Has Obama begun recreating the Reagan Coalition?
posted at 2:19 pm on September 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
With Barack Obama’s polling numbers dropping rapidly as his policies get exposed as radical and expensive changes to the US, some have begun wondering if Obama can perform a miracle by resuscitating the moribund Reagan coalition of conservatives and independents. Gregg Mueller, a former senior aide to Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan and now president CRC Public Relations, argues that Obama’s slide towards Carterism at home and abroad will do just that. However, Mueller forgets that one key piece is missing:
His approval ratings have tanked in a very short period of time. The trillions in spending he has proposed, and his plans for a government takeover of health care have backfired and the administration is clearly shell shocked. Their recourse has been to attack protesters, launch verbal attacks on those that disagree with them and ignore the hundreds of thousands, many new to politics, who marched on Washington this past Saturday. This has also led to a growing number of Independents who supported or “leaned-Obama Democrat” to move away from support and questioning what is happening — this was not what they had in mind when they voted for change.
Many conservatives have started to invoke President Carter when describing Obama’s domestic agenda. Then he appeared to come to Obama’s aid suggesting that the “you lie” comments made by Representative Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) were race based, igniting a national debate over racism after the country just elected the first African American president. Not so presidential from a former President. On the heels of Carter’s Obama defense, President Obama seems to be headed more and more in a Jimmy Carter direction. The President’s announcement that he will walk back support for a defense shield in Europe for Poland and Czechoslovakia has shocked the world. Reports suggest that the President is weaning the free world’s defenses to appease Russia so that they can help pressure Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I do not understand the logic — appease Russia because the administration’s appeasement of Iran is not working? Is President Obama becoming Jimmy Carter on steroids? Is the President’s foreign policy amounting to an Obama Appeasement Doctrine?
After this massive collapse of will in eastern Europe, I’d call Obama a Carter who desperately needs steroids, but Mueller’s point is clear. For those of us who lived through the Carter presidency, it looks depressingly familiar. High spending, government control of the economy (especially on energy), and clear signs of retreat abroad — it looks much more like Jimmy Carter won his second term of office 28 years after getting booted by the American electorate. The entire decade turned into a morass of malaise, a cesspool of economic stagnation, and with Carter’s election, a season of American humiliation abroad.
Mueller correctly notes that this left America hungering mightily for change and hope, and Ronald Reagan delivered both in his election campaign in 1980. The conservative movement had the opportunity to be given a chance to lead for the first time in decades, at least in the executive branch. Reagan’s sunny optimism and his years-long application of conservative principles in California — hardly a conservative state even at that time — allowed Reagan to form a coalition that only broke down twelve years later.
But could there have been a Reagan coalition without Reagan? As bad as Carter was, few other Republicans at the time could have unseated him, even with the anger and desperation felt in the US. Reagan himself beat Carter by nine points in the popular vote, although he carried 44 states to Carter’s 6 and DC. Reagan built himself into a formidable candidate by spending years on the speaking circuit discussing politics and philosophy, and then eight years as governor adhering to conservative values. Reagan was no unknown quantity when he led his coalition to power in 1980; people knew exactly what Reagan would do as President.
Do we have a Reagan now, someone who led philosophically as well as reliably in office as a conservative? Do we have a potential candidate of that stature who can not only bring together a coalition but discipline it to focus on a few core values, primarily fiscal discipline and national security, which will expand that coalition to its largest possible volume? It took a Carter to put a Reagan in office, but we had to have Reagan ready to go.
In 2010 and 2012, we will have a big opportunity to have that kind of coalition ride to the rescue, but we had better have a candidate with the experience and credibility in office and activism to give it that kind of strength.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
And it seemed pretty clear to others that it did permit such things. The federalist papers are opinions on our governing documents – not actually governing documents. And they have equal and sometimes completely opposite opinions that are easily found elsewhere. (At the very least the anti-federalists had some different opinions and were just as involved) MOST matters of education are controlled at the local level with only additional funding attached from the federal government. I’m not sure that Jefferson or Franklin would toss and turn about that every night.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Another consideration, but somewhat unlikely: Thaddeus McCotter.
IMAGINE THE DEBATE.
Sweet Evil Jesus, YERS.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Ed,
It is not Reagan but his message. True reagan had chrisma but he ran and led on core principles. he did not change his stripes as soon as he won. Palin is the same type of person. It is not the person it is the message. We have not had a GOP leader since reagan to say smaller gov, less spending, more freedom, more liberty.
te regan coliation has not had problems. It is still there waiting a leader to have enough balls to grab it
unseen on September 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Reagan wasn’t elected based on his tenure as governor of CA.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I was writing a 2012 campaign slogan. Humor me.
As a woman, it thrills me that such a vibrant, articulate and effective Conservative leader is also a woman.
Her gender matters only to the extent that people like you will belittle her accomplishments because she’s a woman.
Or is it because she’s a pro-Life Christian?
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Enough. If you’re not going to read my answers, or keep spewing outright lies about what I believe, stop responding to me.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Then go out and do it. Seriously. I welcome the effort. At the very least it would cause some shake-ups in how public schools are run. Success wouldn’t be bad either. Either way is a success for me.
I think the truth is that public education is around to stay and most people haven’t bothered trying to pass amendments because they have a pretty good idea about exactly what their chances of success would be.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM
You’re right. He was elected because he was a leader of the Conservative movement for 15 years before his 1980 run.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I’ve asked you nicely before to please not say this.
It’s not only offensive and blasphemous to those of us who are Christians, but is an impossibility: Jesus, by nature of who and what he is and was, is sweet, but he is and was in no way evil.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:17 PM
He wasn’t a leader of anyone other than those who were considered whack jobs.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Nice lady, bad national candidate.
I see no one on the radar screen in the league of Reagan, and I have been watching and waiting for someone to appear. I like Darrell Issa, but he is not ready. John Cornan is OK too, but not commanding enough personality. David Petraeus is a good man, but kind of quiet. We may not be able to take advantage of the star allignment this go round if someone doesn’t emerge soon.
I agree that Ted Nugent would be a blast to watch.
saiga on September 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I believe the correct phrase is “Sweet Zombie Jesus”. I’m a nerd. =(
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Uh, no.
Up until at least 1972, that was Richard Nixon.
And Goldwater was still around.
And there was Gerald Ford and an up-and-coming George H.W. Bush.
In my mind, Reagan came out of nowhere to save us from the Carter malaise, although I’d heard from many Californians that he was a wonderful Governor.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM
You guys are missing out on the Ron Paul-Reagan connection by bringing up distractions like Alex Jones or whatever.
The point is the fiscal conservatism and a sane foreign policy. That’s what Goldwater stood for, that’s what Reagan campaigned on (though his actual presidency was marred by gigantic spending and deficits). But Reagan’s rhetoric is the same as what Paul wants to do. It’s about portraying a positive vision of America.
Now the GOP is all scare tactics, saying “If we don’t bomb Iran or side with Israel here and here”, we’re going to be in trouble. When the truth is, the empire and the corporate subsidies are screwing the middle class.
The GOP doesn’t care about 2nd amendment rights, 5th amendment rights, 10th amendment rights, and the rest of the amendments for that matter. It’s all about a massive executive and huge federal government in the modern GOP. Paul wants to change that, if enough people stand with him. You really think Palin or Romney get it? The modern-day Thomas Jefferson is the only answer.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM
So that’s why he managed to take California in ’72? That’s why the GOP picked Goldwater in ’64? Because they were whackjobs? The Birchers were, officially, pretty much dead by the seventies.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM
There won’t be another Reagan. Another Reagan would be “nice guy, bad national candidate”, especially after the media got finished with him. Or her.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Even more offensive and sick-making.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Yeah, essentially. Marginal, until the disaster that was Jimmy Carter.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM
You just listed the three least conservative Republican presidents of the last 50 years as leaders of the conservative movement.
Good grief.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM
If we give Jindal a more national platform I think his charisma would develop. I’m the first to admit his response to Obama’s not-SOTU speech last spring did not go well as far as style goes, but give him more experience on the national stage and Jindal could be our man.
Advocate For Change on September 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Gee. Just like the Ayers “distraction” with Obama, eh?
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:23 PM
To bad Bobby Jendal hasn’t polished his public speaking a little more. Right attitude, wrong oratory presence. The ability to craft words and deliver powerful anunciation really matters. Maybe Liz Cheney, she is as sharp as they come. Maybe J.C. Watts if he wins Governer in Oklahoma.
I just don’t know.
saiga on September 17, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Suck it. I didn’t spend 7 years in a Benedictine monastery to have internet strangers tell me that I can’t have a sense of humor or what I must find offensive. Besides – Futurama is ALWAYS funny. ALWAYS.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Well, at least until the inevitable exorcism and 7-11 skits on SNL.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Reagan was elected governor of CA in 1966 and 1970. I don’t remember him challenging Nixon in 1972. Are you referring to the GOP primary vs. Ford in 1976?
Janos Hunyadi on September 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I don’t think they would even bother with 7-11 jokes. Not with the siren call of non-stop pea-soup fountains just wiggling luridly in front of them.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Long work day. I meant ’66. I was thinking Nixon and Reagan at the same time, which was a smear on Reagan.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM
There are far worse things than having Conservative moderate presidents, as we’re finding out.
I could kick Nixon for setting up the EPA, but Russia respected us under him.
What’s so great about Palin is that she is the real deal: she talks the Conservative talk and walks the Conservative walk in office.
Even Reagan signed in abortion on demand as Governor…and as President, passed amnesty.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM
thanks for the View From the Fringe.
Shouldn’t you be walking the perimeter now, checking for infiltrators? Inspecting the sandbags on the bunker for leaks?
Janos Hunyadi on September 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Don’t kid yourself.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:29 PM
That’s an oxymoron. A Conservative, by definition, isn’t a moderate and vice versa.
Beaglemom on September 17, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Too bad we can’t elect Daniel Hanon from England. Now there is an articulate guy.
saiga on September 17, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Well, it’s obvious that didn’t really work out as a career, huh?
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Nor I eight years in Catholic school.
Jenfidel demands not to be offended. Don’t you just love those types?
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:31 PM
The bottom line, my friends (a la McCain), is that we will never have another Reagan or anything remotely resembling that. The media won’t allow it, and it’s the media that choose our candidates.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:31 PM
No. It’s not meant to be a career and anybody that thinks so is trying too hard to come up with a cheap shot. My point stands – I’ve earned my Christian credits and I can decided what offends me. Please don’t pretend to speak for Christians. Especially those of us that know that Futurama is ALWAYS funny.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:33 PM
One thing Reagan never gets credit for is his significant expansion of the state university / college and community colleges in California during his 8 years.
Not only were many new colleges opened or expanded, the education was TUITION-FREE for those under 21 at community colleges ($ 10 a course at community colleges if over 21).
State college tuition was about $100 a semester in the early-middle 1970s, with lots of graduate assistant jobs.
Jerry Brown came in in 1975, cut the grad jobs and jacked up the tuition rates.
Janos Hunyadi on September 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I didn’t demand: I asked politely.
Anyone with taste and manners would know the difference.
But then you wouldn’t have made the remark in the first place if you had taste, manners and a considerate respect for the faith of others.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM
It would have been a distraction if Obama was otherwise a good candidate, which wasn’t the case.
But when all you can bring up is newsletters (that Dr. Paul didn’t write) or Alex Jones, it serves as a distraction from the cancer that is eating up the GOP. The GOP elites are scared of any internal debate which would move the party in more of a small government/libertarian direction.
The elites want the debate over the future of the party to be Bill Kristol vs. Karl Rove vs. David Frum, and the conservative grassroots are helping them sabotage conservatism into their perverted neocon-liberalism buy taking shots at Dr. Paul.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Again, you’re making an error. While the media was not as liberal back then as it is now, they couldn’t resist Reagan. He was ready for a debate at the drop of a hat. He could correct people in seconds. He always was prepared to rally the troops.
Palin has potential, but she isn’t nearly as well-read as Reagan was. Biographies of the man, good and bad, talked about him always having a book or newspaper in his hand. He was addicted to knowledge. Palin needs to buckle down if she wants to rise to his standard, and no I’m not talking about what newspapers and magazines she reads. I’m talking about how many. She should only be able to list off titles if she’s citing points made in an argument.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM
I love movies, but I’ve never heard of “Futurama.”
I can’t think of any other Christians who would enjoy hearing their Lord and Savior’s called “evil.”
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM
I think it was established on page four that at least some of the people here think that public education is something unconstitutional and perhaps not even possible until after the Lamb of God broke the 6th seal. I wouldn’t try to sell them on this being a good point.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM
In other words, is Ayers a serious issue right now? No. The issue is the damage he is doing to the country because of far-left policies. ACORN is a distraction, and so is him calling that black guy a jackass. They’re all diversions by the neocons to throw conservatives off what the real problem is. They are meant to reinforce the false left/right paradigm. The Ron Paul smears and distractions are thrown around to keep everyone in the GOP in the Bushian line.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM
He didn’t have to deal with DKos or DU or their repeaters in the MSM, either; or with people on “our side” who buy into the memes, eventually. Not even Reagan could make it in this environment, I don’t care how well he debated.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Futurama is an Animated series that also released a 4 “movies” on DVD. The Professor was a wildly crazed man from the year 3000 that was only loosely connected to reality and had hundreds of death ray devices. He occasionally swore by “Sweet Zombie Jesus”. He also ate important objects to avoid losing them and would fish them out of his bed pan in the mornings.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
When Ron Paul is a regular guest on the radio show of a conspiracy theorist lunatic who is a 9/11 truther, a New World Order nutcase, an NAU crackpot, and additional buys everything from mind-altering chemtrails to government-manufactured AIDS, he’s hurting his reputation horribly.
Then again, you still love Pat Buchanan, and so does Ron Paul. Again, hurting his reputation. Apart from foreign policy, I agree nearly 100% with Ron Paul. However, he’s hanging around with crazies and neo-nazis, as well as supported by neo-nazis like you, Mr. “Hitler did some bad things probably“.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Yes, it is meant to be a career.
Indeed, it is a life’s calling.
Ask the Jesuits, the Cistercians, the Augustinians and the Franciscans as well as the Benedictines.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Reagan wouldn’t have given them nearly as many memes. On the contrary, his famous reactions, such as “I’m paying for this microphone” showed that while he was affable and camera-friendly, he also took no crap. Sarah Palin needs to toughen up if she plans to emulate that.
You need to have a bit more faith. We haven’t fully lost this country yet.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Read her footnoted posts on Facebook.
Sarah Palin is very well read.
That being said, it’s going to take more skills in a Conservative leader than that of a bookworm to save this nation from the ravages of NObama.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I can think of tons of Christians who don’t get bent out of shape over a mere ludicrous mixing of words intentionally arranged for surrealist humor. Then again, I don’t think most Christians have nearly as big a tree stuck up their posterior.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Memes don’t have to be given. Like “I can see Russia from my house!” Just applying them will do fine.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Good god.
I’m talking about in person, not on a website where you have ample time to check your sources at leisure. Reagan did not have Google at his disposal. He was practically a history professor.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Memes, by their nature, are wild uncontrollable things. And yet a candidate that is comfrotable working with them must be found. Delicious.
Good evening. Soy burgers are calling me names. I hope long thread ends well.
dieudonne on September 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I dunno. We’ll get Romney in 2012 as the media- and intelligentsia-anointed candidate. Obama will be re-elected, probably by an even bigger margin than he won by in 2008. I can remember that Clinton in 1993-1994 was wallowing in bad approval numbers as well.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Have heart!
Americans don’t trust the MSM anymore or haven’t you noticed?
The Tea Parties and town hall meetings have changed the wholed conversation.
And the 9/12 rally was a real game-changer.
What’s driving the national conversation now is new media and social media-Conservative talk radio + blogs, Facebook and especially Twitter.
Sarah Palin has almost 900,000 Friends on Facebook.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Still, Reagan was never what I would call an intellectual. But he had good common sense and firm conviction as to what is right and what is wrong; and a strong sense of American exceptionalism. And charisma in spades. That’s all that’s really needed, not a Ph.D. in PoliSci.
ddrintn on September 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM
I can remember Ross Perot, who no longer matters. No Perot =
no Clinton in either election. Studies showed that most Perot voters had either never voted before or had voted Republican.
Clinton created a de facto ‘coalition’ that mostly took votes from Bush 41 and then Dole, and got 43% and 49 %
Obama has chased any possible Perot-like voters into the Republican Party–for now.
Janos Hunyadi on September 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Sarah’s posts on Facebook have been driving the national conversation!
You can pretend that they don’t (which they have, even Nobama responded to her “death panel” remarks more than once!) or you can pretend they don’t matter.
Neither would be right.
And it wasn’t revealed how intellectually grounded Reagan was until his Diaries were published.
He did have a team of fine speechwriters to help him as President.
And he was well-versed in using his acting skills, like speaking well and memorizing speeches…
I loved the man, but cut Sarah some slack!
You’re painting Reagan with the gilded brush of the past, as we are all wont to do.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Ooh, you just crank out the charm, don’t you?
And yet, you have enough sense to admire real charm, consideration and manners in President Reagan…
Go figure.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Have you ever read a biography of Reagan? He was actually an impressive scholar in college, studying economics and sociology. I’m not trying to push the Reagan-as-infallible fallacy, but you underestimate how much the man studied his trade.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM
I give none to those who slander me just because I use the name of a human being candidly. By the way, there’s plenty of Christians on this site, and you’re the only one ever to make a point of the phrase.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 5:57 PM
The same Dr Paul who advocated piracy as a “legal” and proper solution to 9/11?
jdkchem on September 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM
It’s not like he goes on there every day. It’s once every few weeks. And obviously, just because you go on someone’s radio show doesn’t mean you endorse their views. You have to get out the message through every possible outlet, which is why Dr. Paul goes everywhere from MSNBC to talk radio to Fox News.
Paul doesn’t “hang out with neo-Nazis”. That’z another smear. And again, it’s yet another distraction from the real issues. The bread and butter stuff should matter.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM
I haven’t slandered you in any way.
I don’t think so.
And if they’re keeping quiet, it’s because they’re either too nice to say anything or they’re afraid of getting a backlash of hate as I am now.
St. Paul states in the Bible: “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.”
He speaks for me.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Dr. Paul knowingly took campaign money from Stormfront and neither turned the money down nor disavowed their endorsement.
Same with David Duke.
Stormfront’s website was “Elect Paul President” HQ.
Jenfidel on September 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM
*chuckle*
Dear me, you’re such a card.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM
You’ve accused me of being sexist and you’ve called me a Christian basher, when those here not blinded by seething fundamentalist fury over using the name of a human being ludicrously know otherwise. You’re the kind of oversensitive nut who fuels anti-religion people like LevStrauss. I’m sure you and SaintOlaf/MaximusConfessor or whatever else he calls himself would get along fine.
Doesn’t matter what you think. You’re the only one to make a point of it.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Madison you offend me too. I just don’t say anything because my impression is that you can be boorish… But since you brouhgt it up… Jesus is God not a man…okay
Jen you are doing great!
CCRWM on September 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Well, as the author of that passage was one of the major architects of the constitution, I think I’ll take his over those who didn’t want the version of the constitution we have (the Anti-Federalists). I’d say he has a pretty good idea of what was being thought at the time of writing.
The general welfare clause strictly speaks to those powers enumerated in the constution that are considered welfare oriented (such as the post office, post roads, monetary supply, etc) and as there is no education power enumerated, I’d say that our current system is not constitutional.
The states can do this, the counties can do this, but the federal government should keep their noses out of it, completely. I don’t have so much of a problem with public schools, but rather how the federal government sticks their noses into what can and can’t be taught.
TKSnider on September 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM
History recognizes that a man once existed named Jesus Christ.
What you may believe about that man is your own deal.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Dr. Paul did disavow that endorsement, although I’m sure that part wasn’t reported on the neocon blogs. Again, it shouldn’t be a major issue though.
Back to the Alex Jones thing…Look, 2 years ago he wasn’t getting practically any time on cable news compared to what it is now. Sometimes when you are spreading principles, you have to do it in less than optimal venues because your popularity just isn’t big enough to get on Fox News or whatever. It’s all about getting the message out, and when you are a politician without a huge money cabal financing you, it’s all about getting the name out. Now that he can get on Glenn beck to a much wider audience, the Alex Jones stuff has been reduced from every day to a smaller amount.
Now, that’s not to say everything Alex Jones says is negative. He did point out the mercury in the government vaccines before everyone else. He’s like Rush Limbaugh in style, including making some nutty statements once in a while but there are good points occasionally as well.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Of course, and Hitler “did some bad things probably”.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 6:49 PM
That was a typo, and you can’t prove it otherwise. I had spilled hot coffee on my keyboard, IIRC. Or maybe it was a frozen drink.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Provable to anyone who has read your plethora of anti-semitic posts beyond a reasonable doubt, pal.
Not to mention that “abd things” would be a typo, not typing out a whole extra word that entirely changes the tone of your statement. At least own your neo-nazism, coward.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 6:57 PM
What were you trying to type, when that phrase came out?
I drink copious amounts of Sour Mash, and never typed that phrase.
massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 6:59 PM
First, I don’t have a “plethora” of anti-semitic posts, unless ripping on Bush foreign policy at all fits the bill.
Second, typos can take many different forms. If I’m thinking about lunch, or a snack, and I’m thinking “I’m probably going to have a turkey sandwich”, then the probaby might sneak into one of my posts by pure accident. I mean, we all know the bad stuff Hitler did and there is no denying it without being crazy.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Oh I think he is a brilliant person, and a great governor. I just don’t see him as a strong candidate.
lovingmyUSA on September 17, 2009 at 7:09 PM
As I said, own it. Otherwise, you’re a coward.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:10 PM
At least half of the country hates these neocons, if support for their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a decent indicator. Are half the country anti-semitic or neo-nazis. You don’t want to stick buy that extremist sentiment, right?
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM
I’d say voters are a good indicator. Bush won two terms.
Anything else?
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Dammit Holger–I was just going to print that!~ Good thing I kept on reading before I posted! :)
lovingmyUSA on September 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Oh, and support for the wars has been neatly aligned with progress in the respective wars. Support was low in 06-07 for Iraq, and now it’s high. It was the same with Afghanistan.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:21 PM
That’s convenient, since support for his empire cratered in 2005, leading to huge victories for Dems with anti-war rhetoric in 2006 and 2008. It just took the public more time than anticipated to catch on, because Bush was going on the TV every day trying to scare the sheeple to death.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:23 PM
They are up now because people trust Obama still for whatever reason. In a year or two once the Obama novelty wears off, it’ll be different
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Are you high, or just incredibly stupid?
Levels of violence were at record lows in 2008, and have been for a while. Iraq wasn’t an issue during the election at all.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Support started going up last summer, well before the election was decided.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Plus, people are saying that they approve of how Obama is handling the wars. But polls asking whether the wars were worth even starting (which is what Bush and the Neocons did) are negative for the Kristolites.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM
And advocating piracy was the proper response? Are you to afraid to answer?
jdkchem on September 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Just a quick edit. Gotta watch those typos.
massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:31 PM
At least we’d have kicking music.
Hetfield calls himself a Republican and states he is Conservative on a lot of things. He also stated he is pro-choice. Then again Reagan never did anything about abortion but merely talked softly about it, he talked softly on nearly all the social issues. And Reagan signed abortion laws in California. I think Reagan would agree with this: Abortion should be perfectly legal but there are no clinics and no doctors who perform it because there is no demand.
One of the things I liked about Hetfield and Metalica is they rarely if ever hit on politics.
Holger on September 17, 2009 at 7:31 PM
News flash. The novelty has worn off. Rasmussen.
massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Interesting that you always focus on Bill Kristol, a jew, and not Charles Krauthammer, Cal Thomas, or any of the other “neocons”. You always mention Kristol.
Come on, now. Be honest. How many variations of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have you read?
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM
The Issuing of Letters of Reprisal and Marque is not piracy. It is privateering, very different. We used Privateering as late as the 2nd World War.
Holger on September 17, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Certainly, the letters of Marque and Reprisal were the way to go, and would have prevented much of the current mess.
And it would have actually been Constitutional, unlike the non-declared wars. what a novel idea! Following the founding documents.
Does that answer it?
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Nope it’s piracy and has been abandoned by the rest of the world since well before WWII. Equivocating the arming of merchant ships with deck guns to defend themselves against German subs to authorizing mercanaries to invade another country is pretty lame.
jdkchem on September 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Interesting that you always focus on Bill Kristol, a jew, and not Charles Krauthammer, Cal Thomas, or any of the other “neocons”. You always mention Kristol.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM
It’s because Kristol’s dad is the “Father of Neoconism”. Plus he’s more well-known than the other ones you mentioned. I could use any number of these people as examples, though. I hate to single just one out.
The Dean on September 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
But…you don’t.
But…you do.
MadisonConservative on September 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM
So, what your saying is:
Irving Kristol did some bad things, probably.
Got it.
massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:45 PM
You use logic like a samurai uses a sword.
massrighty on September 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »