[forkinsocket]

.

[unkus]

It could still be McCain vs Hitlery.

[ken21]

dat’s true.

i have a democrat-tv-watcher friend who would vote for fidel castro,

and she’s ok with mccccccain, if obama, her choice, loses.

si.

[I see my hands]

Beware Liberals.

[Old Sarge]

Now that Hillary Clinton has conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama

She Who Must Not Be Named has NOT conceded, She has only "suspended" Her campaign, and is retaining all Her delegates, in addition to Her 900+ FBI files.

[roses of sharon]

IT IS TIME TO UNLEASH HELL.

[M203M4]

Big government abroad, big government at home, socially moderate. Just like a 1960’s Democrat. Of course the modern mainstream GOP (neocons like McCain and Giuliani) is agreeable to an American-second internationalist like Lind.

[x]

For 40 years, the radical right tried to destroy the domestic and international order that American liberals created in the central decades of the 20th century. The people who are known today as "conservatives" are better described as "counterrevolutionaries." The goal of Barry Goldwater and the intellectuals clustered around William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review was not a slightly more conservative version of the New Deal or the U.N. system. They were reactionary radicals who dreamed of a counterrevolution. They didn't just want to stop the clock. They wanted to turn it back.

What he's saying doesn't correspond to real electoral politics in the US. Sure, people may not like the UN or the Federal Reserve, but there was never any serious effort in electoral politics to get rid of them.

I'm also not sure that there was ever any "attack" on social security. Think tanks discussed alternatives to reform or replace or supplement. That's the sort of thing they're supposed to talk about.

Lind seems to have bought into the idea of a Reagan or Gingrich "revolution" which was never in the cards. One of the comments compares his view to "Rove's Permanent Republican Majority" theory. So now he's seized on a similar notion of the dawn of a new liberal era. It's the same dizzy, blurry-eyed exaltation in what may be a moment of success.

I guess liberals will have their moment, their chance, but that's different from saying that it's the end of an era.

[org.whodat]

The republcrats Vs. the democrats, who cares.

[Rebelbase]

“Three great accomplishments defined midcentury American liberalism: liberal internationalism, middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and liberal individualism in civil rights and the culture at large.”

And with it we got an entire spectrum of society totally dependent on Government for their survival via food stamps, welfare, medical care, and public housing.

Along with the nanny state we gained a litigious society ready to sue at the drop of a hat.

Then there’s that whole removal of prayer from school thing........

[Rebelbase]

I always feel slimy after visiting Salon.com. Is it just me?

[RetiredArmy]

But in the last decade, even during the seven-plus years of the Bush presidency, the center of American politics has moved considerably to the left. Whether Obama or McCain wins the White House, liberalism has already won the national debate about the future of the country.

Yes, Americans have gone liberal. They want free food, free sex, free drugs, free medical, free TV, free porn, free gas, free health care and all the at the same time as they sit on their fat asses and watch TV. America has destroyed itself in the past 10-15 years. We have destroyed the greatest Republic in the world in that time span, something the Soviets could not do in 60+ years. Basically, forget it. America that you used to know is gone. It is now the new liberal slimeball America. Conservatives are going to feel like and be treated like a North Korean dirt farmer. Its coming. Hang on for the ride. Because the garbage has just started to stink and the crap has flies all around it. America is rotten to the core. Maybe the Islumics had it right in the first place, America is RUN by Satan. America has forgotten God and its religion. America just reeks of liberal garbage. And, for if it is free, Americans will fall all over themselves to get THEIRS!!

[what's up]

Are liberals going to get their end to the WOT under McCain? No.

Are liberals going to get and end to the partial birth abortion ban under McCain? No.

Are liberals going to get the Bush tax cuts killed under McCain? No.

Corporate tax cuts? Yes, under McCain. A big NO under Obamanama.

There's some BIIIIIIG differences between the 2.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

But in the last decade, even during the seven-plus years of the Bush presidency, the center of American politics has moved considerably to the left. Whether Obama or McCain wins the White House, liberalism has already won the national debate about the future of the country.

Bwahahaha. Politicians today run from the label of "liberal" like vampires from Van Helsing, and will continue to do so. There's no disputing that Americans grew sick of Republican control of Congress after years of Republican failure to live up to their principles, there's no doubt that Barack Obama is a young, charismatic candidate, and finally there's no doubt that Republicans lack any charismatic conservative candidates ready to take Obama on. But none of this means that most Americans have discovered any new love for liberalism - Obama is a cipher to most people, who will project whatever they want to see on any pretty, unknown face. They don't see him as a liberal (yet), and he'll angrily deny that he is a liberal.

[Billthedrill]

Mr. Lind certainly has to choose his measurements carefully before he engages in a rather embarrassingly juvenile triumphalism. In fact, nearly none of his benchmarks are (1) unaltered, or (2) exclusively liberal. I note with some amusement that he insists that the wicked right-wing blahblahblahs were out to "end" Social Security, that torchlight of liberal enlightenment that (ahem!) will fail by any measurement due to simple demographics. The attempt at privatization was not, as Lind quite simply lies, to end Social Security, but to save it. It was defeated. And now Social Security will fail, and guess who will end up blaming the eeeevil conservatives for liberal folly?

Liberal internationalism - his term, not mine - has resulted in a stifling bureaucracy, corrupt institutions, and a system of diplomacy whose principal function appears to be to apologize for and enable terror wars by proxy armies. Its failures are legion, its successes largely self-declared and of minimal impact to their nominal beneficiaries. It is internationalism that has failed, not conservatism, and its stinking corpse is still doing its best to drag the world down with it.

As for some grotesque abstraction Mr. Lind characterizes as "liberal individualism" there is nary a sign in the current rage among progressives to stamp out individualism of every sort through hate speech laws, legislated class warfare, political correctness, and codified racial intolerance.

All of this liberal self-congratulation has succeeded largely through redefinition and historical revisionism, not through any systemic rejection of a "counter-revolution" that exists - both rejection and counter-revolution - largely in the perfervid imaginations of liberal commentators. Mr. Lind may crow that neither of the Presidential candidates is a conservative but only by sidestepping the inconvenient fact that neither was their predecessor, nor his predecessor, nor his predecessor. In point of fact there has been relatively little good news for conservatives since the Gingrich Contract in 1994 which returned Congress to the Republicans for the first time in some 40 years.

I would, therefore, pose an alternate interpretation of these events that is far less flattering to Mr. Lind and his co-religionists. It is that liberalism has learned nothing from its failures and will continue stubbornly down the same failed paths that led it to its current passionate and defiant irrelevance. And the biggest certainty of all is that its adherents will continue to risk rotator cuff damage by patting themselves on the back while the country whose charge it is for them to lead suffers from their self-absorption, self-aggrandizement, and self-deception.

[Arrowhead1952]