Posted on 10/30/2008 4:25:10 AM PDT by rellimpank
The most basic explanation for why Barack Obama may win next Tuesday is that voters want economic deliverance. The standard fix for this in politics everywhere is to crowbar the old party out and patch in the other one. It is true as well that the historic nature of the nation's first African-American candidacy would play a big role. [Wonder Land] Barbara Kelley
Push past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote. One sees what Joe (The Plumber) Wurzelbacher saw. The real "change" being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of "the past eight years" but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America's idea of itself.
I don't agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
America, you were a good ‘ol girl while you lasted.
Oh, if Obama wins, we certainly will get “Deliverance”.
Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Tojo were all historic and they all brought change.
Obama's historic nature involves a fundamental change in this nation...all very evidenced and articulately explained in his 2001 NPR interview when politics was not on the line for him.
He disdains the founders of this nation, the constitution they were inspired to write, and the principles of liberty and Judeao-Christian morality that undergird it.
That is precisely what he intend to change...and it would be historic in nature, but a very bad chapter in history if we allow it to happen.
Back during the McCain honeymoon (when he still had more-conservative competitors in the GOP primaries), I predicted that the press would turn on McCain, and he'd never figure it out. Too bad I was right.
A conspiracy 70 years in the building against us is about to come to fruition, and all the old Gaybists working in Vladimir Putin's resovietizing Russia will be drinking freezing vodka toasts to Lenin, if Obama wins with the help of their former acolytes in American academe and media.
This article describes the road map to a future America that will be wall-to-wall New Orleans, where everyone is "stuck on stupid" all the time.
Naturally the Dems would use the prospect of the nation’s first African-American president to attempt to sneak the most hard left-wing candidate past the American electorate.
And it took a plumber in Ohio to disrupt the plan.
People don’t know much about Obama. As much as the media has been fawning over him, undoubtedly many Americans were wondering...’what’s the catch?’
Well, the ‘catch’ is ‘spread the wealth.’ I’d also argue another catch is this guy will bend America and America’s allies over to be sodomized by every two-bit dictator on Earth. Grab your ankles, Israel.
On issue after issue, Obama has an extreme left-wing position. There is no triangulation. Of course, this has been tried before by the Democrats, and failed miserably, in the form of Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale. When America gets a chance to vote on a pure left-wing Democrat, the answer, since 1968, has been invariably negative, sometimes harsh.
The three times America has elected a Democrat during this time, it has been a southern governor who related well to enough rural and suburban working/middle class whites.
Obama is straight from the Kerry/Dukakis/Mondale mold. An extreme liberal from a deep blue state. To top it off, he has a very thin resume of public service.
The only reason he’s competitive in this election is due to deep dissatisfaction with the present GOP administration, the color of his skin, and the media’s willingness to fellate him at every instant.
America wants change, yes. But what kind of change? Change that represents a fundamental break with the America of free enterprise, private property, undisturbed constitutional liberties, and hard work? Or simply change from the excesses of the present administration, but a continuance of that which Americans hold most dear? I think the later is much more in line with what the electorate is seeking in its leadership.
John McCain loves his country and has sacrificed much for it. Barack Obama can love this country after a few minutes of equivocation and blather.
John McCain is his own man. He’s been willing to take on his own party for what he’s felt was right. He’s been willing to take on the media and all of the self-appointed experts in the chattering class when the obvious needed to get done (ie Iraq). He believe that honor and victory are not concepts that this nation bitterly clings to irrationally.
And he doesn’t believe in socialism, Marxist-Leninism, or whatever label the brutal, failed, social philosophy of statism goes by these days.
This is a fundamental belief election. This is a choice between the liberal Democrat view of America as a “downright mean country” which must be radically changed, or the Middle America view of America as the last, best hope for mankind, a beacon of personal and economic freedom which stands as a shining city on a hill, above the dark, squalid morass of statism around the world.
Middle America will win this contest, again.
Also, I finally got around to start reading Atlas Shrugged. I'm only 150 pages into this 1100+ page book, so don't tell me the ending, but it's amazing how much of this battle war is in there. And she refers to The Peoples State of Mexico, The Peoples State of France, etc., quite similar to our references here to The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts and so forth.
I don't agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.
What Obama and his Leninist shower-buddies can accomplish while in office, Sarah and a new Congress built on a new Contract with America can undo -- just as Bush tried to pry the Dems' felonious fingers off their Social Security stranglehold on the voter, she can take bolt-cutters to all the dependency-inducing Democrat character-sapping programs.
What Maggie Thatcher had the character to do in Britain -- which was a lot redder than America is, either now or prospectively after four years of recession under Obama -- Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal will have the character and courage to do in a post-Marxist GOP administration that will get elected not by echoing the failed "Me-Too" politics of the 1930's Republicans, but by running right at the 'Rats' nest the way Newt and the conservative insurrectionaries did in 1994.
Remember, the big GOP money didn't contribute last year because they were convinced, whoever gets elected this year will be the next Herbert Hoover. The roof comes down next year, on the occupant of the White House. Obama will welcome that and try to use it to radicalize the People. We'll see if it works for him. The smart money says no.
She was quite an original, and she lived outrageously, burning her candle like a road flare, because she knew the deformity and moral hideousness of living for ideology and the State.
It's a very good article that I'll send to my “liberal” friends who will all hate me for it.
They’ve already told me to not send them any more “idiotic crap” and “flurry of sarcastic emails from you” and “taken aback by your patronizing attitude. What do you hope to achieve by making me feel bad about myself?”
Perhaps my approach is too “vast right wing” for them.
I'll take my chances on losing friends rather than losing the country, freedom, survival and Western civilization.
“Is that so WRONG”!?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.