Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So Obama made a joke about the special Olympics, in relation to his bowling skills:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=301603

A bowler for the special olympics, who's bowled five perfect games since 2005, says he can beat the president "easily":
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

But really, a special oylmpics joke? That's pathetic.

CR

---

All too common as a kind of joke actually. Parent's joking at the bus stop when the "short bus" drives by; comments made when the local "donate your car" charity that provides services for such folks comes on the radio; etc.

Obama's joke was tasteless, but far from uncommon.

It does serve to reinforce that, when off "script," he is prone to a few malapropisms and verbal gaffes. Dubya was even more cumbersome with the off-the-cuff stuff, but Obama seems determined to catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It does serve to reinforce that, when off "script," he is prone to a few malapropisms and verbal gaffes. Dubya was even more cumbersome with the off-the-cuff stuff, but Obama seems determined to catch up.

---

Give him time- it's only been a couple of months.

In other news, the CBO now says the Obama deficit projections were way off:

Quote:

---

Deteriorating economic conditions will cause the federal deficit to soar past $1.8 trillion this year and leave the nation wallowing in a sea of red ink far deeper than the White House had previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said today.

In a new report that provides the first independent analysis of President Obama's budget request, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that the administration's agenda would generate deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year over the next decade -- $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his spending plan just one month ago.

---

More and more, I'm beginning to look back wistfully at the Bush administration... I never thought that would happen. :wall:

He made a retard joke. Everyone makes retard jokes. Get off your horses.

Quote:

---

But really, a special oylmpics joke? That's pathetic

---

Ahaha! The republicans are the PC party now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

He made a retard joke. Everyone makes retard jokes.

---

With all due respect: that's not true. Children, who don't know any better, do. Some adults, who should know better, do. But at least 50% of America doesn't. Certainly parents and relatives of retarded persons don't. Millions of Special Olympians and their supporters don't.

The Most Powerful Man on Earth, the Leader of the Free World, The President of the United States, shouldn't. And so should not, we.

:soapbox:

Sorry for the diversion. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

With all due respect: that's not true. Children, who don't know any better, do. Some adults, who should know better, do. But at least 50% of America doesn't. Certainly parents and relatives of retarded persons don't. Millions of Special Olympians and their supporters don't.

The Most Powerful Man on Earth, the Leader of the Free World, The President of the United States, shouldn't. And so should not, we.

:soapbox:

Sorry for the diversion. :bow:

---

He made a gaffe, a dumb joke. There is plenty to crucify the man over besides his one off color joke. 50% You and I both know thats wrong. Kurki I want you to think back all of your 50 odd years and think hard.

Very dumb in front of a live audience? Yes. Is Obama holding some grudge against the mentally retarded? No he's not.

Clapping for a bowling score of 129 is like giving someone "olympic gold" for running not particularly fast. That's the joke... :wings:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

He made a gaffe, a dumb joke. There is plenty to crucify the man over besides his one off color joke. 50% You and I both know thats wrong. Kurki I want you to think back all of your 50 odd years and think hard.

Very dumb in front of a live audience? Yes. Is Obama holding some grudge against the mentally retarded? No he's not.

---

I take all your points, and nod agreement. Even my President does - realizing his insensitivity, he phoned the head of Spec Olympics personally from AF1 to make amends, and the WH issued a statement in less than 24 hours. Afterall, it's obvious he was trying to make fun of his own self, a worthy goal.

I don't wanna crucify him. I just don't want us - you and me, and our readers, thinking that "tard jokes" are OK, cuz, heck even Obama does it, on national TV.

I don't get up on my soapbox very often (at least, I hope not); this seemed like a good time to do it though; because making fun of folks because of their mental capacity, physical capacity, skin color, where they were born... all seems un-American to me, in this place where we've proved last year that anybody can become the head guy, or get rich, or invent a new religion or whateverthehell they wanna do or be.

I know this site is international, not just American. It just bugged me a bit to have the gaff disregarded as "everybody does it, so get over it."

Fair enough

And this is after he threatened a reporter in his FIRST conference as President. So much for freedom of press. You remember how viciously Bush was grilled by the press? How would people react if he had treated them like Obama treats the press when he gets a few sissy questions? I am telling you, this guy has dictator written all over him.

:help::unitedstates:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

this guy has dictator written all over him.

---

I literally lol'ed :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I literally lol'ed :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

Why? I do not mean the Stalin type of dictator. He will be the kind of dictator where he stifles free speech, and uses the press to create a cult of personality around himself. When there is only one opinion out there, there is only one thing to believe, and that is what Obama says you should believe. He'll control the education system, so he won't need a massive military, because children will learn about he world according to Obama. All anyone will see on TV and in newspapers is what Obama wants them to. Meanwhile his massive civilian sector of the military that he promised he would create will be his brown shirts who will bully everyone into doing what he says. (kind of like the ACORN groups he trained in Chicago to bully bankers and politicians) As it is people already are scared of ridiculing him, because they know that everyone they know will rip them apart for it. Everyone I know who voted for someone other than Obama, when they are asked turn red, look down, and try to get out of the question. The liberal media has made people feel ashamed if they do not support Obama (not to mention you are a racist and right-wing wackjob if you do not). Everytime I tell a liberal that I did not vote for Obama I have to sit through the never-ending speech "Do you even read anything? Do you even know what is going on? Bush was like Hitler, and McCain is just a puppet of that lunatic Palin who wanted to control all of the world with her mental Christian regime! Blah-blah-blah". It has gotten to the point where I (and I got a pretty good stomach for debate) usually just tell people that they use secret ballots for a reason. I know a lot of girls especially who felt so ashamed that they did not support Obama that they just did not vote at all, because they did not want to be the bad guys. That is a product of the liberal control of the education system and media, just wait till Obama gets more control.

(Before you laugh CA, tell me why it is that people in America feel ashamed of themselves and afraid of what others will think if they do not support Obama? Is that a product of fair media and education?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Why? I do not mean the Stalin type of dictator. He will be the kind of dictator where he stifles free speech, and uses the press to create a cult of personality around himself. When there is only one opinion out there, there is only one thing to believe, and that is what Obama says you should believe. He'll control the education system, so he won't need a massive military, because children will learn about he world according to Obama. All anyone will see on TV and in newspapers is what Obama wants them to. Meanwhile his massive civilian sector of the military that he promised he would create will be his brown shirts who will bully everyone into doing what he says.

---

Hilarious! When is he going to move us out into the countryside for forced collectivization? When will private property be abolished? When will the Christians be packed off to death camps, since we all know the Great Leader is a crypto-Mulsim? When will good-hearted Americans have their guns and God taken away?

Thanks for helping me start my morning with a laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hilarious! When is he going to move us out into the countryside for forced collectivization? When will private property be abolished? When will the Christians be packed off to death camps, since we all know the Great Leader is a crypto-Mulsim? When will good-hearted Americans have their guns and God taken away?

Thanks for helping me start my morning with a laugh.

---

lol, starting your morning off with a personal attack I see sir moderator! I said I did not think he would be a Stalin type of dictator, but simply that he would stifle out all other opinions and push his agenda's through the government. Did you read my post by any chance? Also, I see how you associate God and guns, like Christians are some wackos. The last two posts I have seen you make have not only been void of any substance Lemur, but they have been sarcastic and cutting, and made unfair and untrue associations. I have said outright many times that I have disagreed with other people's opinions very deeply, but have been polite about it without attacking them or the followers of their beliefs in general. I have showed the basic courtesy that should be afforded to another member on an internet forum and disagreed with them without disliking them or cutting them down. I think a moderator should set a better example than what you have been setting Lemur. :embarassed:

(and I am talking mostly about your post in the media thread, but I think this one is representative of much the same attitude and willingness to show your distain for other members.

EDIT: BG does not agree with me and does not like me that much either. He often is extremely itchy with the trigger when I am involved and moderates in a way that I believe is way too selective, but he at least treats members with respect. While I disagree with BG on most issues, and think his warnings often unfair, I respect him for at least acting professional about it. (Oh dear, did I just get TWO of the Backroom mods mad at me in the same post. :P lol, warnings incoming. :P)

I'm still laughing... I'm screenshotting this thread so I don't ever lose it :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I'm still laughing... I'm screenshotting this thread so I don't ever lose it :laugh4:

---

lol, is it so funny that someone thinks that Obama is corrupt, yet it isn't when thousands of liberals believe in a massive conspiracy between Bush and oil companies to invade the Middle East so that they can get rich? And that Dick Cheney is trying to run the world and using Bush as a puppet, and that the US manufactured AIDS as part of a racist conspiracy to wipe blacks out, etc?

Point-of-order: Lemur does not Moderate the backroom. He has the same rights, privileges and restrictions as any other Member.

Backroom asigned Moderators are: Banquo's Ghost, Ser Clegane, Papewaio & Seamus Fermanagh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Point-of-order: Lemur does not Moderate the backroom. He has the same rights, privileges and restrictions as any other Member.

Backroom asigned Moderators are: Banquo's Ghost, Ser Clegane, Papewaio & Seamus Fermanagh.

---

Still, he is a moderator, and his posts should be respectfull and set an example for other posters. I have never treated Lemur disrespectfully before, I do not think it is fair that he treats me so, esp when he is a moderator.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off disrespectful, Vuk, but you don't do yourself any favors by playing the victim card early and often. In the Backroom I'm another Orgah like any other. If you think I should no longer be a mod, by all means, start a petition. I would miss the hefty paycheck we get, but I'll still find a way to make ends meet, even without my Org money ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lol, starting your morning off with a personal attack I see sir moderator!

---

Ah, the victim thing. Vuk, I made light of the ideas you expressed, not you. There is exactly zero evidence that President 44 wants to be a dictator or is angling to be such, so yes, those ideas are humorous. I found it equally ridiculous when left-wing moonbats went on about Bush wanting to be dictator, and let's face it, a better argument could be made for President 43, since he declared that he had an unreviewable right to detain and torture enemy combatants on the field of battle (and the field of battle was everywhere, and the duration of the war was forever, and an enemy combatant was anyone).

Just because I find your talking points ridiculous doesn't mean I am attacking you, unless your personal integrity and identity is somehow wrapped up in Sean Hannity's rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I said I did not think he would be a Stalin type of dictator, but simply that he would stifle out all other opinions and push his agenda's through the government. Did you read my post by any chance?

---

Word for word, laughing so hard there were tears squirting out of my eyes. Oh, so he won't be a "Stalin type of dictator," that's a relief. Chavez type, then? Khmer Rouge type? Mussolini type? I'm working very hard not to violate the prime corollary of Godwin's Law here ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Also, I see how you associate God and guns, like Christians are some wackos.

---

I was parroting the extremist rhetoric which seems to have you in its grip. Don't be a dullard, mistaking parody for reality—you have read The Onion on occasion, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The last two posts I have seen you make have not only been void of any substance Lemur, but they have been sarcastic and cutting, and made unfair and untrue associations.

---

If the quality of my posts is sub-par, I'm very sorry; if I've verged off into bad behavior, I've no doubt I'll get my knuckles rapped by one of the Backroom mods. It's happened before and doubtless will happen again. (I think I am the only Mod to ever put on the robes while still carrying a warning point. Thanks, DevDave!)

That said ... if you want to have an intelligent debate, perhaps you should start from a less hysterical premise? Throwing out the most extreme rightwing domination fantasies hardly seems likely to provoke a measured, logical response from those who disagree with you. Sometimes laughter really is the best response, no matter how little you appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I think a moderator should set a better example than what you have been setting Lemur. :embarassed:

---

Hey, like I said, start a movement to de-frock me. Go for it. Nobody says we have to be mods forever, and if I'm past my prime, by all means, bring it to the other mods' attention and turn me back into a Member. Just think of the fun I can have without these robes ....

Anyway, if you really, honestly believe that Obama is planning to become a dictator, then back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far your posts have consisted of bare assertions with no evidence. No links, no articles, no statistics, no legislation, nothing. You simply assert the improbable and then run crying "victim!" when I make light of it. If you want to make a real, evidential case that Obama is planning to unleash the brownshirts on America, then make the case.

As the gangsters say in the movies, come heavy or go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm sorry if I'm coming off disrespectful, Vuk, but you don't do yourself any favors by playing the victim card early and often. In the Backroom I'm another Orgah like any other. If you think I should no longer be a mod, by all means, start a petition. I would miss the hefty paycheck we get, but I'll still find a way to make ends meet, even without my Org money ....

Quote:

---

I am not saying I do not think that you should be a mod (or that you do a bad job in whatever forum it is you moderate, simply that I think you should show more respect, esp since you represent the Org. If you are indeed ignorant as to what you said that offended me and why it would offend me, allow me elaborate further in my post.

---

Ah, the victim thing. Vuk, I made light of the ideas you expressed, not you. There is exactly zero evidence that President 44 wants to be a dictator or is angling to be such, so yes, those ideas are humorous. I found it equally ridiculous when left-wing moonbats went on about Bush wanting to be dictator, and let's face it, a better argument could be made for President 43, since he declared that he had an unreviewable right to detain and torture enemy combatants on the field of battle (and the field of battle was everywhere, and the duration of the war was forever).

Quote:

---

First of all, I will leave off defending my opinion of Obama in this post, as it irrelevant to what I think is offensive in your posts. It was not that you disagreed with me, or that you found my ideas laughable that offended me, but rather the offensive associations you keep making. When you make those associations, you are saying something about my views, my character, and myself...something that is untrue and offensive to say the least. Combine that with your sarcastic dismissals like: "We all know where Vuk is coming from...", and I cannot see how you could not consider that a personal attack. At the very least, I am sure you can see that it is unproductive at best.

---

Just because I find your talking points ridiculous doesn't mean I am attacking you, unless your personal integrity and identity is somehow wrapped up in Sean Hannity's rhetoric.

Quote:

---

My talking points? Sorry, but I do not have "talking points", and my opinions and beliefs are not "Sean Hannity's rhetoric".

---

Word for word, laughing so hard there were tears squirting out of my eyes. Oh, so he won't be a "Stalin type of dictator," that's a relief. Chavez type, then? Khmer Rouge type? Mussolini type? I'm working very hard not to violate the prime corollary of Godwin's Law here ....

Quote:

---

I explained exactly what I meant by a dictator in my post.

---

I was parroting the extremist rhetoric which seems to have you in its grip. Don't be a dullard, mistaking parody for reality—you have read The Onion on occasion, yes?

Sorry, but I do not think it is at all reasonable to make ridiculous allegations about someone (which you did by your associations), and then laugh it away as humor.

If the quality of my posts is sub-par, I'm very sorry; if I've verged off into bad behavior, I've no doubt I'll get my knuckles rapped by one of the Backroom mods. It's happened before and doubtless will happen again.

That said ... if you want to have an intelligent debate, perhaps you should start from a less hysterical premise? Throwing out the most extreme rightwing domination fantasies hardly seems likely to provoke a measured, logical response from those who disagree with you. Sometimes laughter really is the best response, no matter how little you appreciate it.

Quote:

---

My premise was hardly hysterical, you just do not agree with me.

---

Hey, like I said, start a movement to de-frock me. Go for it. Nobody says we have to be mods forever, and if I'm past my prime, by all means, bring it to the other mods' attention and turn me back into a Member. Just think of the fun I can have without these robes ....

Quote:

---

Don't play victim yourself :laugh4:, I am not trying to do anything to your 'frock' :beam:, or anyother part of you. I am simply a little frustrated with posts that you have made which I find offensive.

---

Anyway, if you really, honestly believe that Obama is planning to become a dictator, then back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far your posts have consisted of bare assertions with no evidence. No links, no articles, no statistics, no legislation, nothing. You simply assert the improbable and then run crying "victim!" when I make light of it. If you want to make a real, evidential case that Obama is planning to unleash the brownshirts on America, then make the case.


As the gangsters say in the movies, come heavy or go home.

Quote:

---

You did not try to dispute what I said, you made unfair and untrue allegations about me in an effort to besmirch my views. And I DID mention several facts in support of my opinion which you and CA have completely ignored. (one of the reasons I doubted that you read my post.)

---

---

To reiterate what makes me think that:
A: His corrupt background in Chicago that including training ACORN volunteers to bully politicians and bankers (Hannity did a special on it, look it up ~;))
B: The left-wing press and education system's worship for him, and stigmatizing of anyone who does not support him.
C: His attempts to intimidate any reporters who give him questions that are in anyway challenging.
D: His promise to create a massive civilian sector of the military. It has been done often throughout history, always with the same result and the same aim. I see no reason to think this will be any different. Obama has never given a satisfactory answer as to why this needs to be created.
F: His dirty election policies ring of anything but a fair player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

To reiterate what makes me think that:
A: His corrupt background in Chicago that including training ACORN volunteers to bully politicians and bankers (Hannity did a special on it, look it up ~;))
B: The left-wing press and education system's worship for him, and stigmatizing of anyone who does not support him.
C: His attempts to intimidate any reporters who give him questions that are in anyway challenging.
D: His promise to create a massive civilian sector of the military. It has been done often throughout history, always with the same result and the same aim. I see no reason to think this will be any different. Obama has never given a satisfactory answer as to why this needs to be created.
F: His dirty election policies ring of anything but a fair player.

---

First and foremost, I think you're suffering from a misunderstanding of what the word dictator means.

A: Plenty of politicians have come out of Chicago. None have yet attempted to assume total power over the United States. Sean Hannity can say what he likes, and run as many specials as he pleases; he's not a reliable source.

B: This is what's really getting up your nose. Your classmates and profs are all rabidly pro-Obama, and in the small, closed world of a University, it probably feels like you aren't allowed to say otherwise. Welcome to the wonderful world of academia. Ideas get entrenched, groupthink takes over, and relatively immature undergrads don't know how to have a civil debate. This is not uncommon. Irritating? Sure. Stifling? probably. Signal of an imminent dictatorship? Uh, no.

C: It's hard not to answer this one with a joke, 'cause it's so out there. "Intimidate any reporters who give him questions that are in any way challenging." ORLY? Did you watch the most recent presser? He got plenty of edged questions, and I didn't notice any intimidation going on, beyond the usual fawning that reporters do over powerful people. You're going to need to provide a source for this one.

D: Source, please.

E: You skipped E. This must mean something.

F: "Dirty election policies." What does that mean? You mean he ran a dirty campaign, in some notable way dirtier than the usual Presidential race? Worse than Kennedy v. Nixon? Worse than Bush v. McCain, or Bush v. Gore? Once again, you assert without backup. Source, link, gimme something. Otherwise this is like boxing a cloud.

Here's an interesting article about how the leftwing Dems are edgy and restless, largely because they are incapable of exerting the sort of control over their party that the rightwingers are able to hold over the Repubs: (warning, contains polling data and may cause statistical arousal for CountArch)

In cumulative Pew data for 2008, Kohut says, only one-third of self-identified Democrats described themselves as liberals; the rest identified as moderates or conservatives. For Republicans the proportions were reversed: two-thirds of Republicans considered themselves conservatives, while only one-third identified as moderates or liberals. Gallup's findings are similar: in their cumulative 2008 data, just 39% of self-identified Democrats described themselves as liberals, while 70% of Republicans identified as conservatives.

Looking at Obama's actual vote in 2008 reinforces the story. According to the Edison/Mitofsky Election Day exit polls, liberals provided only 37% of Obama's total votes. Moderates (50%) and conservatives (13%) provided far more. By contrast, conservatives provided almost three-fifths of John McCain's votes, with moderates contributing only about one-third and liberals a negligible 5%.

The bottom line is that, compared to Republicans, Democrats are operating with a much more diverse electoral coalition-and one in which the party's ideological vanguard plays a smaller role. That's one reason why in a Pew post-election survey, nearly three-fifths of Democrats said they wanted the party to move in a more moderate (rather than liberal) direction, while three-fifths of Republicans said they wanted the party to move right. The parties "have a difference in our bases," says Jim Kessler, vice president of Third Way, a group that works with centrist Democratic Senators. "Certainly the most loyal part of the Democratic base is going to be self-identified liberals, but numerically moderates are a bigger portion of the coalition, so there is going to be some tension."

Am I the only one who sees Bush and Obama as the same man on opposite ends of the spectrum?

Can you expand on that thought, Strike? Which spectrum? Opposite how? Give us a little more meat to chew on, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Am I the only one who sees Bush and Obama as the same man on opposite ends of the spectrum?

---

Obama is doing very little to pander to the far left.

-Both men were seen as under qualified
-Both men are seen by the other side as being "radical"
-Both men are seen as not really in control
-Both men are wholly convinced they are right
-Both men are prone to gaffes
-Both men are seen as wanting to destroy The American Way.

It just seems like both are polarizing figures who are wholly convinced they have all the answers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Obama is doing very little to pander to the far left.

---

And Dubya did zip for fiscal conservatives, darn little for religious conservatives, and had to be kicked, prodded and thumped into naming a constructionist judge to the court instead of a Texas crony. You could draw a parallel here. Even to the respective fringes of the opposition party frothing over the watered-down effort both men made in their respective "righty" and "lefty" agendae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's an interesting article about how the leftwing Dems are edgy and restless, largely because they are incapable of exerting the sort of control over their party that the rightwingers are able to hold over the Repubs: (warning, contains polling data and may cause statistical arousal for CountArch)

---

Just how much control was the conservative side of the GOP able to exert when they held power in the government? :inquisitive:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

And Dubya did zip for fiscal conservatives, darn little for religious conservatives, and had to be kicked, prodded and thumped into naming a constructionist judge to the court instead of a Texas crony. You could draw a parallel here. Even to the respective fringes of the opposition party frothing over the watered-down effort both men made in their respective "righty" and "lefty" agendae.

---

Yes...I don't have a clear picture of what's far right on the right.

Quote:

---

-Both men were seen as under qualified
-Both men are seen by the other side as being "radical"
-Both men are seen as not really in control
-Both men are wholly convinced they are right
-Both men are prone to gaffes
-Both men are seen as wanting to destroy The American Way.

---

But strike, 4 of these relate to how the person is seen, not who they are, one is pointless (gaffes) and the other is a requirement for anyone who is going to put the effort in to become president.

The comparison of bush and obama seems to be that they are both politicians, and that they are both moderates in their own party. But, you know, most people consider the parties to be rather different...boils down to you saying "He's a democrat and he's a republican! So they are the same!"

:strawman3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Just how much control was the conservative side of the GOP able to exert when they held power in the government?

---

Enough to make absurdities like the Terry Schaivo case an issue of national governance. Oh, without a doubt President 43 used the religious right as something to wipe his bottom with, except when he needed their votes. But I think the polling data stands as an interesting differentiator between the two parties, no matter how you want to spin in.

More thoughts on this subject:

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck have far more power in the Republican Party (it sometimes seems to include veto power) than Klein, Lee, and Moore have in the Democratic Party. The views of right-wing commentators in the grip of the paranoid style (Obama is a stealth radical, the Democrats are imposing socialism) are much closer to mainstream conservative and Republican belief than the views of their counterparts on the left (the levees in New Orleans were blown up by the government, the White House had something to do with 9/11) are to mainstream liberal and Democratic belief. The reasons are complex, but I would list these: the evangelical and occasionally messianic fervor that animates a part of the Republican base; the atmosphere of siege and the self-identification of conservatives as insurgents even when they monopolized political power; the influence of ideology over movement conservatives, and their deep hostility to compromise; the fact that modern conservatism has been a movement, which modern liberalism has not.

This is not to say that the more destructive forms of populism and outright paranoia can’t appear on the left. They have, they do, and they will, especially in times of extreme distress like these. It’s only to say that the infection has been more organic to the modern right.