Posted on 04/21/2008 10:15:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Andrew O’Hehir does not recognize Obama as a grifter.
I enjoyed reading this, thanks for posting it. And thanks go to the author for identifying the weak joints through which we will drive steel wedges this fall. By the time we get done with this Democrat, whichever of the two is finally nominated, they are going to look like chopped meat on a Philly cheesesteak.
I think it’s definitely a Salon article. 3 snoozies.
Take a Vivarin, wash it down with a Red Bull, and read it...
LOL
Here’s what I think - A) Is this the longest post ever, or does it just seem so? B) What is this guy doing on this board? and C) It’s always amazed me how the Dems decry wars, blaming the big, bad Reps, yet historically - overwhelmingly, it’s been Democrat presidents who’ve gotten us into them. Hmmmmmm.
The rest of what I think of this is too lengthy to mention.
re your prediction - God willing and the “cricks” don’t rise.
I think it’s a pretty good analysis, agree with a lot, disagree with some.
This point:
“It has robbed the United States of an effective opposition party for four decades, with no end in sight.”
I think is very true and very tragic for the country. Honest opposition, arguing different ideas toward the same goals is very healthy and helpful.
Lately we have the Power Hungry Traitors vs. the Incompetent Wanderers
Oh, come on Andrew! The real question is “Do we want to lose because we nominated a Marxist or because we nominated a Marxist?”
OUCH!
That's been the problem since the Warren Court. There is no argument for myself on 90% of the positions taken by Dems today.
I will NEVER agree that killing babies is a "right". I will NEVER agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to me. I will NEVER agree that America was founded by anything but Christians who thought we should prefer Christians as our leaders. I will NEVER agree that homosexual marriage was what my father fought in WWII to protect. I will NEVER agree that burning the American Flag is "free speech". I will NEVER agree to have open borders to allow just anyone to enter the US without permission.
There are many positions that are just against all moral conscience that are beyond discussion. We can argue over single payer medical, but why, when it is piss poor in every country that has tried it. We can argue over how much our taxes should be, but it is proven over and over that the gubmint spends all it gets and then some, and is ALWAYS detrimental to the economy to redistribute the job makers money to the job destroyers. We might argue over the size of the military, but every time we downsize, we end up paying more later, sometimes with blood. We can have many arguments, I suppose, but most of them are mute, proven by failures in USSR, Cuba, Viet Nam, etc. Something to discuss might be how John McCain became a conservative party's pick out of millions of possibilities.
I have pondered many topics the Dems have positions on and I honestly can't find one that I can say, "Man, I wish the Republicans would think that way". Most of the time I spend writing the Republicans complaining they are too much like the Dems. Reagan wasn't as conservative as I am. He backed out of Lebanon, He gave us the first border amnesty, he did many things I disagreed with. I think he has been the greatest president of my lifetime, but he wasn't perfect. Getting our party to stick together is more difficult than arguing with Demtard's. Their arguments are just hold overs from Karl Marx. He's dead.
Thanks for your reply, and I agree.
There are valid arguments about how to keep America free; the proper role of taxes; what is the best defense strategy in today’s world, etc. etc..
The opposition party cannot be taken seriously or credibly. And that’s a loss to the public debate and to the citizenry.
It is very important to understand the disastrous ramifications of the above point concerning the extent of the support that FDR got from the Democratic coalition.
Given that the Founders required federal government powers to be enumerated in the Constitution, in order to establish his New Deal federal programs FDR first needed to do the following. He needed to rally the states to exercise their Article V power to amend the Constitution to essentially add his spending programs to Sec. 8 of Article I. Otherwise, the USSC would have to find FDR's programs to be constitutionally unauthorized, aka unconstitutional, if the states were to challenge them. And the states did indeed challenge them.
Astonishingly, instead of campaigning for the states to properly amend the Constitution, FDR showed appaling ignorance of the Constitution by encouraging Democratic-sympathizing justices to give carte blanche approval to his New Deal programs, the Constitution, especially 10th A. protected state powers, be damned.
Thus began not only the politically correct ignoring of the requirement for constitutionally enumerated federal government powers by big-shot Democratic spenders in Congress, but also the erosion of 10th A. protected powers, particularly the power to address religious issues, by pro-Democratic majority justices. Indeed, pro-Democratic majority justices have been short-changing USA citizens their religious freedoms for decades now.
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, provides more details as to how USA citizens lost control of their wallets to the Democrat-controlled federal government, thanks to FDR and pro-Democratic justices who had no more respect for state powers than FDR did.
Again, given that the 10th A. protects state power to address religious issues, this post (<-click) tells how secular-minded, pro-Democratic justices, having FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A., slowly began limiting our religious freedoms whenever religion-related state power cases came along. The resulting string of 10th A.-ignoring cases includes the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade.
The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to the fact that the federal government hasn't been operating within the restraints of the federal Constitution since the days of FDR's dirty Democratic politics. The people need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding that the feds not only eliminate constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs while appropriately reducing federal taxes, but also demanding that the feds respect 10th A. state powers, particularly powers which help to protect our religious freedoms.
If the shoe fits.
Liberal fantasizing.
It isn’t a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party....the rotten soul of an illegitimate opposition party...RIP...teaitors. If we can rid ourselves of the Drats and Rinos we might find that their will be better ways to organize political parties that will be reponsive and replacable when not!
I read that comment to imply that this is what many Democrats are bringing to this campaign. Last night on H&C they had KellyAnne and a Dem pollster named Doug. The discussion started out trying to figure where the Hillary/Barry fight is going but ended up in basically the same place: the Democrats are determined to prove their internal fire in the belly, no matter the cost, and the contest with the Republicans is just a phantom on an invisible horizon to them. Just as this writer only vaguely seems to have heard of conservatives and only knows the most disrespectful stereotype of Republicans, the Democrats at large have really bought into the fantasy that there really aren’t any opponents, except those within the Democratic universe (there is no other) who seem to have chosen an unwise set of priorities among the verities all good humans (only Democrats are good humans) must hold to be considered fully real. So they battle among themselves. Their issues were originally about the long march through the institutions (something begun by FDR as is noted above) but that march has been uncomfortably visible to ordinary humans, who have not approved in the usual case. Allowing the one exception (Clinton), one sees that the Democratic project to forcibly evolve American humanity into the sci-fi perfection imagined in the 1930’s has never been really accepted by mainstream peoples of any color, origin or belief set. Yet the dream lives on and the ideal remains the chimera Democrats relentlessly pursue. They will remake us, for our own good, whether we recognize our inadequacy or not.
And the fight now isn’t about whether the Dems really want to establish their feminist cred or their ethnic bones but which of these ideologues the Democrats finally can’t stop from being the latest one to assail the trenchworks of Amrican life and work. The fragility of the spoils system they tried to erect is now showing its creaks and its dangers: when you promise something to somebody, the main thing is to deliver. It better be something that you really can provide, yes? Well, Democrats can’t deliver what they promise, not in any large measure. They can only loot the system in small portions, enough to enrich those they enshrine in power, but not enough to actually deal with anything they have decried as systemic crises. We know what happens to poverty when Democrats decide to ‘fix’ it: some Democrats become extremely rich, a lot of lawyers buy lots of offshore property and slums turn to war zones. A lot of people who don’t normally have anything to say politically know this just as well as anyone and are usually smart enough not to even need to mention it. They know that’s what’s in store if either Hillary or Barry is elected. A few kids might think ‘no, really, it’ll be really really different this time’ but no person who actually paid attention in any of the last few decades is going to be deluded by the candidature on the left we now are forced to experience.
We know what the real problem is: John McCain may once have been a hero and a great American but his thinking has apparently blurred under the constant pressure of the Washington DC advocacy crowd. It’s not something personal but something truly systemic about our federal system of governance. That much power that densely concentrated in that small a group attracts those who would manipulate that power in mass numbers. And they’re really good at manipulating, in every conceivable direction. For myself, I’m just not sure which way John would strike out for, if he were elected. I don’t think my hesitation is unusual, either.
But that’s perhaps the good side: I KNOW which direction Hillary or Barry will make me march and I am determined never to go that way. So I probably will vote for McCain, not out of conviction, but as a profound negative. There is little prospect that any of the proposed power structures will do anything but work to magnify the degree to which day-to-day life is managed from Washington. Most people will have to make a hard calculation about exactly what level of resistance can be afforded. It could be characterized as sheeple-izing but that’s unfair. We all have lives we’re trying to get on with and the politicians seem to have nothing better to do that to try to teach us all how to do that. Thing is, they also command the enforcement structures. Unless someone is prepared to execute a coup d’etat, a la ‘Five Days in May’, then most are just going to recognize a bully state and do everything they can to quietly invalidate what they cannot avoid and cope with what they cannot invalidate.
The fix is in this year. Don’t let that get you down.
I lived thru this but missed the dems divides.
Would he have called Nixon a "popular incumbent" at the time?
Indeed, the Democrats have to decide between losing due to blacks or women, whether to run a pathological liar or an anti-American Muslim sympathist.
Which way lies madness? The way to Denver. I'm betting on the Donner party.
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.