[throwback]

Maybe none of the other candidates have the courage to call Obama what he is either. The point is is that if you're so sensitive to losing votes, you won't do more difficult things that require even more courage because they will lose even more votes. Recent examples are raising the debt ceiling and the payroll tax cut. Do you think Romney would have opposed the payroll tax cut or raising the debt ceiling? Maybe the others wouldn't either, but I'm sure Romney wouldn't have. He goes with the flow and avoids appearing extreme at all cost.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The point is is that if you're so sensitive to losing votes, you won't do more difficult things that require even more courage because they will lose even more votes. Recent examples are raising the debt ceiling and the payroll tax cut.

Rhetoric is style, not substance, and challengers don't pass legislation with their rhetoric. Elections are about winning votes, and the rhetoric you use during a campaign should be designed to do that. No purpose is served in losing votes due to rhetoric.

But passing legislation is completely different, because even if it costs you votes, you've managed to achieve something.

Look at Obama. He ran and won by mouthing vague platitudes so as not to offend anyone, and actually conned some Republicans into thinking he was just this moderate guy. But then when he got into office, he managed to pass a lot of substantive legislation and regulation that angered a lot of people.

The fact is that such a strategy works.

[hinckley buzzard]

Whether you call Obama a socialist in your stump speech is a tactical decision, not a critical judgment. I'd call him a fascist myself, but the point is, however accurate, either of these terms may well sound to the casual listener like partisan name-calling. It could lose you a few votes at the margin, which is where elections usually are won or lost.