one warns of Obama's sins? One simply does not prove the other.

Politics ultimately is the business of choosing. To kick kitty litter over an issue by saying, "nah, nah, nah your mother is one too," hardly advances our ability to choose. It is cynical and cheap, it is childish, it sounds clever but it is only a dodge from choosing, it moves us not 1 mm closer to a more perfect union.

[nathanbedford]

It is not so simple to predict the blue dogs will likely vote against health care to save their chances for reelection. The administration and the House leadership have a lot of tricks up their sleeves. Some blue dogs can simply be let off the hook because the Democrats have enough votes without them. Others they can buy off with spending or promises of committee advancement. Others can make a huge show of obtaining concessions from the administration which are ultimately meaningless, or which might be later swept away in reconciliation, but which nevertheless give the blue dog sufficient cover to vote for the bill.

We already know that the administration is threatening to avoid the filibuster process in the Senate by the nuclear option. There is a lot they can do in reconciliation by dividing up the more notorious provisions between a House version and a Senate version and giving their members cover by gaining concessions only to have the invidious provisions of the bill restored in conference. Later the representative or senator can say, I voted against that terrible provision but it was put back in conference.

I cannot predict what a majority of the blue dogs will do, I wager that many of them themselves do not know. But I don't think it's in the bag by any means.

[sickoflibs]

Cheer up gloomy freeper,

Those Tactics that worked for stimulus and cap and trade votes are not looking that good now because the Blue Dogs think they were setup (ala 1993+1994) and told Pelosi they wont support a bill unless the Senate can pass a bill. That is how Obama got caught at the press conference without a bill and looked very uncomfortable.

MSNBC liberals have been discussing reconciliation as a possibility and are very unhappy about the option. They cant get massive spending done easily and there would be expiration dates on it at a time when they are likely out of power. Instead they want Obama to beat Blue Dogs into submission like the commercials against them now but Obama would much prefer a bi-partision bill ( that would be his greatest victory beyond imagination) . reconciliation is Obama's gun on the table to scare republican RINOs but it is democrats that are becoming terrified now, not RINOs.

What we need is to counter a compromise between both parties moderates with a union of conservatives and liberal single payer democrats voting no. This is why I always say Pelosi is our best friend We need it to look like Obama failed to unite democrats, not that evil republicans stopped reform.

They can still pass things that are bad. But this is doing damage to them WAY beyond anything we could dream of the past 4 years, as Jim DeMint commented 'let's break them' .

[spintreebob]

unfortunately win, try some big stuff happened before get stuck.

We had the same thing in Illinois. Indicted Dem Gov Blago steadfastly refused to raise the income tax. If the RINO had won, there is no doubt in anyones mind that she would have done exactly what Blago's successor is now trying to do, raise the income tax.

The real question is:
Now that we are here, what do we do now?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Now that we are here, what do we do now?”

Good question, Well for the next year we bring bills down as best we can. Sometime next year republicans will need some united simple theme like “We need to save this nation, help us take back America” for 2010 election.

Our best bet is to win back enough House and Senate seats to be able to block most things but not everything because we want them having the appearance of control for another 2 year cycle to have hopes of beating Obama. We do not want to be in control with a tiny margin to be blamed for all Obama’s defeats and when the economy goes bad again.

Then by 2012 we want democrat's polls to be where republican's were last year, maybe by then republicans will be something worthwhile, unlike now.

And Sarah Palin will not save the party, sorry to crush the Palin-ites. I know the 'Death Panel" line got you all excited as it did MSNBC(KO gave her a Special Comment LOL) .

[org.whodat]

Good question, Well for the next year we bring bills down as best we can. Sometime next year republicans will need some united simple theme like “We need to save this nation, help us take back America” for 2010 election.

Wrong, with the stupid party it way past themes. It's put up are shut up. I want to see proof that they are for the people that pull the leaver and not the tarp hogs on wall street. If the republicans don't have sense enough to run against wall street and the bailout's. And putting people in jail and getting our money back, Then they are the cooked goose party. I'm not drinking any lame brain theme BS the government cannot be in the game of picking business winners and losers.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Wrong, with the stupid party it way past themes. It’s put up are shut up....”

I agree but my plan at that post gives them till 2012 to do that. I would be happy if democrats lost more ability to get things done in 2010 but with republicans still not in charge, as I said.

Honestly I have no faith in Republican party for anything. They only oppose Obama now because it is politically opportune to do so. I think gridlock is our best bet.

[PhilCollins]

Republicans will gain seats, in 2010, only if they campaign together, similarly to the Contract with America. They should promise that, if Republicans regain control of both Houses of Congress, they’ll pass a set of about five bills, including cutting tax rates to the 1988 rates, repealing all laws that violate the 10th Amendment, and tripling fines, for employers, who hire illegal aliens. The money, from those fines, would be used to build a brick wall, along the Mexican border, and to hire border patrol agents.

[freekitty]

Get real; you don’t know anymore than we do.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Get real; you don’t know anymore than we do.”

YES I DO!!! LOL

Maybe but I couldn't help notice how clueless republicans were last two years. One of my favorites was when congressional opinion poll approval went into teens (<20%) and many freepers claimed that was good and meant that democrats would lose election in 2008.

Then there was the “McCain will save us from democrats” posts, yes and the ‘McCain is going to win because voters don't want change’ posts. Then there were the "Obama will be able to pass anything he wants" posts.

I think one problem is that many here isolate themselves to those that agree with them. Follow the crowd. talk radio encourages us to do that. You really have to see what others think even if you disagree. Know your enemy.

[freekitty]

Your last paragraph is bs.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“RE :”Now that we are here, what do we do now?”

Blow the place apart. Period.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Republicans will gain seats, in 2010, only if they campaign together, similarly to the Contract with America.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It is not so simple to predict the blue dogs will likely vote against health care to save their chances for reelection. The administration and the House leadership have a lot of tricks up their sleeves. Some blue dogs can simply be let off the hook because the Democrats have enough votes without them. Others they can buy off with spending or promises of committee advancement. Others can make a huge show of obtaining concessions from the administration which are ultimately meaningless, or which might be later swept away in reconciliation, but which nevertheless give the blue dog sufficient cover to vote for the bill.

All of the above is possible. In addition, some congressnuts claim that they don't care whether they are reelected or not. They, the political Kamikazes, may be the most dangerous of all, because if, in spite of all the popular opposition, they pass Crap and Trade, BHOcare, amnesty, etc., it's unlikely that we would gain a veto-proof majority in 2010.

[PhilCollins]

That’s a great cartoon. It worked in 1994, so it would work, in 2010, especially since Obama is more liberal than Clinton.

[lakertaker]

Looks like 1976-1980.

Palin may not be the answer to the GOP but I am old enough to remember when some were saying Reagan was unelectable in 1980.

I do agree with your strategery. BHO seems to love the blame game so as little ammo he can get the better.

You can turn me into Flag@Whitehouse.org

[Impy]

I hope the sharks are hungry.

[Impy]

The parallels with 93-94 are eerie.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The parallels with 93-94 are eerie.”

Really, I think they are natural and republicans will pick up many seats in 2010. Furthermore I dont expect a congressional landslide for republicans on the order of 1994? Why?

Because in 1994 democrats had been in charge of congress for 40 years. No one ever saw a republican congress, and a republican congress and president together was unthinkable. The country had reason for hope in those days, as did I. I was a different person then and used to talk about how conservatives would fix the country with reduced government and free markets if they ever got power.

But now because of GWB and republicans so recently ,and Obama and democrats now ,there will be a rational air of hopelessness that will be in the air in 2010, we have no one to turn to. This is the Tea Party revolution. Gridlock is our only hope,

[PhilCollins]

I agree that Republicans won’t win many seats in 2010. Democrats will gain three seats in the U.S. Senate and six seats in the House, unless Republicans work together, similarly to the Contract with America. This time, they would need to say that they learned their lesson, when they didn’t cut tax rates and spending.

[sickoflibs]

I think Republicans will win seats, but it wont be 1994. As you point out there are weaknesses in the Senate.

The problem with another Contract with america in 2010 is it's not believable yet, Bush just got out of power, the House and Senate have the same leadership, and Republicans are only opposing most spending because of political necessity (it's their only option now.) It's not like they actually believe that big government is bad or deficits cause problems.

[PhilCollins]

You said that a problem with another Contract with America is partly that “Bush just got out of power.” 1994 was the year after George H.W. Bush got out of power, but that contract helped us. Some republican senators and congressmen think that big deficits cause problems. Those Republicans should propose a plan that would be similar to the Contract with America.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You said that a problem with another Contract with America is partly that “Bush just got out of power.” 1994 was the year after George H.W. Bush got out of power, but that contract helped us’

The difference was GWB got out of power after having his own congress for 6 years, in the voters view it was 8 years of republican congress (polls showed this.) In 1994 no one had ever seen a Republican congress so anything they promised seemed believable, this is like Obama being an unknown.

Plus, George Bush 1 was generally liked and respected in 1993 and 1994. GWB is pretty much disliked and disrespected by almost everyone. The economy was much better in 1992 than 2008.

I am just saying it will take time for the wounds to heal.

comment#41

[KDD]

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, "Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don't watch out." These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when "one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state."

snip

In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent.

At the end of the first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, President Roosevelt said: "It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully."

Peacefully if possible — of course. But the revolutionary historian will go much further. Writing at some distance in time he will be much less impressed by the fact that it was peacefully accomplished than by the marvelous technic of bringing it to pass not only within the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signs. This was the American people's first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin.

Until it was too late few understood one like Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying: "Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law... so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within the Constitution and within the forms of law."

snip

You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. It is a point for the revolutionary historian to ponder. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There was no day, no hour, no celebration of the event — and yet definitely, the ultimate power of initiative did pass from the hands of private enterprise to government.

There it is and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be reconquered. Certainly government will never surrenders without a struggle.

snip

CONCLUSION So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them. Much of it is irreversible. That is true because habits of dependence are much easier to form than to break. Once the government, on ground of public policy, has assumed the responsibility to provide people with buying power when they are in want of it, or when they are unable to provide themselves with enough of it, according to a minimum proclaimed by government, it will never be the same again.

All of this is said by one who believes that people have an absolute right to any form of government they like, even to an American Welfare state, with status in place of freedom, if that is what they want. The first of all objections to the New Deal is neither political nor economic. It is moral.

Revolution by scientific technic is above morality. It makes no distinction between means that are legal and means that are illegal. There was a legal and honest way to bring about a revolution, even to tear up the Constitution, abolish it, or write a new one in its place. Its own words and promises meant as little to the New Deal as its oath to support the Constitution. In a letter to a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging a new law he wanted, the President said: "I hope your committee will not permit doubt as to Constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation." Its cruel and cynical suspicion of any motive but its own was a reflection of something it knew about itself. Its voice was the voice of righteousness; its methods therefore were more dishonest than the simple ways of corruption.

"When we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen... and when we see those timbers joined together, and see that they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few... in such a case we find, it impossible not to believe that... all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft, drawn up before the first blow was struck." —Abraham Lincoln, deducing from objective evidence the blueprint of a political plot to save the institution of slavery.

THE REVOLUTION WAS

Obama is just a caboose on a long train of usurpations of our original form of government. No one stood up then...and Americans were a more hardy stock back then..It will take radical change to alter the status quo. Our current generation is not up to it.

In fact...the only real bipartisan efforts coming out of D.C. have been betrayals of the American electorate. Republicans have been as much traitors to our Constitution as Democrats. And that is an unassailable fact.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Palin may not be the answer to the GOP but I am old enough to remember when some were saying Reagan was unelectable in 1980.’

Palin is NOT Reagan. Palin is not close to Reagan. Reagan was a successful governor that led and won a State tax revolution. Palin was popular in Alaska when oil revenues gave the voters services for free (our oil prices) but quit when times got tough. Watch the youtube clips of Reagan in the 1960s.

I know many here dream of that magical conservative messiah to rise up from no place and slay the evil liberal anti-christ that similarly appeared from no place, but it is not happening.

You know Palin just got off this ‘victim’ tour complaining about how her family was attacked only to once again use her family as hypothetical examples of victims of Obama’s future ‘death panels’. Talk about wanting to have it both ways. I know, if she is hurting Obama it's OK , but it's not presidential. She should try talk radio, should sub for Hannity and Levin.

[sickoflibs]

RE :nathanbedford: "Where are your warnings? I already asked you once, where are your pre-election posts?"

RE :freekitty "Get real; you don’t know anymore than we do.” "

Hi fellow freepers, I get challenged and yelled at every day for thinking outside the box. I thought it would be fun to take up nathanbedford challenge and repost a few pre-election comments of mine. To put them in context, these posts were made when hysteria here was at a peak with “McCain wins or we all die” mantra. So at the time I posted these so they were not popular. Enjoy watching democrats self destruct now!SOME PRE-ELECTION POSTS :

"Republicans will be humiliated if Obama wins, rubbing our faith in Bush in our faces. But democrats party will end early next year, when for the first time in 14 years, they have no one to point at but themselves. (they will still blame Bush for all the painful things they do, but that will wear thin, maybe people will figure out they ran congress since 2007.)" 8 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:28:00 PM by sickoflibs

"On the bright (not very bright!) side, if a lib must win, let it be the worst. A Obama disaster might make people forget Bush, a huge task." (60 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:33:23 AM by sickoflibs)

"With Bush out of the picture and Obama in power, the game changes completely. People might actually expect something from rats for the first time in 14 years, for 2-3 years democrats only had to screw things up to win votes, Situation reverses. " (11 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:30:49 PM by sickoflibs)

"No, It will be the MOST fun to have a democrat in office that is so stupid (as Pelosi/Obama may be)as to think they can use the US government to silence us. I always have said, if a liberal must be in power, then better to have the dumbest one. Right now democrats and their media still have the public convinced that GWB is the evil king and there is NO congress. But when Obama is president with Pelosi and starts really stupid stuff, and we didnt even have FNC channel in 1993-94 when democrats still couldnt Hush Rush, all hell will break loose." (52 posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:43:28 AM by sickoflibs)

LOL. Obama only has one thing going for him, like MSNBC: Bush. With Bush gone the magic spell will disappear and the NEW Stalin (a bit of an exaggeration, Stalin was a mass murderer) will not have a public that wants to be ruled. 9 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:38:52 AM by sickoflibs

Don’t misunderstand me. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Shumer... will be terrible for this country. But if someone had to loose this year to pay for Bush’s big government establishment sins, I just assume it be McCain, Mr Phony, BS, reformer, Maverick, no beliefs, any deal is possible, McCain. When McCain ran with us conservatives, he pulled ahead, when he dumped us, he dropped. We were lectured for 8 years he would get all independents and media. Guess what? I think McCain loss will be the seed of a rebirth of conservativism. Lets not blow it it this time. Resistance 2009! Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:48:12 PM by sickoflibs

[RSmithOpt]

Conservatism is based upon experience and truth and what really works....knowing the nature of mankind, acceptance of reality and the Word of God molds a humble and intelligent person to the conservative opinion.

Therefore, taking the heat of criticism isn't nearly as difficult as a warm fuzzy libtard explaining his/her opinion with their own words and reasoning.

Still this country is in for a very rough ride.

Freegards......

[spetznaz]

It is always easier for Dems to criticize when someone else is in power ...after all, all that it requires is to point a finger and twirl it around while 'tsk tsking.' However, when you take the top-seat, suddenly you have to perform and deliver. That takes effort and real work, and even under the best of circumstances is not as easy as pointing fingers and calling someone Chumpy.

To Dems: Be careful what you wish for.