Author
|
Topic: Center-Obama Nation (Read 362 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.79
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Center-Obama Nation
« on: 2008-11-16 17:33:48 » |
 |
These right wing talking heads have been so thoroughly proven wrong over and over and over throughout their sucking up to an eight year administration that isn't even over yet. If John McCain couldn't avoid his connections with Bush, theirs are even more suspect. Any post election ideological lecturing after such a resounding political ass-kicking is far too premature certainly at least until the current administration is gone, and should be interpreted as sorrowful sniveling. It deserves nothing but derision and scornful humor. Listen here, all you spoiled neocon children, whether you like it or not, Barack Hussein Obama's administration will be defining the new center until you can pull your pathetic whiney-heads out of your asses. He's got his shit together . . . you don't. We've got adults in charge, so you don't get to define anything for a while until you grow up and face reality. End of game. Go home and lick your wounds little boys and girls. Try again at a more appropriate time - you need much more healing than you know, so don't make me laugh with shadenfreude. Love and Kisses. -Mo 
Center-Left vs. Center-right Nation
by Votemaster - Nov. 16th 2008.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Nov16.html
Although the Democrats won huge victories in 2006 and 2008, a Republican talking point for weeks has been that this is still a center-right nation and Barack Obama had better govern from the center-right--or else. The basis for this statement is that more people self-identify as "conservative" than as "liberal." However, Tod Lindberg, a former editor for the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, says the definitions of these terms have changed immensely over the years. So has the boundary of acceptable behavior.
Some examples may be illuminating. In, say, 1980, it would not have been acceptable for a Democratic candidate to have an unwed pregnant teenage daughter; now it makes a Republican candidate more human. In 1980, the Democrats would have been crucified if they had proposed nationalizing the banks; now a Republican administration de facto does it. In 1980, no Democrat even mentioned homosexuals in public, let alone argued that same-sex marriage should be legal; now about 40-50% of the country supports the idea and a substantial majority supports the same thing as long as it is called a "civil union" and not a "marriage." The list goes on with things that were at the outer limits of the Democrats' wildest dreams in 1980 and now most Democrats, many independents, and even some moderate Republicans support. The landscape has shift far to the left since Ronald Reagan first took office.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.84
Rate Fritz
|
 |
Re:Center-Obama Nation
« Reply #1 on: 2008-11-26 23:41:37 » |
|
MO .... would you put this article in layman terms for me. Is the Gates renewal really as bad as some columnist are suggesting for the Democrat's honor ?
thx
Fritz
About Gates at DOD
Source: TPM
Author: Josh Marshall
Date: 11.12.08 -- 12:07PM
As you know, there was a lot of chatter yesterday about Obama keeping Bob Gates on at Defense for some indeterminate period of time. And we can talk a lot about whether or not that's a good thing. But what I'm not hearing a lot about in this discussion is the role of Brent Scowcroft. And I don't think any of this can be properly understood without reference to his role.
One thing to understand about Bob Gates is that he's a Scowcroft guy.
Scowcroft, to the best of my knowledge, never endorsed Obama. But he also, very pointedly, didn't endorse McCain either. And going back many months he's been an important player, far in the background and not for public consumption, in the Obama world. Remember, Hagel, who's sort of been Obama's Joe Lieberman (in the good sense) is very close to Scowcroft. He and Powell are close too. He's the guy who brings all this stuff together.
It's also worth knowing that Scowcroft has also been involved in a multi-year rearguard battle against the neocons in the Bush administration, especially in key efforts trying to block sundry wars with Iran, shut down John Bolton, etc.
This is not to say that Scowcroft is pulling anyone's strings. But to understand the Gates' decision (which I understand is going to happen) you need to look at this on-going conversation and perhaps even de facto alliance with the Scowcroft/GOP foreign policy world
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.79
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Center-Obama Nation
« Reply #2 on: 2008-12-01 06:05:36 » |
|
Fritz,
As for Gates, I think that if you look at this in light of the recent status of forces agreement and withdrawal deadline that Bush has accepted in Iraq, this makes more sense for Obama. http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=69;action=display;threadid=42436
Now that Bush has finally flip-flopped and conceded on everything he claimed to believe in Iraq (without actually admitting so), keeping Gates in place would simply represent the fulfillment of a policy that Obama now agrees with. Although Gates is known to pal around with neo-cons, he's not been known to be politically committed to their fairy-tale thinking like Rumsfeld was.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
