The Netroots Are Angry
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Flip-Flopping | The Audacity Of Enraging The Netroots — Comments (91) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So sayeth this story. Key passage:
Nowhere is criticism of the presumptive Democratic nominee more intense than on the Internet, the cyberspace world where the Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions of dollars from more than 1.7 million donors and whose bloggers have been among his biggest fans.
"There is a line between 'moving to the center' and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unnecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician," said Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, the top site of the liberal netroots community.
"Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides," he said.
Once again, there is nothing "centrist" about Obama, a fact that is especially obvious when one takes the time to examine the statements he made during the primary and caucus season and when one takes a look at his voting record. Centrists should not be taken in by these supposed "moves to the center." But if the netroots is displeased by the fact that it is the latest group to have been thrown under the bus by the Obama campaign, well, I can't say that I blame them.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Okinawa Jack Murtha continues to act in an utterly unsurprising fashion. — Comments (2) »
The Netroots Are Angry 91 Comments (0 topical, 91 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
the one that means choosing a path to follow.
and aside from defining further what he calls "talking white," he's still on the message that candidates earn their votes, at least.
He said something funny about Democrat nominees moving to the center "so they can win," saying Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Mondale, they all moved to the center "to win. They all lost!"
At this rate, Nader's going to be busy all summer nailing Obama for abandoning the netroots on the non negotiables (FISA and Iraq). Next thing they know, Obama will want to be able to prosecute a war for himself once he's Commander in Chief rather than turning that one over to the courts.
And the Shillary supporters are screaming "I told you so", and she was honest up front which Obama then used to peal off the kooks only to admit later she was right.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
why they decided to escrow their donations to him.
-----------------------------------
4.62, 0.51
And that Obama's going to split his vote to support stripping away immunity, watching it collapse - and then voting for the whole shebang, yes?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
to oppose how the language of the final bill manifests, he should at least put his powers of persuasion towards explaining why he decided it's not a bad bill after all.
If Obama without their support they gain what ? At best a president who is dismissive at worst a president that wants revenge. (You don't think Obambi is all smiles and hugs ?)
If Obama loses without their support, they get to kick themselves for four years and order in new hair shirts from L.L. Masochist.
The only way they come out ahead is if Obama wins with their support. The only way he gains their support is by weakening his overall position.
It becomes pretty obvious why the netroots can't actually elect their candidates.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
moves to the center? If we have to have a Dem, isn't it better that he be a pragmatist than a leftist ideologue?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
and no.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
And if you DO, then that bridge in Brooklyn is awaiting your purchase...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
in the abstract. My premise is that a true ideologue would not move to the center. I could be wrong.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Your theoretical assertion is only relevant if the one you are assessing is truthful. Sure, if the person in question really, truly changed their position, that is a good thing.
But I can guarantee you that The Marxist is not just all of a sudden undergoing some sort of profound philosophical revelation. He's a liar. Liars lie. He's lying. Period.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
position" mean? What is in their head, philosophically, is so less important that what they determine they must do to be electable and re-electable, and my sense is that Obama is very ignorant, but increasingly less so each day and less naive each day. I have half joked that he is teachable...in 50 years! But i think what we are seeing is a man that is not wedded to the idea that marxism CAN work, but that he wishes it could work, but that is realizing his ignorance daily, and since what he DOES KNOW 100% is that he wants to win, TWICE, is that he is learning some things about human nature...
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
"say" and "do." You're assuming that what he says is what he'll do. And I absolutely, positively do NOT believe that he's telling the truth. He is saying whatever it takes to get elected. Once in office he will revert to the radical socialist that his comments in the primaries demonstrated.
He's a liar. What he says is irrelevant. And the rats keep pursuing the Pied Piper Liar.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
a dishonest Jimmy Carter with a mind-numbed fans.
If elected, he will be the worst President since Hoover.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Either way, obfuscation is a necessary means to an end for any true liberal ideologue. To tell the truth during a national election (all primaries are local) is to commit political suicide.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
see about this man...more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Obama will not venture far from the path laid before him by his handlers.
And, he definitely lacks the political experience needed to reign in a runaway congress with Pelosi at the helm.
And, the Shadow Party will occupy all of the positions of power within an Obama administration.
Obama, lacking any real political power of his own, will just be along for the ride.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
to any position that furthered the revolution. The revolution is its own morality. Only silly conservatives think in terms of integrity and honesty in taking political positions.
In Vino Veritas
idiot becoming less of an idiot and less useful each day.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
He is very very very American. He is something that our country produces with great regularity and expertise.
He is a corrupt populist who tries to say whatever he thinks the audience he is speaking to wants to hear.
Little more than Huey Long with a tan.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I understand you think you've got some crystal ball intuition, but what if he is a Marxist? This is his problem. We simply do not know who he is.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
I think a true ideologue would compromise on some issues to make progress on the bigger program. A true ideologue would also lie to win a point. When a politician says "I think this," or "I agree with that," he hasn't actually changed anything except perhaps his public perception, especially if the this or that is something that he has no power to do anything about now and he can change his words later. No move has taken place.
A garden variety flip-flop can happen for many reasons, but it's probably permanent, and it might effect change later.
An insincere flip-flop is just a lie being told for effect. Nothing has happened but words taking flight. It means nothing in the long run.
We have to look at the person and his record to evaluate the significance of the shift. A shift away from long-held, party-supporting positions is unlikely to be sincere, especially if it happens in conjunction with other shifts on other positions, all in the same direction--unless there is a party affiliation change at the same time. A shift toward the party is more likely to be sincere.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
significant in one very important sense, i.e. he is recognizing what is required to be elected, and he is recognizing WHY many are necessary, i.e. that the less ignorant understand that many leftist positions and policies are proven failures and that rich folks don't HAVE to invest/spend money.
Obama is ignorant and pretty stupid, but not so stupid that he is going to lose on positions that he is starting to see for the first time, won't work.
my opinion
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
We're close. I don't know that he's either ignorant or stupid, but I think I understand why you say that.
Somebody in his entourage is definitely calculating and aware of the blowing wind.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
that there are times when one should not lean on the entourage so much. They're supposed to be followers, after all.
because there would have simply been no choice but for her administration to assume a hard center from Day 1. I'd feel a little less apprehensive if I knew Obama was learning from that, and I think maybe he has at least discussed it with his people. If he wins (and if he wants to be a 2-term president) then he'll understand he can't be trying to do too many radical things right out of the box in the early days of his administration.
he can do radical stuff, but only in his second term. But my guess is that the next president is going to be a one-termer, regardless of who is elected.
-----------------------------------
4.62, 0.51
and turns out to be a competent caretaker before the next GOP 2-termer, that would be good enough for me. It's anyone's unqualified guess whether he'll choose to serve one term or take the Strom Thurmond tack and try to keep going, but 2012 might be a hopeful year anyway.
And as the netroots are discovering right now, you can't rely on a politician's word when he himself doesn't respect it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
throughout its development has been the fickleness of the people.
We don't know who Barack Obama is. It really is a dangerous crapshoot. He could be just like Hugo Chavez and take the US into a Marxist economic disaster. OTOH he could be like Brazil's Lula DaSilva who ran as a Marxist, talks the populist talk, and executed the capitalist economy measures of his predecessor, Cardosa.
No I don't want to roll the dice. I prefer to vote for McCain.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
cockstramus judgment is that he would be pragmatic ala Rio.
I am for McCain no question, but I think ....well, see other recent comments.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
I wish I could say the same about McCain. It's a bold move. And it's such a clever move. He is not actually moving to the center. His policies are still leftist. Can't you see? He is just giving the impression that he is moving to the center. But the story is that he has moved to the center/right. My local tv stations are giving him a positive spin. They are hailing his move to the center. I'm not kidding. And this is Birmingham, AL, btw. By Wednesday morning, he will be the centrist candidate. Without ever shifting his position on anything.
If it is any of the alphabet soup networks, you can sure bet that they will be pushing for Obama. I'd be a little bit more suprised if it was an independent station, but then again most of the people in the msm are so far left that it really wouldn't suprise me.
-----------------------------------
4.62, 0.51
I wonder how other local markets have been covering it.
Take it from someone who spends a good deal more time at such places than most of you likely do.
The netroots folks are coming to grips with this faster than Kos is. It won't be much of an issue after a few weeks. It's already fading, and Obama's support has been rallying.
Some have stopped giving money, others who had stopped have resumed. Kossacks (and so forth) tend to see things in a mirror image of how most of you do. However mad at Obama they might be, they simply cannot abide by a McCain presidency. That's a strong enough motivator for most.
It's also analogous to how I've seen a good many of you guys and gals justify getting behind Senator McCain. As mad as I've seen some of you get at him, most of you have said you support him, or will at least vote for him. The situation is similar enough to make the comparison worthwhile.
but it seems a little late in the game for us to still hear new stories of dissatisfaction from the Democratic base. At least McCain has stopped (for now) saying things in speeches that undo the previous two weeks' of assurances to the base.
You've known who your nominee would be for months. With us, it's been weeks. Rebranding, or whatever you'd prefer to call it, would have been suicidal for Obama prior to finishing off Senator Clinton.
What I find hilarious, truly hilarious, is how the Left and Right are united in seeing most of these maneuvers as drastic shifts (or at least plays at such). Re-read the speeches. Re-read his platform at his website (single .pdf, pretty straightforward). He hasn't moved much at all substantively. This is mostly a question of emphasis and rhetoric.
I've had all manner of fun trying to explain to my erstwhile Liberal colleagues that I supported him because he's heterodox. I don't imagine that many here will agree, but one sadly has to tailor one's argument to one's audience, to one degree or another.
Purely as an aside, it really is amazing to watch how the forums from Left and Right have dealt with the last few weeks.
For clarity, my sentence was unclear. The tailoring is on my part, not Obama's, in that sentence. I can see how it might have been poorly constructed.
Talking about Obama's heterodoxy here would be pretty pointless. At places like DailyKos it's absolutely painful, though.
My point was about presumptive nominees occasionally and needlessly further discouraging their own supporters after the deal is done.
That's fair.
Remember, though, that whatever headaches Obama gets now will be more than worth it once he can say he's not the creature of MoveOn.org and the rest. It *will* help him and his narrative later. If he had not done this you guys would have obliterated him.
An incoherent definition (self-inflicted) is much better than allowing your opponent to easily define you instead. Even if Obama fails to establish the image he's trying to, he's giving himself enough ammo to blast apart at least the most attractive caricature the Right would attempt.
I've seen a lot of folks ask when has he ever taken a political risk? When has he ever taken on his own party? Well, he's doing it now. I don't care if you see it as nakedly opportunistic (I think he was sandbagging, personally. I don't see much of this as really any meaningful change, and I bet he was sandbagging the issue), the point is that he's being more clever than a lot of folks on the Right admit.
And I rather like that. Continue underestimating him. I haven't caused it, but I can enjoy watching it. Respectfully, of course.
Anyone who might have been asked a year and half ago would have likely said Obama was showing some real guts running in the first place, let alone beating the inevitable Hillary coronation. As a matter of truth, that was a brave thing to do, and he exceeded my initial expectations because I thought he was only running because the mass media had talked him into it, and I thought they'd turn on him at any moment.
Second, I continue to see Obama proving he's keeping up with a very short and very steep learning curve just in the process of campaigning. I wish his politics were closer to JFK's because that's one thing he has in common with the JFK of 1960.
Beyond that, most of his gaffes and other embarrassments seem forgivable as latent effects of human nature. This is why I was trying to say in response to a recent post by a non-regular contributor that attempted to stir some sensation around Obama's birthplace eligibility; we have clear philosophical policy differences and we shouldn't need anything else obscuring this contest in the arena of ideas.
I agree entirely.
The country benefits when the two parties actually debate policy. I'm not so sure it benefits when we debate personal errata.
He loses nothing by running. Nobody is going to fault a one term senator for failing to get the nomination especially against hillary. Everything else is upside and gravy.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Incorrect. The pressure from within the party against his running was intense. The pressure from within the party on people who wanted to support him early on was intense.
There's a reason why an early line used by his Congressional supporters was "Don't tell Mama, I'm for Obama." And that reason wasn't because it was pithy.
If she'd steamrolled him like everybody expected he would never have been able to count on her support, Bill's support, or the support of the DLC. He did not wait his turn, and the Clinton folks would absolutely never have forgotten it. I've heard that, privately, they described him as being "presumptuous" for running when he did.
No, he ran real risks. It's hard as hell to get anywhere running for President as a Democrat without the help of the Clintons. Heck, it's hard as hell WITH their help.
If he had of been knocked out in Iowa as was expected it wouldn't have mattered.
Once he began to actually give the Clintons heat, well that was a different story.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
when it turned out many Democrat voters were simply through with the Clintons.
Oh, I would love to go into some detail on that topic. I really would.
However, some of my errant colleagues have taken up station in your orbit and I have done my best not to raise the hackles of my fabled feline friends. You can guess to whom I refer.
when it's best to stop arguing with such folks and just move along.
I agree. However, if I engage in Clinton-bashing here there will be blogs written about it at all my favorite sites. I do not want to encourage them. I want to marginalize them. I want to make them irrelevant.
They are free to do as they will, and I am free to laugh.
Events on the ground in Iraq, two recent Supreme Court opinions and a Dem congress that will not let FISA beat them about their collective heads in November have forced Obama to move to the center much too soon.
Abandoned netroots?
Was abandoning public financing the right choice?
Disaffected young college students who's voice no longer matters?
Wasn't really counting on the 18-25 demographics , because historically, everyone knows they're unreliable voters?
Obama's headaches have just begun.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
His problems with the young, and with the netroots, are a tempest in a teapot. The ardor remains, and it will not fade.
I might caution anyone here that tries to reason internally how these folks should or will react. You may make the mistake of underestimating how potent a mixture of damned near adoration for Obama and an incredible loathing for President Bush is for these folks.
This won't turn off very many people at all. You may hope that it does, but I see little to no sign that this really angers, substantially angers, anybody who wasn't already looking for a reason to be mad at him.
I could be wrong, but my ear's to the ground.
and the transparency of those sudden policy shifts did not go unnoticed. The thinly constructed narrative failed to anticipate real-world events, and now, Obama must redefine himself before the veil of obfuscation wears so thin it no longer protects him.
Sometimes, even the best laid plans become the victim of circumstance.
Tough choices lie ahead for Obama. Alienate his base, or alienate the middle? Either way, he will be forced to choose.
Unfortunately for Obama, he can't win without both (Neither can McCain, but those real-world events certainly have been favorable to the Senator from Arizona).
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
at my workplace. I work for a very large trade union training center. I have yet to meet anyone who is planning to vote for Obama. Most are concerned about his socialist leanings and TOTAL lack of experieince. Emphasis theirs.
Can you explain this disconnect?
Those who control energy, control society.
Without thinking he has the same intentions for managing the national treasury, he has actually done well managing campaign money.
I'm still wondering if Hillary's campaign is paying back her personal loan to it with interest. Not a bad way to make a quick 5 figures, really.
She publically stated that donations at this point are paying off her debt to others, not to herself. That doesn't preclude her paying off her own loan once that's done (or her lying, either, but I doubt that).
Her financial mismanagement is one of a zillion reasons I'm glad she tanked.
He burned through 230 million plus to do worse in the primaries than any other Democratic candidate in the last forty years. He was just lucky in that the super-delegates panicked.
As for public financing: (shrug) it's a favorite cause of the WaPo and other papers. You can hardly blame them for getting upset at the way Obama baldfaced lied to them.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
He's the presumptive nominee after the Reverend Wright flap. I think he spent his money rather wisely, recovering from that.
Will it tank him in the general? We'll just have to see.
As were Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. Obama gets to be the *assumed* nominee. Don't like it? Invent a time machine and figure out some way to get Obama to win California, Massaschusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Wright thing will only hurt him when we remind the voters of it in the fall.
margins that prior dems usually lead repubs by at this point, is due to permanent damage to Obama due to the Wright matter.
Exit polls in late primaries and one that was a general poll, found that the thing most people know about Obama is Wright.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
I highly, and thankfully, agree.
However, will these people turn around to vote for the Messiah-of-the-Left, or will they stay home?
Or will they vote for McCain, as he is fairly likable by the moderate-Left, unless they're too racist and agist to vote for an older white guy.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
whites and all the Reagan dems that have been repubs since Reagan, many of whom voted for Perot and some for Bill Clinton, will vote for McCain, and happily.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
He's certainly done better than, say, Kuchinich.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
All the big states and most of the battle ground states.
The democrats devised a system whereby Republican states have picked their candidate.
No wonder the netroots are nuts.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Obama's camp gamed the system as it existed. They would have gamed it under other rules as well, I suspect. Even if not, the mind-blowing inability of the Clinton campaign to win a delegate race they'd won twice before, well, it's staggering.
Well at least for simple but honest folk such as myself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
He is dependent upon on the collective will of Dem super-delegates. Thus,he is the assumed nominee.
Dems have only themselves to blame for creating such a bizarre system. And we should trust them to run a national healthcare system?
I did try to include that I doubt he'll manage the treasury that well.
A mechanic friend of mine said something interesting the other day. He said anyone who campaigns with a promise to balance the budget ought to be locked up in an insane asylum.
Denver is just around the corner. After that, she's toast and much of Bill's pandering to foreign nationals was for naught.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Very true.
However, neither one could openly act like the presumptive nominee until a few weeks ago.
It's funny though. Both Obama and McCain have spent the last few weeks moving right. Heh.
So you support Obama because you believe that he is of a contrary opinion and belief than what he empasizes and his rhetoric? which time in the campaign? Is he of contrary opinion and belief of what he emphasized and his rhetoric in the primary or in the general? I don't know who he is, but apparently you know that he is heterodox and that causes a tingle up your leg or something.
I'm old fashioned I guess. Because I admired Ronald Reagan for being completely clear on what he believed.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
No. I do not.
I believe that I was more able to read basic English than most of the netroots folks. I saw this problem coming miles off, and they didn't. It ain't my fault I knew he wasn't one of them, and they didn't.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041113/
Is purely coincidental. BTW see the original the remake is garbage.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
To go a little further:
I want a Liberal who is willing to do something a Conservative thought up if it's an idea worth attempting. The netroots do not. I want a Liberal who is also a pragmatist. The netroots do not.
I want a Liberal who will not spend four to eight years punishing the Republican party. The netroots do not.
Make sense?
'Pragmatism,' or the part of it that values action in that way anyway, is an inherently left-wing thing, so saying it like it's a moderate principle I find wrongheaded.
However you like it.
My point stands. I supported Senator Obama early on for precisely the reasons I knew that people like Kos would feel burned. He isn't out for blood.
and that you favor him for it reminds me of me when I was fighting the realization that I was a conservative
I pray your epiphany occurs NOW and not like mine, 10 yrs hence
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
I appreciate your well-wishes, but I think you are projecting just a tad.
Even what you might consider a "conservative temperment" does not require an adherence to conservative ideology or policy.
My views have become more nuanced as I've gotten older, yes. However, when it comes to social policy and foreign policy I find myself having a harder and harder time agreeing with the Republican party. Economically? I'm somewhat more amenable. I just don't see economics as trumping the other two, especially of late.
But I do appreciate your words just the same.
He was absolutely right when, after the 1994 midterms, he said "it'll make (Clinton) a better president because he'll have to work with us and not shut us out."
I thought it was an acceptable price to pay to let Clinton claim credit for co-opted ideas if it meant getting things done. Quite a few friends of mine have said they like the Republican Congress and Democrat president scenario best because of how Clinton's second term went.
Looks like the only candidate they can settle for is Ralph Nader, the guy they always said threw the 2000 election just enough to help Bush win, which is the most his share of the vote can likely accomplish this time around, too.
lesterblog.blogspot.com