Why the GOP Should Not ‘Fully Support’ an Obama Presidency
Monday, November 10, 2008 at 04:15AM Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times just published an article called, Harsh Words About Obama? Never Mind Now, that should really strike a nerve for Republicans. The article describes the dichotomy between the GOP’s campaign rhetoric against Obama vs. the post-election praise of president elect Obama:
That whole anti-American, friend-to-the-terrorists thing about President-elect Barack Obama? Never mind.
There is a great tradition of paint-peeling political hyperbole during presidential campaign years. And there is an equally great tradition of backing off from it all afterward, though with varying degrees of deftness.
But given the intensity of some of the charges that have been made in the past few months, and the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s election, the exercise this year has been particularly whiplash-inducing, with its extreme before-and-after contrasts.
One of the biggest mistakes George W. Bush made followed the bitterly contested 2000 Presidential election when he vowed to bring a new tone to Washington to help unite the political divisions resulting from the Democrats’ losses in the White House, Congress and Senate.
To a Democrat, “bipartisan unity” means following their agenda and not putting up much of a fight, compromising to meet their objectives and always, always letting the Republicans give in. As a result of Bush’s kinder, gentler tone, the President failed to lead the GOP, articulate his positions or defend his own policies. Case in point: the “Bush lied”lie regarding the Iraq war is still what many believe today and most Americans couldn’t tell you why we went into Iraq or why it was important. And they still believe Bush lied about Iraq trying to procure uranium from Niger when it was Joe Wilson’s lie.
During the McCain/Palin campaign, a substantially legitimate case was made against Barack Obama based on his incredible inexperience, troubling friendships and associations, ill-advised economic policy and worst of all, his ultra-liberal Marxist style social agenda.
The case was clear, and Americans chose the inexperienced, troubling gaffe-proned leftist duo of Obama/Biden.
Now John McCain, Sarah Palin and most Republican pundits and politicians are going beyond the normal gracious congratulatory gestures that follow an election loss,vowing supportand help the new administration succeed saying we should get behind a President Obama in any way we can.
Either Republicans believe what we said before election night about Barack Obama or we don’t. If we do, his presidency gives us very little to celebrate except that he is the first black President, and wouldn’t it be better to celebrate a good, competent and experiencedblack president?
When GOP leaders urge Republicans to lend their “full support” to president-elect Obama,this is what we need to understand:
- Obama’s objectives are morally opposed to the Republicans and GOP constituents deservefidelityon those issues.
- The Republican Party looks like those concerns raised about Barack Obama were illegitimate and merely campaign posturing.
- The GOP might actually help Obama appear more successful than he would otherwise be, buttressing the misconception that he can be a good president and voting for an ultra-liberal wasn’t a mistake.
- Democrats can actually blame the GOP when the **** hits the fan even though Democrats will deserve all the blame.
- Lending full support to a president so diametrically opposed to GOP principleshelp makes the Republican party obsolete. Why should anyoone vote Republican if Republicans essentially endorse Barack Obama?The GOP should notsave Democrats from themselves.
So why should the GOP give an Obama administration the knife it needs to stab Republicans in the back?
With Democrats having the White House and a large majority in the House and Senate, we have stumbled upon a great opportunity todayin America to let the country see what liberal government looks like. We as Republicans should not rescue the country from their choice or the consequences of it.We have a moment, Republicans, to step back and allow America to see what a radical liberaladministration will do to America.The ball is solidly in theDemocrats court. Obama wanted the presidency, he lobbied for the job and he got it. Now it’s up to them, not us.
We can see from the 2006 elections how incapable the left is to carry out a successful agenda.
The New York Times article ended with a stark contrast between how Democrats accept the bipartisanship of others and how they actually act “bipartisanly”:
Mr. Obama is apparently ready to bury the hatchet with his new fans. “President-elect Obama has made it clear that he wants to put partisanship behind and work together to solve the many challenges confronting the country,” said Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team. “We’re pleased that others do as well.”
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who will help decide Mr. Lieberman’s committee assignment, sounded less ready to forgive, at least when it came Mr. Lieberman’s support for Mr. McCain. “Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I’d like — if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did,” he said on CNN Friday.
Haven’t we learned our lesson yet?
McCain’s campaign speeches often concluded with a call to stand up and fight forAmerica:
JOHN McCAIN: “Fight for what’s right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
“Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
“Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other, for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.
“Stand up, stand up, stand up, and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit.”
“Stand up and fight for our country….” that’s exactly what this Republican intends to do.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2543740
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (190)
The problem was, apparently to John McCain and much of the GOP, they are just words. I don't believe they believe in anything beyond their own power anymore and really there is little difference between them and the Democrats as far as the official face of the political parties goes. We fought, they didn't. They caved instead.
We as Republicans should not rescue the country from their choice or the consequences of it.
Shorter Amy : We lost, therefore we refuse to help in any way. If this isn't the most unpatriotic statement (but not surprising) I've ever heard, I dont know what is.
Seriously, this is exactly how a 1st grader acts. No cookie? Stamp feet, pout, fall on floor, scream.
We can see from the 2006 elections how incapable the left is to carry out a successful agenda.
Ha ha! B/c Bush was a Democrat, right? Because the Dems had a filibuster and veto-proof majority in the Senate, right? Good luck with all this hatred and refusal to "help". Real Americans rightly see that as poor-losing, and your party will simply continue to bleed voters by the millions.
To carry on with the 1st grader analogy; kid makes a horrible mess, parents come in and scold him, then 1st grader stands in the corner pouting saying "I'm not gonna help clean this up, you yelled at me!"
As Powell said, "you break it, you own it."
Steph B+: "... really there is little difference between them and the Democrats as far as the official face of the political parties goes."
SG: Well Steph, I sometimes wonder about it too, but I suspect for different reasons. I wonder if Obama isn't going to be too center-ist.
The (R)z as you point out also have this same 'representational' issue. Their election rhetoric was quite heated regarding Obama and the hyper-elevated 'extreme leftie "threat" it raised ... not unlike Tom Ridge's "Colour Alert" system. It soon fell to the side of the road too. So the question you and Amy raise around what the (R) election rhetoric actually meant for them then, and consequently means for them now, is quite valid I feel and is one that interests me too.
Currently the (R) party seems quite split over this - the (D)z will address this same sorta split, later, as Obama governs. However, the (R) split is quite charged at the moment. Dave Brooks commented on this, on Face The Nation this weekend.
"... the Republican Party is in a “world of pain.” “Now it’s just a circular firing squad with everybody attacking each other and no coherent belief system, no leaders,” he added. “You got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come rescue them. The other half waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs, really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It’s just a world of pain.”
Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/09/bobo-conservative-failures/
I understand that libs like Republicans to bend over backwards and take whatever they have to offer, but I'm not biting. This has nothing to do with 1st grade tactics...those belong to Harry Reid, the Clintons defacing the WH in 2000, John Edwards refusing to concede in 2004....I'm talking about principle, something apparently you people can' t understand.
Whatever split might happen in the GOP will be minor. 91% of repbulicans like Sarah Palin and far less than that like McCain. I think the message is the GOP is more conservative and less moderate than McCain projected.
At any rate, Obama is a HORRIBLE choice for president. I'd feel much more comfortable with a Hillary admin. At least she has some experience.
So, punchy, why should republicans faciliate their own oppression by supporting leftist policies that we object to on moral grounds? This is a free country, isn't? At least until Obama gets his way! Fairness doctrine and such...
Amy ... I seem to remember you telling quite a different the story. Just before appearing on TV with Jesse Jackson, you over heard him criticizing 'The President', who was "W at the time. You challenged him on it, saying something about the need for ALL Americans to support the President, probably with the caveat, 'in a time of "W"a(R)'.
I thought your advocacy for 'uncritical citizenship' was arguably an example of 'an irresponsible citizen', but valid as an opinion just the same, if that was your true belief. However, your current pa(R)ty before country tant(R)um has you looking dubious on both points now.
You (R) not alone. You (R) part of the wreckage created by the (R)ovian hyper-partisan, 'wedge issue' approach which politicized everything, intentionally ratcheting up emotions in the process. In fact, your 'pa(R)ty first' article demonstrates you (R) still a storm trooper in Karl's army ... Karl's Amy so to speak ...
Snerd
Amy: "... Whatever split might happen in the GOP will be minor. 91% of repbulicans [sic] like Sarah Palin and far less than that like McCain."
SG: It seems you've split from (R) orthodoxy for a 'spell' ...
Well, you were disillusioned with the Obama win ... I'd advise you to prepare yourself to be disillusioned now by the depth of the (R) split ...
Snerd
Interesting use of the "storm Trooper" analogy from one who supports a man who has proposed a "Civilian Security Force" (read:gestapo)
So, punchy, why should republicans faciliate their own oppression by supporting leftist policies that we object to on moral grounds?
All I'm saying is that, while you cannot see it, perhaps blinded by fury, the country really isn't as politically right as you think. And the Republicans seem destined to continue pushing further to the right, further marginalizing themselves. If instead they chose to join the Dems and help the American people keep homes, keep jobs, and keep their 401Ks, you'd see an upswell of support for the GOP. If instead, you choose to only oppose, oppose, oppose....well, you'll have the 2008 election results all over again. Peeps aren't gunna care much about abortion and gays when they're living in their cars and working for minimum at McDonalds....
And about Palin....91% favorable by R's, eh? Sure, but nobody win elections without support by the independents, and they dislike/distrust her to the tune of about 67%. Ignore that number at your own peril.
I think Obama should conduct himself the same way the Bush administration did when they won but lost the popular vote. Republicans are scared now. If things go well in the next four years Obama could get 60% of the vote because Wright, Ayers, and race will be much less of a factor. If he does bad maybe the reverse but I am confident just on the cycles of the economy that things will be going good in 2012. 2010 Republicans may be able to make some gains as is typical in mid-terms. However, Obama could be very unpopular in 2010 which does not mean he will be in 2012 (see Reagan 1982, Clinton 1994)
(R) Job: "... from one who supports a man who has proposed a "Civilian Security Force""
SG: Well 'there' (R) Job, where does it say that supportin' a particular candidate means you unquestioningly support all policies? ... It seems to me that 'lock step' stuff is sorta an (R) characteristic.
Anyway, it seems a rather weak play on your part ... i.e. 'I'll take Amy's actual doubling down on hyper-partisanship and raise you a 'Possibility' based on a stretch interpretation ...'
Snerd
p.s. would Obama' CSF be in competition with "W"z Blackwater, co(R)po(R)ations with their own a(R)mies, thingie ...?
Amy: "... So, punchy, why should republicans faciliate [sic] their own oppression by supporting leftist policies that we object to on moral grounds? "
SG: My, my, my ... how quickly we go from domineering p(R)e-emption, to oppressive oppression ... I wonder what would 'faciliate' such a thing ...?
Snerd
Punchy: "... And about Palin....91% favorable by R's, eh? Sure, but nobody win elections without support by the independents, and they dislike/distrust her to the tune of about 67%. Ignore that number at your own peril."
SG: Precisely ... And this is the thing that's splittin' the (R)z right now. (R)ove's hyper-partisan 'reactive' base, who are clingin' to their bitte(R)ness at the moment and the more (I)ndependent 'thinking' conservatives, as it were ... NeoConz vs. Conservatives.
(R)ove created his own Frankensteinian monster and unleashed it on the country ... now it has turned itself on the (R) party.
The irony here is that Amy denies the depth (if not the existence) of the very battle she is arguin' for in her article and fightin' about here ...
Snerd
Come on SNERD, you can do better than that. What purpose does such a thing serve?
To fight foreign enemies? We have the military for that.
Law enforcement? Already in place.
To protect the borders? We have a border patrol for that. Not to mention Obama is an open border kind of guy.
Seriously, what other purpose could such a force serve? Only one comes to mind and that is to quell dissent.
It was his proposal, and he and his acolytes are claiming mandate. Every president who has claimed a mandate from Andrew Jackson on down claims that the mandate is for ALL he has proposed as a candidate.
Before you start, "He was elected in a landslide", just a reminder, so was Hitler.
Law enforcement? Already in place.
And that is why there is ZERO crime in Detroit, LA, NY, Chicago, right? Surely we dont need more help protecting each other, since crime is so non-existant, eh?
Before you start, "He was elected in a landslide", just a reminder, so was Hitler.
Man, you just cannot help yourself with the Obama/Hitler comparisons. You'd rather dilute the seriousness of his evil and horrific ways by trying to tie him to a man neither evil nor even President yet. And the GOP wonders why they seem to lose so many moderates with this rhetoric.
SG: Precisely ... And this is the thing that's splittin' the (R)z right now. (R)ove's hyper-partisan 'reactive' base, who are clingin' to their bitte(R)ness at the moment and the more (I)ndependent 'thinking' conservatives, as it were ... NeoConz vs. Conservatives.
Snerd Groni-Gronk
Hahaha. LOL Who the hell is bitter? Not me... The Left has been "bitter" since the 2000 election. hmmm.
If I was bitter I'd call the Obama "a total failure" (Nancy Pelosi)
If I was bitter I'd call the Obama "a loser" (Harry Reid).
If I was bitter I'd say the Obama spent more time on vacation or chasing personal pursuits (like campaigning the last 2 years) instead of doing the people's business (Michael Moore).
If I was bitter I'd say that I'd be inconsolable if the Obama won or If I was bitter I'd characterize my candidate winning as a fight between "Good" vs "Evil". (SNERD GRONK)
LOL! I think you're projecting, Snerd. I'm just wondering who would've held you if the Obama lost on the 4th? <snicker>
Like I said in another thread: “…Unfortunately, Obama had to win to reveal the moral deficit in this country's fabric…”
Democrats have been duped into believing Obama is a federalist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is a liberal who has already started planning to undue features that were put into place to protect the American people. We as Americans face an awesome enemy that seeks to destroy our way of life, and because of his naiveté, Obama will avail himself to their efforts.
No, we were overpowered by love struck adolescents and as a result, will have to stand back and watch the implosion of our government. In four years [if Obama makes it that long], the true Federalists will be begging for another leader.
Interestingly, Canadians and Europeans are standing by to cheer Americans on while we chop away at the American dream. What a shame.
Maybe all your white Republican fears about this election are indeed true!
Considering that many of Obama's speeches were ripoffs of Hitler's speeches, I'd say that makes it a valid comparison. Just goes to shw you can make people accept anything if it's said just the right way.
Wow, Grumpy. Was that an effort to inject/project a little racism?
That is not the trpical GOF...
The Lefties are appalled and confused to learn that their political opposition wants to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. That is the job of the "loyal opposition" in this republic. I say get used to it. Maybe we'll start impeachment proceedings next spring.
And to continue with the 1st grade analogy, it appears that Snerd still has issues with the alphabet and capitalization rules.
"Man, you just cannot help yourself with the Obama/Hitler comparisons. You'd rather dilute the seriousness of his evil and horrific ways by trying to tie him to a man neither evil nor even President yet."
Interesting rhetoric coming from the people who have done the exact same thing for the last eight years. He is the president-elect and in January will be the president. He made the proposal. He has ah history of attempting to silence his critics by use of the coercive authority of the government. It is not a major leap to see his Civilian Security Force as a means of doing so violently. As far as not evil. Well that remains to be seen. Hitler didn't appear so before his election either.
This post is right on the money. :D
Maybe all your white Republican fears about this election are indeed true!
Grumpy Old Fart
The video was funny. I guess... Yeah it pegged those irrational, ignorant, racist white people. hahahehehoho... It reminded me of something though;
"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere... That's the world on which hope sits!"
The Messi-uh Barack Obama
I also seem to have read that the Obama sat in a one Good & Just Reverend Wright's pews for 20 years. Now the Good & Just Reverend believes that the CIA invented AIDS to decimate the black community, he also believes that crack was also invented by the CIA to plague blacks. Oh yeah it's the KKK of USA and it's God Damn America not God Bless America.
Geez, what a irrational, racist, ignorant person. Guess the Obama only noticed it when the alternative media shed some light in that wonderful churh of his that he's been attending for 20 years. Maybe, the Good & Just Reverend Wright wasn't enriching the Obama's soul after all.
Dawg,
Thanks for illustrating the thread of truth that makes the joke funny.
Boo!
It is not a major leap to see his Civilian Security Force as a means of doing so violently
I have no idea how you guys sleep at night if this is the kind of stuff you worry about on a daily basis. Not the stock market tanking (Obama's fault, right?), not housing values plummeting, not gas prices, nor prices of groceries and consumer goods.....but you worry that Obama will hire, train, and unleash some Domestic Gestapo (your words) on the populace.
Can you guy see why you lost? Real people have real problems with costs, health insurance premiums, housing values, etc., and all you can offer is "Our Candidate Promises Not To Maybe Just Possibly Train The Next Blackwater To Help Lower Crime". I'm sure that resonates great with those with 3 kids, a mortgage, and $4000 in medical bills.
When in the hole, stop digging.
Okay Punchy, you're right. Real people have real problems. And most if not all the problems you listed are not the government's to fix. Unless of course you can point to where it states that those things are the job of the federal government in the Constitution? In any event, you guys are on record for supporting government enforced drafting for labor. How very Nazi of you all. I'm also still waiting for snerd to come up with a logical basis for all of this blind trust in Obama, a guy with practically no record, and what record he does have is so far left it makes me laugh when libs talk about Republican "marginalization".
In any event, you guys are on record for supporting government enforced drafting for labor. How very Nazi of you all
You guys cannot go a single post without a Nazi ref. Equating a US political party with a bunch of genocidal murderers. How nice. And I'm sure 78% of Jewish Americans must have missed all the Democratic Party -- Nazi similarities, too?
I guess the M.O. here is to be as hyperbolic, ridiculous, and historically inaccurate as possible. Stay classy, Amy's blog.
Tim, it doesn't do a bit of good to talk about stuff like that with these guys. They have no idea what you're talking about. They don't learn this stuff in school anymore. To them, it's all just a big joke and will be until they experience it firsthand.
but you worry that Obama will hire, train, and unleash some Domestic Gestapo (your words) on the populace.
I worry about it because he said himself he was going to do it. While he didn't use the word,,gestapo (even he ins't that stupid) that is what the Civilian Security Force amounts to. And your minimalizing it simply proves my point. You are willing to shred the Constitution for your own comfort. Like Franklin said, "anybody willing to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."
Or as seToqueville said, "Once a democracy learns it can vote its own largess from the public trough, its days are numbered" Thank you for setting the clock in motion, Punchy.
Where is it historically inaccurate...Not our fault you slept through all but the holocaust .
Hitler was elected to bring unity (or did you Miss the 39 Parties speech as well). And to rescue the German people from the mess that the Weimar Republic made of the economy? He had very popular support when first elected. When people finally realized what he was really about, not much they could do. His version of the Domestic Security Force dealt quite handily with dissent.
Then you come here and say we should not worry because the your man promised the creation of such a force. It is only historically inaccurate if you are looking at Amidinajad's history book
PS...nobody wants me to be wrong more than me. But if it waddles, quacks and swims like a duck you have to at least consider the possibility that it is one.
Dawg,
Thanks for illustrating the thread of truth that makes the joke funny.
Boo!
So we agree that the Good & Just Reveren Wright is an ignorant, irrantional, racist and that the Obama is a hypocrit for leaving the church only after the alternative media shed light on his racist church. Cool...
Tim,
Unless you think the entire Congress is on board with this brown shirt fantasy, nothing can come of your paranoid and fevered dreams of the Obamanator. You do understand how this government thingy works, right? I know 8 years of Cheney you might think the executive branch can just do whatever it pleases, but gee whiz people.
I guess that comic video wasn't as far fetched as it seemed.
Red Alert! Duct tape your homes!
How do you people get out from under your beds in the morning?
Punchy: Obama is mandating a civilian security force. So did Hitler. Those are verifiable facts. Those two words you need so desperately to add to your vocabulary. And I didn't compare the Dems with Nazis. I compared policies. Try to actually respond to what is being said.
grumps: Obama can't do anything by himself yes. I also don't care. Its his judgment that I'm questioning, so thanks for the totally irrelevant comment.
Since snerd is bumping, do any of the other Obama supporters want to share what justifications they have for such blind trust in Obama? Other than the fact that he's a good talker and has black skin of course.
"Obama is mandating a civilian security force. So did Hitler."
"Obama can't do anything by himself yes"
Can't you at least be consistent in the space of one comment????
Blind trust? Who has blind trust?
And what does his being black have to do with blind trust? It's totally irrelevant to me, but apparently very important to you.
Were you the guy in the video?
It's little wonder that Bush/Cheney had no problem controlling you folks.
Code Red! Atomic Bin Laden! Anthrax! Shred that Constitution!
Grumps: Grow up and at least read before responding. If you want little child, I'll add the word "attempting" when I say that Obama is mandating a civilian security force. This doesn't change the fact that it is identical to what Hitler did, thus making the Nazi comparison totally relevant, unlike your remark. Second, Bush didn't control me just because I dislike Obama. It doesn't have to be either/or my narrow minded friend. As for "blind trust", I'm asking what verifiable evidence people are basing their certainty of Obama's greatness on. If you're not one of them than the question isn't for you.
"This doesn't change the fact that it is identical to what Hitler did"
Talk about needing to grow up and get a little perspective. Sheesh.
As for Bush controlling his sheeple, I was referring to all the constant scare tactics since 9/11 to achieve all manner of damage. Code Red, sleeper cells, anthrax, mushroom clouds. Hell even thought of people entering into committed monogomous marriages frightened you people
If you want to play overblown Nazi reference, the most apt is the quote from Hermann Goering; "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Boo! worked pretty well for Bush/Cheney for several years, didn't it?
If Obama is indeed the boogie monster, we will know soon enough. This isn't 1930's Germany. It's 2008 in a land of checks and balances and a free, though sometimes pathetic, press.
Come out into the light people.
anybody who compares Obama to Hitler is an idiot. Obama did not call for a civilian security force he called for national service in various places and for various things not a security force. many western counties require some type if national service and they are not fascist not nazi. anyone who calls Obama a marxist, a communist, or a socialist lack any intelligence to even have a discussion with. who have to be brainwashed by righites to have such stupid thoughts.
Righties are running scared now because the term liberal is no longer a bad word and they don't what to do and start making up false terms like socialist, communist, marxist which makes righties look crazy and persons now just ignore them.
Grumpy: Once again, it is a verifiable fact that Hitler's mandate and Obama's mandate are identical. If you want to talk scare tactics, all you have to do is tell all the poor people that the Republicans are stealing their social security and promise them a welfare check. That's how you win elections.
Tim, StephC, J Rob,
You are ignorant and sick beyond belief, but hey, you provide some comic moments on this blog, so thanks. Comparing Obama to Hitler is like comparing Ghandi to Saddam Hussein. It's ridiculous, but you keep saying it enough times and you fools really start to convince yourself that your wrong headed ideas are reality. I love especially how StephC is always lecturing about "They'll see what's coming to them!" or "They asked for it, now they'll deserve what they get!" as if she's an omnipotent, all wise entity and the rest of us are naive little children. Ooh, I'm so scared of the Obama Boogeyman, StephC. LOL.
What exactly are you crazies seeing that hundreds of millions of people in the US and around the world are not? You are obsessed with Obama, plain and simple. You just can't stand that he won, that he's doing well, that he may actually succeed and help our country dig out of its very deep hole. You can't stand that there isn't a ton of controversy surrounding Obama at the moment, so you get yourselves all riled up and make stuff up. You need to get a life, people. Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you try reading some serious books and journalism about world leaders and presidential history so you can make reasoned arguments instead of your usual far-fetched, anti-Obama garbage.
Greatone: Its rare that someone comes along and is so blatantly off base that its hard to believe that they actually think that way, but there you are. Obama is a socialist. You may as well accept it. A politician that offers a subsidy check ("tax break" is his term but since a large portion of the people benefiting don't pay tax....) is a socialist. A politician that offers subsidized healthcare is a socialist. A politician that mandates community service, which is a form of punishment in our justice system, is very much like Hitler. Go get an education about socialism and get back to us. By the way, the word "liberal" must still be a swear word because Obama is acknowledged by literally everyone to have moved his campaign to the middle so as to gain the votes he needed. He wouldn't be trying to appear so moderate if being a leftist wasn't a bad thing.
Obama: Seeing it is you who voted for the guy based on nothing more but his word and now feel the need to defend his presidency that hasn't happened yet it appears YOU are the one obsessed with Obama. And no one said he was Hitler. They compared his mandate to Hitler's mandate and it is a verifiable fact that they are the same. "Verifiable fact" are two words liberals need to learn to start putting together.
Tim,
How much does it shake you that Obama is black? Or is it the half black part that bugs you the most?
Come on, be honest, that was you in the video wasn't it?
Snerd, per the Jesse Jackson incident, calling the president of the united states school yard names publicly is completely different than saying you cannot support his policies. You won't see me or most other Republicans running around with Buck Fush type shirts for Obama, calling for Obama's incarceration because of his abortion policies.
I hope you can see the difference between the two.
I think we've seen that Jesse Jackson is an equal opportunity offender with his "cut Obama's nuts off" comments a while back. He's just a petty out of date activist struggling for relevancy.
The point of this thread is to note the pecular change of heart in the GOP... "Obama is dangerous and inexperienced" vs. "we're so proud of Obama and his presidency!" It's positively schitzophrenic. I regret this presidency, I don't celebrate it.
But that doesn't mean I believe in smears, name calling or personal attacks. It's a matter of policy. He will be my husband's commander in chief. We were respectful to Clinton during his admin and will be in this one.
By contrast, the Dems are NOT respectful to a Republican C-in-C but demand we all are of the Democratic one. It's getting a bit too hypocritical and I intend to continue to point out Obama's radical agenda and give him enough rope to hang himself. I think the Dem Congress/Senate will probably do that for me, though.
Grumpy, you're question wasn't aimed at me, but I think the idea of a black president is wonderful. I think the idea of a female VP is wonderful, too. I wonder if Palin would have been celebrated as the first woman in the White House if she were elected. Or if a Republican black president would have been celebrated. I recall Colin Powell being called an Uncle Tom during 2000-2004 under W and Condi Rice an Aunt Jemima. Isn't that sweet?
Now Colin Powell is a genius. Democrats are really some kind of hypocrites.
Remember that if Obama would have lost, they were threatening riots in the streets. See any riots with a McCain loss? Of course not.
So I can't celebrate the thuggery behind the Obama presidency. It's sick and unsettling. So to have a black man in the WH for the sake of it doesn't do the country any good. I would rather have a Clarence Thomas in the WH.
It's more about the content of character than the color of skin for me. Isn't that what Martin Luther King promoted?
Also, per the "1/2 black" thing, it is strange that liberal blacks, whether entertainers like Hallie Berry or politicians like Barack Obama, were raised by their white parents but refer to themselves only as African Americans.
"By contrast, the Dems are NOT respectful to a Republican C-in-C but demand we all are of the Democratic one."
I think the "demand" of respect for the C-in-C is just payback for the same "demand" during the past 8 years. It's kind of tongue in cheek, at least from my perspective.
One can't demand respect. It has to be earned. Bush never earned it, IMO. The jury is out on Obama. He isn't even in office yet.