Barak Obama

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
he has a positive message

This is the weakest argument ever. Name one candidate who has a negative message.

You only need to look back as far as 2004, with Bush and Cheney, or last Fall’s congressional elections…

“If you vote for the Democrat, we will be hit by terrorists” (Dick Cheney said something directly along those lines).

Democrats will take away your guns and your bibles. Etc. The elections are LOADED with negative messages.

I think Obama DOES have positions, and you guys are just unaware of what they are because the media hasn’t spoonfed you this information.

“Democrats don’t have any positions or any plans”… biggest line of horsehit ever.[/quote]

Don’t worry. As soon as someone mixes one of his ideas into a negative and makes it rhyme, everyone will suddenly have an opinion on his stance on issues…whether it is correct or not.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
he has a positive message

This is the weakest argument ever. Name one candidate who has a negative message.

You only need to look back as far as 2004, with Bush and Cheney, or last Fall’s congressional elections…

“If you vote for the Democrat, we will be hit by terrorists” (Dick Cheney said something directly along those lines).

Democrats will take away your guns and your bibles. Etc. The elections are LOADED with negative messages.

I think Obama DOES have positions, and you guys are just unaware of what they are because the media hasn’t spoonfed you this information.

“Democrats don’t have any positions or any plans”… biggest line of horsehit ever.[/quote]

What are his positions then? That’s what were trying to figure out. Why would you YOU vote for him or not?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama will win in '08. People are in the mood for style over substance, as in 1960.[/quote]

People voted for style over substance, when they voted for George W. Bush. Remeber all the bullshit about how George Bush was someone people would like to have a beer with? (as opposed to Gore, who was depicted as being stuffy).

Wrong again. The country is NOT trending conservative.

In the last national election in November, not a single office holder was replaced by a more conservative candidate. It was a landslide in the other direction.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

People voted for style over substance, when they voted for George W. Bush. Remeber all the bullshit about how George Bush was someone people would like to have a beer with? (as opposed to Gore, who was depicted as being stuffy).[/quote]

Well, Gore is stuffy, as he proved in the debates, but I think Bush’s success in 2000 was a combination of style and substance - with being a governor from a big state as well as being, well, not Clinton or in some way related to Clinton.

[quote]Wrong again. The country is NOT trending conservative.

In the last national election in November, not a single office holder was replaced by a more conservative candidate. It was a landslide in the other direction.[/quote]

I have no idea exactly what way America is ‘trending’, but I believe the 2006 elections were more a function of dissatisfaction and fatigue with the GOP than a desire for a more left-of-center approach generally. Consider also that the GOPers that lost their seats were largely replaced by a moderate group of Democrats that stand in contrast to the Pelosi wing of the party. And also consider that many voters were punishing the GOP for failing to be conservative - many conservative voters preferred mixing up the authority with a Democratic Congress and a Republican Executive as a way to snarl up the sloppy governance that was in no way reflecting conservative principles.

Trending more liberal? Not sure, but whatever the case, I don’t think the elections of 2006 help us determine that much, if any.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have no idea exactly what way America is ‘trending’, but I believe the 2006 elections were more a function of dissatisfaction and fatigue with the GOP than a desire for a more left-of-center approach generally. Consider also that the GOPers that lost their seats were largely replaced by a moderate group of Democrats that stand in contrast to the Pelosi wing of the party.[/quote]

Even a conservative Democrat is still more liberal than a Republican, no matter how you try to spin it.

Headhunter said the US was trending Conservative… quite clearly, it is not.

Rick Santorum: replaced
George Allen: replaced
Jim Talent: replaced

Even Lincoln Chafee was replaced. Again, not a single instance of a more-conservative candiudate replacing a liberal one… but loads of examples in the other direction. All over the country, conservative “stars” like JD Hayworth lost their races.

You can decide that you personally give that no credence. Stick your head in the sand, who cares. You probably thought the GOP would win big in November, too.

Here’s another sign that conservatism is in retreat: when talking about the 2008 presidential race, the GOP favorites are the party’s moderates, and not the hardline conservatives.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have no idea exactly what way America is ‘trending’, but I believe the 2006 elections were more a function of dissatisfaction and fatigue with the GOP than a desire for a more left-of-center approach generally. Consider also that the GOPers that lost their seats were largely replaced by a moderate group of Democrats that stand in contrast to the Pelosi wing of the party.

Even a conservative Democrat is still more liberal than a Republican, no matter how you try to spin it.

Headhunter said the US was trending Conservative… quite clearly, it is not.

Rick Santorum: replaced
George Allen: replaced
Jim Talent: replaced

Even Lincoln Chafee was replaced. Again, not a single instance of a more-conservative candiudate replacing a liberal one… but loads of examples in the other direction. All over the country, conservative “stars” like JD Hayworth lost their races.

You can decide that you personally give that no credence. Stick your head in the sand, who cares. You probably thought the GOP would win big in November, too.

Here’s another sign that conservatism is in retreat: when talking about the 2008 presidential race, the GOP favorites are the party’s moderates, and not the hardline conservatives.[/quote]

The country has trended conservative since 1980. Less then 19% of the poulation identify themselves as liberal vs. 39% conservative. Conservative voters have been growing since the 1980 election while liberals have been shrinking. Both sides need the swing vote to win. The moderate block is not leaning liberal. That trend is clear, overwhelming and well documented. Why do you think the GOP isn’t all that concerned? Regardless of what the Democrats attempt to morph into the liberal base will continue to shrink…they just don’t reproduce fast enough and children raised in a conservative household don’t typically grow up and embrace liberal idealogy. You really need to be born into it.

The Democrats won in 2006 by distancing themselves from the liberal base and appealing to moderates. The GOP distanced themselves from their base also and it backfired.Hardly a trend. In fact the blowback may be a killshot for the Democrats in 2008. The agenda is lacking for effective change and the electorate is impatient. Democrats by and large have been ineffective making change. Pelosi has stumbled recently and she hasn’t even taken over the helm.

Realclearpolitics published the polling data on liberal vs. conservatives last year. Do you have anything to support your claim that the country is not growing conservative other then conjecture based on the election of 2006?

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

Rick Santorum: replaced
[/quote]

By an anti-abortion “conservative” Democrat.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:

Rick Santorum: replaced

By an anti-abortion “conservative” Democrat.[/quote]

The Democrat replacing Santorum is far more liberal, even if he is personally anti-choice. Cherry picking single issues can be used to support any kind of dumb spin.

Santorum was the conservative movement’s poster boy, and he was replaced.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:

Rick Santorum: replaced

By an anti-abortion “conservative” Democrat.

The Democrat replacing Santorum is far more liberal, even if he is personally anti-choice. Cherry picking single issues can be used to support any kind of dumb spin.

Santorum was the conservative movement’s poster boy, and he was replaced.[/quote]

Santorum was ripe for the picking because of his support for Iraq and the Dems still had to run a conservative to beat him.

You seem to be fooling yourself here.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Less then 19% of the poulation identify themselves as liberal vs. 39% conservative. [/quote]

It depends on the poll and what questions are asked. Your figures merely prove that the GOP has done a good job at demonizing the label "liberal’ but doesn’t indicate what issues and values the voters actually support. For example most people do not believe that abortion should be outlawed. But yet they would hestitate to acknowledge that is a “liberal” position they hold.

Conventional wisdom is that the country is split into thirds, among Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates.

Uh, actually I think they are pretty concerned. I do read some conservative websites, and what I see is a party that is in disarray, and unclear on a direction.

You should try reading some liberal websites, and getting the other POV. You’re not going to get an even-handed account by reading one side of a story.

The moderate block is not trending Conservative. Go ahead and say that the last election is not a good measure of the mood of the country… I can’t think of a better barometer.

The stats indicate that the current crop of young people (teenagers and twenty-somethings) are decidedly more liberal than conservative. Other stats also show that most people decide on a political affiliation and stick with it, by the age of 30. The liberal who becomes a conservative in their old age (or vice versa) is a relatively rare phenomenon.

Look, the single most important and most powerful conservative in America (President Bush) is wildly unpopular, and viewed by the majority as not merely just ineffective, but as untrustworthy and a failure. And Conservatives lost their races not just in Congress but at the state and local level.

What you guys are doing is called whistling past the graveyard.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

Even a conservative Democrat is still more liberal than a Republican, no matter how you try to spin it.[/quote]

I wasn’t spinning anything - you are focused on labels. Many conservatives - myself included - were interested in casting a vote for a conservative Democrat if one were available not because we are suddenly less conservative in outlook, but because the alternative (usually an incumbent) was part of the problem.

The point being - a vote for a more liberal candidate may not reflect a shift in political attitude so much as it reflects a complete dissatisfaction with the incumbent (i.e., because the ‘conservative’ is a sleazebag who turned out not all that conservative in practice down in the District).

I expressly said I don’t know exactly what it means - but I don’t think it means what you hope it means.

As for me, I repeatedly predicted that the GOP would lose, and I even thought it could be a good thing long term. Try something other than vacant piss and vinegar.

Like who? Don’t say McCain - he is to the ‘right’ of Bush on national security and fiscal matters. He is pro-life and wants to appoint more Roberts and Alitos to the bench. He was discussing ‘rogue state rollback’ back when Bush wanted a lesser military role in the world. McCain is a maverick, not a moderate.

Giuliani is much more moderate, especially socially. Who else? Mitt Romney?

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

The stats indicate that the current crop of young people (teenagers and twenty-somethings) are decidedly more liberal than conservative.[/quote]

What act of genius came up with that riveting analysis? Young people are always more liberal than conservative. Nothing new here.

Oh yeah? I’d be interested in some empirical proof of this. Not saying it is wrong - just curious as to the foundation of the assertion.

But this is where you keep getting it wrong. Lots of conservatives are unhappy with Bush. But have they changed? If a bona fide conservative was put up in a race, would they not vote conservative in the next election cycle?

You think that lots of people have changed their political feathers. There is no reason to think they have, just on the basis that a broad swath of voters are unhappy with Bush.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Less then 19% of the poulation identify themselves as liberal vs. 39% conservative.

It depends on the poll and what questions are asked. Your figures merely prove that the GOP has done a good job at demonizing the label "liberal’ but doesn’t indicate what issues and values the voters actually support. For example most people do not believe that abortion should be outlawed. But yet they would hestitate to acknowledge that is a “liberal” position they hold.

Conventional wisdom is that the country is split into thirds, among Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates.

The moderate block is not leaning liberal. That trend is clear, overwhelming and well documented. Why do you think the GOP isn’t all that concerned?

Uh, actually I think they are pretty concerned. I do read some conservative websites, and what I see is a party that is in disarray, and unclear on a direction.

You should try reading some liberal websites, and getting the other POV. You’re not going to get an even-handed account by reading one side of a story.

The moderate block is not trending Conservative. Go ahead and say that the last election is not a good measure of the mood of the country… I can’t think of a better barometer.

Regardless of what the Democrats attempt to morph into the liberal base will continue to shrink…they just don’t reproduce fast enough and children raised in a conservative household don’t typically grow up and embrace liberal idealogy. You really need to be born into it.

The stats indicate that the current crop of young people (teenagers and twenty-somethings) are decidedly more liberal than conservative. Other stats also show that most people decide on a political affiliation and stick with it, by the age of 30. The liberal who becomes a conservative in their old age (or vice versa) is a relatively rare phenomenon.

Look, the single most important and most powerful conservative in America (President Bush) is wildly unpopular, and viewed by the majority as not merely just ineffective, but as untrustworthy and a failure. And Conservatives lost their races not just in Congress but at the state and local level.

What you guys are doing is called whistling past the graveyard.[/quote]

Brad

I read a lot of liberal websites. Some of the stuff is quite scary. Most of them such as Daily KOS are simply silly. It reminds me of the no nuke movement of the 70’s…simply unworkable. Most seem to be an excercise in ego enhancement.

As I said can you refer to a source that reinforces your “conventional wisdom” of the country being divided into thirds. For example the WSJ refers to numerous sources when writing about this topic and I have never heard that statistic…might not be as conventional as you think.

Untrustworthy…failure. They are view held by liberals not the mainstream. Bush is unpopular because of a single issue which I am sure you understand. The Democrats are not the party the country trusts with it’s defense. they haven’t for years and aren’t about to start now.

The liberal/conservative debate has not end let’s face it. Back to Obama.

In all sincerity why vote for him and what does he stand for? Simply being against Bush isn’t going to cut it in 2008…what’s he for on the record?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The liberal who becomes a conservative in their old age (or vice versa) is a relatively rare phenomenon.

Oh yeah? I’d be interested in some empirical proof of this. Not saying it is wrong - just curious as to the foundation of the assertion.[/quote]

…young voters once again disproportionately identified themselves as liberals and gave a supermajority to Democrats. Unless basic findings of political science have been repealed, these formative experiences of early adulthood are likely to influence electoral behavior throughout the life of this cohort.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/06postelection/galston.php

By the way, this guy asserts something similar to your stats (that Liberals are 20% of the population, while conservatives are 33%, and moderates are 45%). I’ve seen it explained that the breakdown is due to how the questions are framed. Anyway, that is a decent enough article on conventional wisdom about where the Democratic party is at, post-November.

Besides anger over the war in Iraq, Democrats won the last election campaigning on populist economic themes. The economy is great if you’re already rich. If not already rich, economically things are a bit tougher. Anyone who doesn’t know that is clearly out of touch. The last election wasn’t just a referendum on the war or a reaction against Bush.

Anyway, getting back on topic somewhat, I have yet to see anyone claim that Barack Obama is “too Liberal” to win the presidency. But I see that “too Conservative” charge against John McCain and Sam Brownback… candidates who might win the nomination because of playing to the conservative base, but lose in a general election, because they can’t capture the moderate/swing vote. McCain has been trying to paint himself as a moderate, but after this last election the illusion has been shattered. Obama would clean up with moderates, IMO.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Untrustworthy…failure. They are view held by liberals not the mainstream.[/quote]

Sunday, December 24, 2006
“Poll: Bush not trustworthy, doesn’t share values, no longer inspires confidence”

[i]"President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.

A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.

Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not."[/i]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/poll-bush-not-trustworthy-doesnt-share.html

[quote]The Democrats are not the party the country trusts with it’s defense. they haven’t for years and aren’t about to start now.
[/quote]

“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?”

Democrats 46%
Republicans 38%

(question #6)

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Untrustworthy…failure. They are view held by liberals not the mainstream.

Sunday, December 24, 2006
“Poll: Bush not trustworthy, doesn’t share values, no longer inspires confidence”

[i]"President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.

A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.

Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not."[/i]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/poll-bush-not-trustworthy-doesnt-share.html

The Democrats are not the party the country trusts with it’s defense. they haven’t for years and aren’t about to start now.

“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?”

Democrats 46%
Republicans 38%

(question #6)

[/quote]

Hardly “wildly unpopular” when close to 40% of the poll, from CNN of all places, disagree with you. You don’t think that CNN would frame that question with a built in bias do you?

Interesting Post poll. It does show a small majority. I seriously doubt it. Democrats win polls though, you have to give them that. They even won a majority in the last election. Too small to actually acomplish anything but who knows?

Economic issues…well let’s see after the Democratic running points have been implimented and the economy starts to skid what the people think of them. Democratic economic policies have always tanked the economy.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The liberal who becomes a conservative in their old age (or vice versa) is a relatively rare phenomenon.

Oh yeah? I’d be interested in some empirical proof of this. Not saying it is wrong - just curious as to the foundation of the assertion.

…young voters once again disproportionately identified themselves as liberals and gave a supermajority to Democrats. Unless basic findings of political science have been repealed, these formative experiences of early adulthood are likely to influence electoral behavior throughout the life of this cohort.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/06postelection/galston.php

By the way, this guy asserts something similar to your stats (that Liberals are 20% of the population, while conservatives are 33%, and moderates are 45%). I’ve seen it explained that the breakdown is due to how the questions are framed. Anyway, that is a decent enough article on conventional wisdom about where the Democratic party is at, post-November.

Besides anger over the war in Iraq, Democrats won the last election campaigning on populist economic themes. The economy is great if you’re already rich. If not already rich, economically things are a bit tougher. Anyone who doesn’t know that is clearly out of touch. The last election wasn’t just a referendum on the war or a reaction against Bush.

Anyway, getting back on topic somewhat, I have yet to see anyone claim that Barack Obama is “too Liberal” to win the presidency. But I see that “too Conservative” charge against John McCain and Sam Brownback… candidates who might win the nomination because of playing to the conservative base, but lose in a general election, because they can’t capture the moderate/swing vote. McCain has been trying to paint himself as a moderate, but after this last election the illusion has been shattered. Obama would clean up with moderates, IMO.[/quote]

So are you saying that the reason you like Obama is that he is not too Liberal and he is not a Republican?

Why vote for him and what issues does he stand for?

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The liberal who becomes a conservative in their old age (or vice versa) is a relatively rare phenomenon.

Oh yeah? I’d be interested in some empirical proof of this. Not saying it is wrong - just curious as to the foundation of the assertion.

…young voters once again disproportionately identified themselves as liberals and gave a supermajority to Democrats. Unless basic findings of political science have been repealed, these formative experiences of early adulthood are likely to influence electoral behavior throughout the life of this cohort.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/06postelection/galston.php

…[/quote]

Don’t forget this old quote attributed to Winston Churchill:

“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

…young voters once again disproportionately identified themselves as liberals and gave a supermajority to Democrats. Unless basic findings of political science have been repealed, these formative experiences of early adulthood are likely to influence electoral behavior throughout the life of this cohort.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/06postelection/galston.php
[/quote]

Wait - what? A piece from the Democratic Strategist says these formative experiences of early adulthood are likely to influence electoral behavior throughout the life of this cohort as empirical evidence of the theory of ‘once a liberal, always a liberal’? Absolute poppycock. Of course early experiences influence electoral behavior.

But your offering is no evidence at all. For example: what, then, explains the political shift from the hippie-dippie Baby Boomers to being ravenous Reaganites in the 1980s?

Hmm - so wait. You said the 2008 GOP frontrunners are a pack of moderates. Outside of Giuliani, who did you have in mind? The above paragraph says plainly that you don’t think McCain is a moderate. So who is, then? So which position are you taking?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Just like GWB “paid his dues”…

You mean by serving as the governor of Texas for two consecutive terms?

A state that in 2005 had the second highest gross state product in the nation?

There is little better preparation for the Presidency than serving as a governor of a state - ask Bill Clinton.

Lifticus, think before you type. Seriously.[/quote]

George should have prepared a lot more in that case…