Replies

Horowitz is being reasonable. Name calling just makes those that LOVE Obama (which is the majority)change the channel. It's a substitute for an argument, the argument is why what he is doing is wrong.Why is it bad? Calling him a communist and radical did not get McCain elected. In fact, those that call Obama names call the Obama lovers names. It might feel good but it is not going to hurt him.

Democrats won BIG because they were over time able to string together a convincing narrative about Bush, not name calling.

Calling him a communist and radical did not get McCain elected. In fact, those that call Obama names call the Obama lovers names.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obama **is** a radical.

Obama **is** a communist.

Truth is not name calling.It is time for the left to be placed on the defensive.

If conservatives wasted a lot of time and energy explaining why Bush was NOT a war criminal, then it is is time for the left to explain why Obama is not a communist or fascist. However....in Obama’s case he is a communist and fascist so proving he is not will be hard for the left to do!

We must use Saul Alinsky’s techniques against them.

Horowitz is being reasonable. Name calling just makes those that LOVE Obama (which is the majority)change the channel. It's a substitute for an argument, the argument is why what he is doing is wrong.Why is it bad? Calling him a communist and radical did not get McCain elected. In fact, those that call Obama names call the Obama lovers names. It might feel good but it is not going to hurt him.

Good point worth saying.

Democrats won BIG because they were over time able to string together a convincing narrative about Bush, not name calling.

There was a lot of name calling too. The narrative building started with the name calling, and the same was probably true of Clinton as well. Overheated rhetoric has become a staple of politics in the Internet age and it didn't stop or start with Obama.

If you were around here when Clinton was President you might say that Clinton wasn't everything we said he was and Bush wasn't all the left made him out to be, so one ought to be skeptical of the wild-eyed rhetoric about Obama. Or you could say that Obama's further from the mainstream than they were, so that whatever attacks we made on Clinton have to be doubled in dealing with the new threat.

I lean towards the former reaction, but it certainly is true that Obama's come to the White House more to the left than Clinton ever was. There's an emptiness and a hollowness to the accusations of Obama being Marxist or Communist or Fascist though. When people talk that way they say more about themselves than about Obama. They're saying that they're more interested in venting emoting than in drawing accurate comparisons.