[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Gotta’ jump in REAL quick, AC.
I think that the hate for President Obama has to go AT LEAST as deep as it did for President Bush (or deeper for some).
Now this may be debatable…but I think there was more hate for what Bush DID…the hate for the President is more for what he REPRESENTS to many. (Note: I’m NOT talking about absolutes here…just in general).
Disagree?
Mufasa[/quote]
From what I’ve observed within my various social circles is that the less intelligent/educated of my liberal friends make no distinction between the Man and his actions. If they could get away with it, they would have Bush drawn and quartered. For them, there is no convincing - the perfect candidate (even if he had the cure for cancer and promised to pay off the national debt with his own personal fortune) could be running against Obama and as long as he was a republican, they’d still vote for Obama. They are clueless and convinced and angry.
The second set of my liberal friends (more educated and reasonable) CAN distinguish between the person and his actions and while they are very angry because they felt “cheated” back in 2004, and felt lied to with the excuse to invade Iraq - those are their two big issues. But they blame Bush and his administration for that and don’t necessarily carry that forward to the current GOP candidates. They all still luv Obama, but when I challenge them with some tough questions on his performance, they begrudgingly agree that A) he has not kept several campaign promises that were important to them and B) they are worse off than they were four years ago and don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Then I have my independent (like me) friends, some of whom voted for Obama simply to punish the republicans for W. but who have seen that was a mistake and will most likely vote for Romney/Ryan this time around.
I think the KEY people to focus if Romney is going to win this thing is on the second set of ‘intelligent liberals’ (oxymoron? possibly LOL) and independents. Romney needs to focus on the Economy and stay away from aligning himself lock-step with the Cristian influenced social issues (gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc…) or he’s going to completely alienate those people.
[/quote]
What is the difference between an intelligent liberal and an independent? [/quote]
These terms get bandied around so much it’s hard to keep track, but for me, anytime I use the word Liberal, I am referring to someone who has a socialist tendency, want’s big gov’t, redistribution of wealth, etc… An “intelligent liberal” is a bit of an oxymoron IMHO. It’s someone who I believe to be open minded enough to actually have a discussion about politics and who is capable of at least SEEING (even if they don’t agree) the view point of a conservative.
An independent (the way I was using it) is someone who believes in smaller gov’t, general conservative values, perhaps some liberal social views, believes in SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, doesn’t really LIKE the GOP or the Dems in general and is fairly disgusted with our current political system.
[/quote]
Just wondering because I exactly fit your definition of an independent (libertarian?) but get called a liberal all the time in this forum.[/quote]
Well perhaps it’s time to redefine yourself! “Come on in, the water’s fine”. LOL I like to call myself a “non-religious conservative social libertarian”.
To be perfectly honest, my general impression of you (by what I remember of your posts and the impression they have made) is that your views are liberal. But perhaps that’s just been with the social issues. If you’re a fiscal conservative then I certainly hope you can put your social views to the side in November and help put someone in office who has a chance of leading us out of the hole we have dug for ourselves.
