A Rabbi's take on the election

[champions77]

Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog
A compilation of the Rabbi's recent thoughts and ideas..
The Case for RomneyThe Decline and Fall of the American Empire

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off his own 2008 total.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That suggests the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that, as Winston Churchill stated so tartly, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Voters – a clear majority – are easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. Said another way, too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. How could Obama get away with such rants to squealing sign-wavers? See Churchill, above.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. How could he do and say all these things ? See Churchill, above.

One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is required and does not solve any discernible problem – so what is the answer, i.e., an intelligent answer?

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.

The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was not revealed - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election.

One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.

Obama’s victory could weaken Netanyahu’s re-election prospects, because Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic – fear of American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A Likud defeat – or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more probable now than yesterday. That would not be the worst thing. Netanyahu, in fact, has never distinguished himself by having a strong political or moral backbone, and would be the first to cave to the American pressure to surrender more territory to the enemy and acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count Jordan) Palestinian state. A new US Secretary of State named John Kerry, for example (he of the Jewish father) would not augur well. Netanyahu remains the best of markedly poor alternatives. Thus, the likeliest outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections is a center-left government that will force itself to make more concessions and weaken Israel – an Oslo III.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect.

The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

Two bright sides: Notwithstanding the election results, I arose this morning, went to shul, davened and learned Torah afterwards. That is our reality, and that trumps all other events. Our relationship with G-d matters more than our relationship with any politician, R or D. And, notwithstanding the problems in Israel, it is time for Jews to go home, to Israel. We have about a decade, perhaps 15 years, to leave with dignity and without stress. Thinking that it will always be because it always was has been a repetitive and deadly Jewish mistake. America was always the land from which “positive” aliya came – Jews leaving on their own, and not fleeing a dire situation. But that can also change. The increased aliya in the last few years is partly attributable to young people fleeing the high cost of Jewish living in America. Those costs will only increase in the coming years. We should draw the appropriate conclusions.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

very sad, and i agree 17 trillion pecent.

[BigTip]

People did not talk like this in past elections. It was more a "darn, my guy lost. Things aren't going to be as good as they would have been."

But this guy is saying what, oh, about 50% of the country is thinking. It is sad. Scary too.

[TUSooner]

People did not talk like this in past elections. It was more a "darn, my guy lost. Things aren't going to be as good as they would have been."

But this guy is saying what, oh, about 50% of the country is thinking. It is sad. Scary too.
50% ?? No. (except maybe here on the Miseryfest2012 Board)

And who is this rabbi that I should hang on his words? As someone said to me this week: Something like, how does him being a rabbi make his opinion so special? Is he like King of the Rabbi Prophets or the head of the International Brotherhood of Knowitall Rabbis?

Granted, we have problems that need attentiion. And granted there are some perpetually needy suckers in the country (rich and poor), like there always have been. But holy crap! 59 million or so people did not vote for Obama because they "want stuff." No more than almost-that-many people voted for Romney because they are lunatics who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Commie or some other silly poop.

Some of y'all's determination to be depressed is pathetic to an astonishing degree. It's un-American and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for wallowing in this lame-azs defeatest attitude.

Folks, your guy lost a fairly close race to a guy -- not a monster -- who was not radically different in substance.

Get your heads out of the oven.

[olevetonahill]

Yer not the Boss of me, You caint tell me what to do :sorrow:

[rock on sooner]

Romney and Ryan, people of substance, depth and ideas. OMG, really?
This rabbi is clearly anti-Netanyahu, is a war monger and one of the few
Jewish Republicans. To say that radical Islam has a banner under Obama
is nuts! Oh, hell, I've already wasted too many keystrokes on this walnut
head....

[TUSooner]

Romney and Ryan, people of substance, depth and ideas. OMG, really?
This rabbi is clearly anti-Netanyahu, is a war monger and one of the few
Jewish Republicans. To say that radical Islam has a banner under Obama
is nuts! Oh, hell, I've already wasted too many keystrokes on this walnut
head....
You read all that? I figured I had it pegged at "Decline and Fall"

[TUSooner]

I learned a new word, today: "omnishambles." It means effed up from any angle. I'm happy to use it for the first time to describe that piece by Rabbi Meshugener.

[rock on sooner]

You read all that? I figured I had it pegged at "Decline and Fall"

Every time I started to say enough, some other piece of spit came out
and I keep reading....at the end I was skimming, dint want to get my
shoes dirty...

[olevetonahill]

Every time I started to say enough, some other piece of spit came out
and I keep reading....at the end I was skimming, dint want to get my
shoes dirty...

Only a Fool would read something that long. :apple:

[rock on sooner]

Only a Fool would read something that long. :apple:

Why, thank yew.

[TUSooner]

Only a Fool would read something that long. :apple:

I'm only "mostly" foolish then, cuz I couldn't stand to read it all.

[TitoMorelli]

Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)

Sure you didn't ghostwrite this, TU? Both you and the good rabbi seem to have a knack for restaurant/food analogies.:topsy_turvy:

[TitoMorelli]

I agree, btw - just because he's a rabbi doesn't automatically give his views any more weight.

[rock on sooner]

I agree, btw - just because he's a rabbi doesn't automatically give his views any more weight.

I understand that at least some take as gospel what the rabbi says
and are really difficult to persuade otherwise...

[rock on sooner]

I'm only "mostly" foolish then, cuz I couldn't stand to read it all.

The very definition of "skim reading" gets me off the "fool" hook.
Right, Vet?:biggrin:

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Rabbi means teacher right? So learn, ya dummees!

Seriously, I couldn't get past a paragraph of that.

[TUSooner]

Rabbi means teacher right? So learn, ya dummees!

Seriously, I couldn't get past a paragraph of that.
It's quite a screed, for sure. It assumes - as the lawyers say -- facts not in evidence and...oh... it's just not worth the time to point out all the flaws and misrepresentations. It's not persuasive under critical scrutiny; but it plainly serves to reinforce and excite the fears of those who already agree with Rabbi Nusskopf. Perhaps everybody who agrees with him, Jewish or not, should take his advice and migrate to Israel.

[KantoSooner]

And now, the Readers' Digest version:

"Oy Vey! The Schvartzers are taking over! Children don't respect their elders anymore! Pass the blinis. I'm late for Temple! Ah, we're all going to hell in a hand basket! The brisket's all gone?! Oy Vey!"

[TUSooner]

And now, the Readers' Digest version:

"Oy Vey! The Schvartzers are taking over! Children don't respect their elders anymore! Pass the blinis. I'm late for Temple! Ah, we're all going to hell in a hand basket! The brisket's all gone?! Oy Vey!"

That made me laugh a lot.

[TUSooner]

Sure you didn't ghostwrite this, TU? Both you and the good rabbi seem to have a knack for restaurant/food analogies.:topsy_turvy:
I was gonna say my restaurant analogy was better, but mine was pretty lame as well. :grey:

[SoonerLaw09]

You may say the Rabbi has his head in the oven, but it seems like a lot of you have your heads in the sand. I think he's off-base with his take on the Middle East issues, but he's dead right about why Obama won the election. Personally, I give it once chance in three that the USA exists in its current form by the end of the 21st Century.

[TUSooner]

You may say the Rabbi has his head in the oven, but it seems like a lot of you have your heads in the sand. I think he's off-base with his take on the Middle East issues, but he's dead right about why Obama won the election. Personally, I give it once chance in three that the USA exists in its current form by the end of the 21st Century.

Actually, I meant some of fellow SFs had their heads in the oven.

Yeah, we have serious issues to deal with, but I'm just not buying the line that Obama's reelection marks a watershed moment in the decline of the American "Empire" (and since when did we aspire to empire)? Of course, if the Rs and Ds refuse to deal we're in a mess. That would happen if the D's overplay their hand or, more likely IMHO, the Rs keep listening to their media cheerleaders and refuse to accept the election result, and stonewall everything. I don't expect that, if only because there are serious Rs who are know they can't have real success unless they keep the party off the ledge until the next go-round in 2 years.


Whatever, I won't exist in my current form at the end of the 21st Century either. :grey:

[olevetonahill]

I'm only "mostly" foolish then, cuz I couldn't stand to read it all.

Heh, I dont read ANYONES long winded Ranting

[olevetonahill]

The very definition of "skim reading" gets me off the "fool" hook.
Right, Vet?:biggrin:

That depends

[KantoSooner]

I give it a zero chance in hell that the US exists in its current form in a century. We aren't the same country now that we were a hundred years ago; why should we assume, or desire, stagnation for the next century?

So long as our guiding principles remain intact we'll be just fine.

After all, we survived holding and then freeing an enslaved population of millions. Result? America was just fine.
We enfranchised women. Result? America was just fine.
We went off the gold standard. Result? America was just fine.

So, reelection of a mildly left of center president who dabbles with our national healthcare is going to drive us over the edge into freefall punctuated by smashing into rocky outcrops on our way down?

I think you wildly underestimate the robustness of our society. Our republican representative democracy/market economy style of organization is a messy thing, but it is hugely resilient and self-correcting. We'll have crises in the future; we've had them in the past; and we've always gone on. I see nothing in the current situation to suggest that we face an existential challenge.

I suspect that when (and it's inevitable, be it next year or ten thousand years in the future) our country falls, it will be for causes that none of us can foresee today.

[TUSooner]

I give it a zero chance in hell that the US exists in its current form in a century. We aren't the same country now that we were a hundred years ago; why should we assume, or desire, stagnation for the next century?

So long as our guiding principles remain intact we'll be just fine.

After all, we survived holding and then freeing an enslaved population of millions. Result? America was just fine.
We enfranchised women. Result? America was just fine.
We went off the gold standard. Result? America was just fine.

So, reelection of a mildly left of center president who dabbles with our national healthcare is going to drive us over the edge into freefall punctuated by smashing into rocky outcrops on our way down?

I think you wildly underestimate the robustness of our society. Our republican representative democracy/market economy style of organization is a messy thing, but it is hugely resilient and self-correcting. We'll have crises in the future; we've had them in the past; and we've always gone on. I see nothing in the current situation to suggest that we face an existential challenge.

I suspect that when (and it's inevitable, be it next year or ten thousand years in the future) our country falls, it will be for causes that none of us can foresee today.


Here's a proposition for the Far Righties: If y'all pay attention to Kanto, I promise I'll go away and never post on this board again! :excitement:

[SoonerLaw09]

"Slightly left of center"? Try "communist Black Liberation theology true believer". And you must have a definition of "just fine" that I'm not aware of. We are most definitely *not* "just fine". Though, from the election results, a lot of people in this country are buying the lie that we are, foisted upon them by a President who says "the private sector is doing great".

[olevetonahill]

Here's a proposition for the Far Righties: If y'all pay attention to Kanto, I promise I'll go away and never post on this board again! :excitement:

Hell I like both of ya. Dont go,

[TUSooner]

"Slightly left of center"? Try "communist Black Liberation theology true believer". And you must have a definition of "just fine" that I'm not aware of. We are most definitely *not* "just fine". Though, from the election results, a lot of people in this country are buying the lie that we are, foisted upon them by a President who says "the private sector is doing great".

So you reject my offer?

(Is "communist Black liberation theology true believer" the same as "Muslim"?)

[Bourbon St Sooner]

It's quite a screed, for sure. It assumes - as the lawyers say -- facts not in evidence and...oh... it's just not worth the time to point out all the flaws and misrepresentations. It's not persuasive under critical scrutiny; but it plainly serves to reinforce and excite the fears of those who already agree with Rabbi Nusskopf. Perhaps everybody who agrees with him, Jewish or not, should take his advice and migrate to Israel.

So, in other words, it's just right for ObamaFest.

[FaninAma]

50% ?? No. (except maybe here on the Miseryfest2012 Board)

And who is this rabbi that I should hang on his words? As someone said to me this week: Something like, how does him being a rabbi make his opinion so special? Is he like King of the Rabbi Prophets or the head of the International Brotherhood of Knowitall Rabbis?
Define the opposition and the terms of the debate. Refuse to address in an intelligent manner what was said or why you disagree.


Granted, we have problems that need attentiion. And granted there are some perpetually needy suckers in the country (rich and poor), like there always have been. But holy crap! 59 million or so people did not vote for Obama because they "want stuff." No more than almost-that-many people voted for Romney because they are lunatics who think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Commie or some other silly poop.
Redefine the premise and build that strawman.....then proceed to knock the ever-living stuffing out of that strawman. TU, you are sticking to your game plan in a great way.


Some of y'all's determination to be depressed is pathetic to an astonishing degree. It's un-American and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for wallowing in this lame-azs defeatest attitude.

Folks, your guy lost a fairly close race to a guy -- not a monster -- who was not radically different in substance.

Get your heads out of the oven.

And summarize your entire argument by labeling those you disagree with as un-American, pathetic, lame-*** while failing to even begin to address what was in the OP's message. Classic TU debate style. Congrats, you have convinced yourself once again that you are very intelligent and those that disagree with you are ignorant dolts.

[FaninAma]

I give it a zero chance in hell that the US exists in its current form in a century. We aren't the same country now that we were a hundred years ago; why should we assume, or desire, stagnation for the next century?

So long as our guiding principles remain intact we'll be just fine.

After all, we survived holding and then freeing an enslaved population of millions. Result? America was just fine.
We enfranchised women. Result? America was just fine.
We went off the gold standard. Result? America was just fine.

So, reelection of a mildly left of center president who dabbles with our national healthcare is going to drive us over the edge into freefall punctuated by smashing into rocky outcrops on our way down?

I think you wildly underestimate the robustness of our society. Our republican representative democracy/market economy style of organization is a messy thing, but it is hugely resilient and self-correcting. We'll have crises in the future; we've had them in the past; and we've always gone on. I see nothing in the current situation to suggest that we face an existential challenge.

I suspect that when (and it's inevitable, be it next year or ten thousand years in the future) our country falls, it will be for causes that none of us can foresee today.

I would give it a decade. BTW, do you care to opine about the entity or entities most responsible for the ultimate demise of the country?

[TUSooner]

Congrats, you have convinced yourself once again that you are very intelligent and those that disagree with you are ignorant dolts.

Thanks for making it so easy.

[FaninAma]

Thanks for making it so easy.

My pleasure. Now you can give yourself a big ol' pat on the back. Be careful not to hurt yourself while you are doing it.

[TUSooner]

My pleasure. Now you can give yourself a big ol' pat on the back. Be careful not to hurt yourself while you are doing it.

Looky here. I know this ideological rightness and End of Days stuff is really important to you. But I have better thing to do than pick apart a very lengthy and vitriolic screed by an agitated orthodox rabbi in the vain hope that I will make a good impression on you or curb your hostility. That's all there is to that. You take me more seriously than I take myself, and more seriously than I take you.

[KantoSooner]

Seriously, Soonerlaw, you need to get out more. There are still a few communists out there in the broader world and Obama ain't one of 'em. Yes, yes, I agree it's a slippery slope once you start in with the central planning and all (I just finished rereading Hayek's 'The Road To Serfdom'. Magnificent book. If you read only two books this year, read Mill's 'On Liberty' and Hayek.) But, Obama = Whichever Kim you wish to choose? Hell, Obama = Putin? Really?

And if things are sooooooo terrible now, pray tell in what way. I went to eat lunch today at a restaurant connected to a local shopping mall. Afterwards, I went to buy socks. (The damn things migrate, I swear, down the exhaust and across the fields. I can't explain my sock depletion any other way.)

The mall was full. On Wednesday at lunch. At a time when teenaged girls are safely locked up in high schools. My friend, when the world is crumbling and going to hell, people do not respond by strolling the mall looking for Justin Bieber glow in the dark moon boot sneakers.

Did you graduate from Law School in '09? That might explain your outlook, since that would have you entering college sometime around 2000-2002 (unless you're an older student, in which case, excuse me). If that is so, then you never experienced bad economic times before the current era. And you'd most likely be pretty freaked out. There have, however, been other bad times before. The early 1980's were a treat. I was washing dishes with a magna cum laude degree attached to my name. The 1970's were relatively sucky as well; what with Gerald Ford exhorting us to 'Whip Inflation Now' (WIN, cute, huh? The marketing arts have progressed.) The early 1960's....the late 1940's, the Great Depression and so forth. We're coming out of a big one, but nothing different in kind than what's gone before. And although it came at a time to affect the lives of many (me, who I care about, lost property) it did not change much of anything in terms of the survivability of our country.

George W was NOT a fascist and we did not turn into Amerika because he was in the white house for 8 years. Nor will Obama's eight turn us into the People's Republic of America.

Fulmination is not going to help matters.

[KantoSooner]

I would give it a decade. BTW, do you care to opine about the entity or entities most responsible for the ultimate demise of the country?

It'll be different in decade, probably not much, but different. As to your larger question:

"I suspect that when (and it's inevitable, be it next year or ten thousand years in the future) our country falls, it will be for causes that none of us can foresee today."

I don't think anything we are worried about today will ultimately do us in. Some odds in favor of a global pestilence that wipes out 80%+ of the population. That sort of shot to the skull would be hard to come back from. Still, Europe did a pretty stout job following wave after wave of the plague. So who knows?

[FaninAma]

Looky here. I know this ideological rightness and End of Days stuff is really important to you. But I have better thing to do than pick apart a very lengthy and vitriolic screed by an agitated orthodox rabbi in the vain hope that I will make a good impression on you or curb your hostility. That's all there is to that. You take me more seriously than I take myself, and more seriously than I take you.

Correct me if I am wrong but as far as the hostility issue is concerned I don't think I have engaged in labeling or
using derogatory adjectives to describe those I disagree with.

I am honestly trying to engage you in a discussion but
you much prefer the drive-by insults laced with self-confirming, indigninant condemnations of the views of the other side.

And don't sell yourself short. I believe you take yourself
very seriously......in a elitist sort of way. You don't like to be challenged and you definitely feel you are intellectually above the fray but that still doesn't stop you from parceling out the negative shots toward those you disagree with. Your tendency to want to avoid engaging in a real two-way debate is why I guessed they you are an academician of some type in a liberal arts or legal field.

[rock on sooner]

That depends

On whut?

[rock on sooner]

I give it a zero chance in hell that the US exists in its current form in a century. We aren't the same country now that we were a hundred years ago; why should we assume, or desire, stagnation for the next century?

So long as our guiding principles remain intact we'll be just fine.

After all, we survived holding and then freeing an enslaved population of millions. Result? America was just fine.
We enfranchised women. Result? America was just fine.
We went off the gold standard. Result? America was just fine.

So, reelection of a mildly left of center president who dabbles with our national healthcare is going to drive us over the edge into freefall punctuated by smashing into rocky outcrops on our way down?

I think you wildly underestimate the robustness of our society. Our republican representative democracy/market economy style of organization is a messy thing, but it is hugely resilient and self-correcting. We'll have crises in the future; we've had them in the past; and we've always gone on. I see nothing in the current situation to suggest that we face an existential challenge.

I suspect that when (and it's inevitable, be it next year or ten thousand years in the future) our country falls, it will be for causes that none of us can foresee today.

Well, ima kick the bucket one of these years and I'LL BE BACK at the end
of the century just to check out what you're sayin'. Ifn you're wrong, I'll
gitcha...

[TUSooner]

Correct me if I am wrong but as far as the hostility issue is concerned I don't think I have engaged in labeling or
using derogatory adjectives to describe those I disagree with.

I am honestly trying to engage you in a discussion but
you much prefer the drive-by insults laced with self-confirming, indigninant condemnations of the views of the other side.

And don't sell yourself short. I believe you take yourself
very seriously......in a elitist sort of way. You don't like to be challenged and you definitely feel you are intellectually above the fray but that still doesn't stop you from parceling out the negative shots toward those you disagree with. Your tendency to want to avoid engaging in a real two-way debate is why I guessed they you are an academician of some type in a liberal arts or legal field.

<drum roll and trumpet fanfare>

Well, you are partly right, I like to take my shots at extremist dogma, and close-mindedness, and that's about all I'm here for. As far as a "real two-way debate," that's like trying to out-bark a dog around here.

My theme: I believe you and your less thoughtful right-wing cohort have already figured out life, economics, politics, sociology, history, and the meaning of the universe in a just few simple principles of Chicago/Austrian economics, anti-Federalism, and the like, or in some cases just a few puerile conservative slogans.

Anyone who suggests the merit of some heterodoxical viewpoint gets shouted down and dismissed as a Liberal (which is considered the ultimate dismissal). "You guys" are so locked into your perfectly ordered world view that any potential breach must necessarily signify the End of Days, because you can't imagine how anybody else could be right about anything. Almost like modern astronomy scared the Church back in the day....or like the earnest Communists used to attack "reactionaries" in the past generation. It's just another flavor of extremism; it has its own self-contained logic that can't be disturbed. (Those were REAL Commies back in the day, too, not the straw commies the right wing likes to attack these days. They knew the Marx-Lenin play book as well as you know the conservative one, and they were just as sure as you are that they had The Answer.)

Posters like me also get pasted for saying that the Rs ought to fight the economic battle and stop wasting ammo and good will by shooting at gays and single women and immigrants and worrying about all the social pet peeves of the socially puritanical elements of the party. How is that ridiculous? But you'd think from some of the reaction that we were advocating the eating of roasted fetuses with Bearnaise sauce.

This is the kind of closed-loop, bi-polar world view I attack (and yes, despise). Regardless of your contrary assertions, I try to keep an open mind. I recognize the merits of the a conservative ideology. I live by the principles of self-reliance and have instilled them in my kids. Everyone I live around does too (and they're mostly BLACK!!) I don't believe in a nanny state or a government that spends more than it has in order to do things for people -- including rich ones -- that they could and should do for themselves. But I don't believe in a do-nothing Government either. Mainly, I refuse to accept that ANY mere political or economic ideology is The Answer to Everything. And I don't see every minor deviation from some mythical ideological purity as damnable heresy. I won't reject the good in a vain pursuit of the perfect.

If that makes me look like I'm trying to be above the fray, so be it. Some people are ignorant because they don't know stuff; but more people are ignorant because they know stuff that just ain't so. I'd rather be in the first group, because you can fix that kind of ignorance a lot easier that the other kind. That's because people who think they have the answer stop asking questions.

And what's all this for? Do you think you are changing anything by posting on here? You're mostly just preaching to a handful of fellow travelers. And don't underestimate your own capacity for hostility. You're good at it, and your sincere bitterness and contempt are apparent in you posts. Have you ever made a joke about yourself or admitted you've overstated anything? If not, then you are taking all of this way too seriously. And that's where I draw a line.

That as close as I'll ever get to a big explanation or a defense. I'm sure not going to punch the tar baby by answering every "did so!" with a "did not!" But I figured I owed you some kind of answer, in a sporting sort of way. Whether you like it not... meh. I'm over it because its pretty much a waste of time anyway.

[FaninAma]

I appreciate the response. Basically your last sentnece is the only thing that needs to be said. Everything we do on these boards ia waste of time. All the billions the political parties spend trying to change minds is a waste of time. The electorate has decided what they want from government and it will take a sea change of economic or political status quo to make them re-eaxmine their priorities.


I accept that but it doesn't stop me from participating in the discussion about what the direction our contry's current political bent portends for our society. You can call it end ot imes or doomsday or whatever derogatory term but I think there are consequences to the way the electorate has voted over the past 70 years and I think the politicians are quickly running out of the ability to kick the can down the road.

[TUSooner]

I appreciate the response. Basically your last sentnece is the only thing that needs to be said. Everything we do on these boards ia waste of time. All the billions the political parties spend trying to change minds is a waste of time. The electorate has decided what they want from government and it will take a sea change of economic or political status quo to make them re-eaxmine their priorities.


I accept that but it doesn't stop me from participating in the discussion about what the direction our country's current political bent portends for our society. You can call it end times or doomsday or whatever derogatory term but I think there are consequences to the way the electorate has voted over the past 70 years and I think the politicians are quickly running out of the ability to kick the can down the road.

I can deal with that without agreeing 100%.
:tranquillity:

[KantoSooner]

I think there are consequences to the way the electorate has voted over the past 70 years and I think the politicians are quickly running out of the ability to kick the can down the road.

Hallelujah! Make that 80 and you'd be slightly more precise. We're still not in a position to prevent major capital from politicking for their own corporate welfare, we still have not figured out how to properly scale government involvement in providing structure or substance to disaster relief and public welfare. We still have not figured out how to define what it is we want from government and whether we can and will pay for it.
This last election was a lurch in one direction, but, happily, we are not in flush times, so the bill will come due, hopefully, before the memory of the voting booth has faded. We'll see.

[okie52]

<drum roll and trumpet fanfare>

Well, you are partly right, I like to take my shots at extremist dogma, and close-mindedness, and that's about all I'm here for. As far as a "real two-way debate," that's like trying to out-bark a dog around here.

My theme: I believe you and your less thoughtful right-wing cohort have already figured out life, economics, politics, sociology, history, and the meaning of the universe in a just few simple principles of Chicago/Austrian economics, anti-Federalism, and the like, or in some cases just a few puerile conservative slogans.

Anyone who suggests the merit of some heterodoxical viewpoint gets shouted down and dismissed as a Liberal (which is considered the ultimate dismissal). "You guys" are so locked into your perfectly ordered world view that any potential breach must necessarily signify the End of Days, because you can't imagine how anybody else could be right about anything. Almost like modern astronomy scared the Church back in the day....or like the earnest Communists used to attack "reactionaries" in the past generation. It's just another flavor of extremism; it has its own self-contained logic that can't be disturbed. (Those were REAL Commies back in the day, too, not the straw commies the right wing likes to attack these days. They knew the Marx-Lenin play book as well as you know the conservative one, and they were just as sure as you are that they had The Answer.)

Posters like me also get pasted for saying that the Rs ought to fight the economic battle and stop wasting ammo and good will by shooting at gays and single women and immigrants and worrying about all the social pet peeves of the socially puritanical elements of the party. How is that ridiculous? But you'd think from some of the reaction that we were advocating the eating of roasted fetuses with Bearnaise sauce.

This is the kind of closed-loop, bi-polar world view I attack (and yes, despise). Regardless of your contrary assertions, I try to keep an open mind. I recognize the merits of the a conservative ideology. I live by the principles of self-reliance and have instilled them in my kids. Everyone I live around does too (and they're mostly BLACK!!) I don't believe in a nanny state or a government that spends more than it has in order to do things for people -- including rich ones -- that they could and should do for themselves. But I don't believe in a do-nothing Government either. Mainly, I refuse to accept that ANY mere political or economic ideology is The Answer to Everything. And I don't see every minor deviation from some mythical ideological purity as damnable heresy. I won't reject the good in a vain pursuit of the perfect.

If that makes me look like I'm trying to be above the fray, so be it. Some people are ignorant because they don't know stuff; but more people are ignorant because they know stuff that just ain't so. I'd rather be in the first group, because you can fix that kind of ignorance a lot easier that the other kind. That's because people who think they have the answer stop asking questions.

And what's all this for? Do you think you are changing anything by posting on here? You're mostly just preaching to a handful of fellow travelers. And don't underestimate your own capacity for hostility. You're good at it, and your sincere bitterness and contempt are apparent in you posts. Have you ever made a joke about yourself or admitted you've overstated anything? If not, then you are taking all of this way too seriously. And that's where I draw a line.

That as close as I'll ever get to a big explanation or a defense. I'm sure not going to punch the tar baby by answering every "did so!" with a "did not!" But I figured I owed you some kind of answer, in a sporting sort of way. Whether you like it not... meh. I'm over it because its pretty much a waste of time anyway.

So you agree with pragmatic approaches to the issues?

[rock on sooner]

So you agree with pragmatic approaches to the issues?

Pragmatism? Common sense? Well thought out positions? MY, my,
what's the world coming to?:surprise:

[KantoSooner]

But, but, but...pragmatism might involve <gasp> ......compromise.

[TUSooner]

So you agree with pragmatic approaches to the issues?


I've been around here too long not to know a tar baby when I see one. :biggrin:

[FaninAma]

Hallelujah! Make that 80 and you'd be slightly more precise. We're still not in a position to prevent major capital from politicking for their own corporate welfare, we still have not figured out how to properly scale government involvement in providing structure or substance to disaster relief and public welfare. We still have not figured out how to define what it is we want from government and whether we can and will pay for it.
This last election was a lurch in one direction, but, happily, we are not in flush times, so the bill will come due, hopefully, before the memory of the voting booth has faded. We'll see.

Agree x 10. One of the reasons I supported the GOP this time around is not because they have a better historical track record in regards to government spending on their special interests but because they seemed to understand the real issue with the deficit better. In addition, the GOP always caves when it comes to a battle of protecting their special interests. The Democrats NEVER cave. So, if the government was serious about getting the deficit under control it would be accomplished only with a GOP president and majority in at least one house of Congress because then and only then would anything be done about social entitlement programs. Then the GOP would have, IMO, caved on the tax issue.

Now, if the Democrats are serious about reforming entitlements(which I don't think they are) the GOP base is going to threatent the GOP if they back down on the tax issue....hence the stale mate. Without entitlement reform there can be no true defcit reduction.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

You're pragmatic if you agree with me (or Scott D). The rest of you are bat sh!t crazy.

[okie52]

Pragmatism? Common sense? Well thought out positions? MY, my,
what's the world coming to?:surprise:

Heh, I don't think it's pragmatism.

I try to be pragmatic but I can't say I always am...but it's a goal at least.

[okie52]

I've been around here too long not to know a tar baby when I see one. :biggrin:

Well it's a pretty straight forward question. You seem to express a disdain for illogical, emotional approaches to issues. I'm just wondering if you apply that standard to all issues.

[TUSooner]

The Democrats NEVER cave....

That's not what Obama's critics on the left say. (Yes, there really are people to the left of Obama.) In fact, some of them are saying the sequestration issue is the result of Obama caving in in the debt ceiling fight. Perspective matters.

My unsolicited opinion is that we need to cut spending and raise revenue, including by taxation, and that no one should be exempt on speculative or ideological grounds. Not original, I know. But I don't think either should be drastic just yet since we're climbing out of a recession. Also not original. But I know if my colleagues and I lose our gub'ment jobs or get our hours and pay cut in half, we won't be buying too many widgets. A slight tax increase on me would probably not stifle me as much as a severe pay cut Uncle Sam needs to lose weight, but not by having a leg cut off.

[okie52]

I suspected a trick, seriously. You know, something like "Oh yeah!!! The road to Armageddon is paved with pragmatism, you liberal dip**** !!!!" Pardon my suspicion.

I believe in pragmatism guided by principle. Part if that deal is not sacrificing the good for the perfect as i have said. It takes skill and wisdom to get it all right.

I usually think of pragmatism as often sacrificing the perfect for the obtainable good.

So you used that approach in supporting Obama?

[TUSooner]

Well it's a pretty straight forward question. You seem to express a disdain for illogical, emotional approaches to issues. I'm just wondering if you apply that standard to all issues.

yes I try to be pragmatic, while being guided by principle

[TUSooner]

I usually think of pragmatism as often sacrificing the perfect for the obtainable good.

So you used that approach in supporting Obama?

Sometimes you just go against a certain principle you abhor, even if you give up a little something else.

[okie52]

Sometimes you just go against a certain principle you abhor, even if you give up a little something else.

Some of that can be pragmatic.

So I was interested in how you prioritized your issues in support of Obama.

[TUSooner]

Some of that can be pragmatic.

So I was interested in how you prioritized your issues in support of Obama.

Tea leaves.

[okie52]

Tea leaves.

And I thought you were in there for the party of science.

[TUSooner]

Some of that can be pragmatic.

So I was interested in how you prioritized your issues in support of Obama.

I think I've said basically this a few times in various places, and I'm tired of rehashing it to people, but here goes:

(1) I rejected assertions that Obama was the Communist Muslim Anti-Christ who hates 'Merica.

(2) Along that line, I'd had a nauseating gut-full of stupid statements and emails from various rightward directions that insulted my intelligence and my religious convictions (and I'd had nothing comparable from the left). IOW, I had a serious dislike of the Tea Party and it's allies which had rendered the GOP, IMO, the party of fear and ignorance.

(3) I didn't know whether Pres. Romney would be the former Governor of Massachusetts and a wonderful manager or the new Mad Hatter of the Tea Party.

(4) I concluded that the Romney-Ryan economic "plan" was illusory and perhaps even dangerous to the recovery, but probably not too radically different from what I thought Obama would probably do anyway. IOW, neither a great reason for or against.

(5) My previous animosity toward Obamacare was replaced by a willingness to give it a chance, and I could never tell whether Romney would scrap the whole thing, or just "fix" it.

(6) I knew Romney was going to win my state by a wide margin, and I am not quite as sold on the Libertarians as I once was, so I didn't feel like throwing my vote to a third party.

I decided my main priority would be to lend my voice to those who wanted to tell the Tea Party and its GOP lackeys to STFU and stop being the party of the fear and ignorance.

[SoonerLaw09]

For the record, the "09" in my nick refers to the year I registered for SF, not the year I graduated. I'm a middle aged guy who was at OU in the 1980s. Reagan was the first Prez I voted for. Yeah, I've seen a lot of bad economic times. But also FTR, I reject the notion that a person's arguments must be discounted merely because of their age.

Obama is not a Muslim, he's a misguided liberal Christian who doesn't take the Bible seriously (either that or he really doesn't understand it). He is a socialist, probably a communist (his dad was a communist, he hung out with them as well as domestic terrorists in Chicago). He has a plan to destroy the USA by turning it into just another Western world socialist welfare state like most of the European countries are. He does not believe in American exceptionalism, he apologizes for us even using the phrase. The other possibility is that he's just an incompetent useful idiot.

That having been said, neither party has shown they have the stones to actually do something about the problem of huge government and gargantuan debt. And if they do have the stones, the sheep voters in this country will un-elect them and put others in power who will continue to give them "free stuff" which isn't really free because somebody else is either paying for it or going into debt for it. Take a look at the austerity protests around Europe and you will see the future of the USA in 10 years. Those people don't care one whit about reality, they just want the "free" money and benefits they've been promised. They've lived so long in dependence on their government, and their economies built around it, that they can't deal with the big collapse. So they strike, vandalize, yell and scream for government money that doesn't exist. And they have no concept of the fact that it's gone.

When this happens to us, there won't be anybody to bail *us* out. They'll all sit back and watch us burn.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The Democrats NEVER cave....

That's not what Obama's critics on the left say. (Yes, there really are people to the left of Obama.) In fact, some of them are saying the sequestration issue is the result of Obama caving in in the debt ceiling fight. Perspective matters.

My unsolicited opinion is that we need to cut spending and raise revenue, including by taxation, and that no one should be exempt on speculative or ideological grounds. Not original, I know. But I don't think either should be drastic just yet since we're climbing out of a recession. Also not original. But I know if my colleagues and I lose our gub'ment jobs or get our hours and pay cut in half, we won't be buying too many widgets. A slight tax increase on me would probably not stifle me as much as a severe pay cut Uncle Sam needs to lose weight, but not by having a leg cut off.

$100 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget is far from cutting off a leg. It's barely cutting off the tip of a finger. The fiscal cliff is a media creation.

[TUSooner]

$100 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget is far from cutting off a leg. It's barely cutting off the tip of a finger. The fiscal cliff is a media creation.
Might be MY finger, though. Just sayin... Talk to the Chief Judge of our court -- and his predecessor, and any Chief Judge -- and see if they think it's a "media creation." They know where the axe is destined to fall. It won't be the end of he world, but it won't be bloodless either.

[KantoSooner]

Soonerlaw,
Apologies for thinking you might be younger than you are. You and I probably crossed paths, perhaps at the law school in Norman when I, too, was there in the mid-1980's. I hope you enjoyed Roarin' Joe Rarick as much as I did.
I was trying to find a filter through which I could view the current condition of this country and arrive at a conclusion that the situation was irrecoverable. Apparently you've got more perspective than I assumed for purposes of argument, so that's not it.
From your second paragraph, I"m getting whiffs of D'Souza's '2016'. There are a pretty long list of logical leaps in that film that should give pause for thought. (and those are on top of the fact that he got his start at the humor/provacateur 'Dartmouth Review' which had a well deserved rep for stretches and outright lies. And the fact that he's been relieved of his position as president of a college for bigamy and embezzellment as I understand it. The money I can kind of get. The bigamy? In this day and age? That's some stellar stuff, right there. Seriously. Bigamy. Wow.)
The primary leap made is between Obama's father's association with a particular school of Marxists in the immediate pre- and post-independence days in Kenya. These people held that 'capitalism' had gotten rich solely through looting their colonies. Full Stop. And that thus justice required an economic crushing of the colonialist world. That's a short version, but gets the basics.
D'Souza then argues that Obama's 'Dreams From My Father' indicates a lock step buy-in to this argument and his deficit spending as the mechanism that will be used to effect the destruction of the US. There's more. There's his 'association' with communists and radicals, but those are the basics of the argument.
Here are some counters that D'Souza seems to weigh and find wanting; for reasons never really understood.
Obama's relationship with his Indonesian step-father Soetoro (sp?). The guy was an oil company employee who was attempting to social climb inside the American Ex-Pat community in Jakarta. Not too much of a radical. In fact, Obama's mom seemed to be upset that he was such a 'company man'. And yet Obama kept his name and, according to other anti-Obama posts on this site, still wears a ring given to him by this man. Are to award the absent/deserting bio-dad such intellectual suzereignty and deny the present father figure none? It seems a bit unfair without more to back it up.
Since you went to school in the 1980's, I am sure you remember that, if you were a poli-sci, soc, anthro type person, no party was complete without the resident radicals. This was particularly true at 'elite' schools. The young, hot profs were all children of the 1960's and were virtually all spouting some version of what would now be seen as socialism. 'W' had communist professors with whom he was socially close. Clearly those ideas didn't 'take'. Later, I'd label Obama more of a social climber than anything else. And, if you're going to move in Democratic circles in large cities in the US, there's a certain amount of 'cred' to be gained, particularly if you're black-ish, by knowing the properly approved 'radicals'.
Obama had several years of unfettered power at the beginning of term 1. Did he turn the US into the Congo? No.
Will he somehow 'destroy' the country this time around? I see no reason to believe so. Even if we go over the fiscal cliff, so what? We get another round of recession. For the country, no question but that we'd survive. I simply don't see any evidence that Obama is more than a leftist in the peculiar sense that we use the term in the US, which is to say that he occupies the left edge of a little box way to the right side of the global spectrum. Anywhere else in the world, the guy would be a center/right party boss.

[SoonerLaw09]

Kanto,

You make some good points. I haven't seen the D'Souza movie, I'm going off other information such as Trevor Loudon's book Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, and the DVD entitled Agenda: Grinding America Down. You're right, there certainly were a lot of wanna-be communists at OU in the 80s. It's difficult to sort out the truth, but with Obama's background and rhetoric, I think there is a distinct probability that he at least has communist sympathies.

And your last statement is I believe not quite accurate: in most other countries he'd be a center-left social democrat. That is what his policies are based on and that is what he wants the USA to become, which is entirely antithetical to the founders' intent for our country.

[KantoSooner]

Although I feel that Obama is basically a decent human being (loves his wife, loves his kids, has a slightly foofy dog, but that's not the dog's fault and at least he's a water dog of some stripe, smokes butts, shoots hoops), and that he'd probably be an okay neighbor (who might own a chain saw), I don't think I'd have much in common with him politically.
I won't argue too stenuously if you want to call him center left in global terms. It's Social Democrat vs Christian Democrat type of a deal and there's not much daylight between the two.
I do think that his vision of a society orchestrated by the government, or 'planned' to use Hayek's term, is at utter odds with what the founders had in mind and with what our traditions have been for the entirety of our history.
But I don't think he will succeed in installing much of that program. And I don't think he has an active plan or even tendencies to desiring to the downfall of the US. I think that he, and a goodly percentage of those who voted for him, have been sadly unserved by the educational system and popular culture to the end that they devalue individual accomplishment and overvalue collective activities.
It's a long term pendulum and Republicans are guilty, as well, of biting from the poisoned apple of enforced groupthink; but it is a pendulum that swings both ways. It'll come back.

[okie52]

I think I've said basically this a few times in various places, and I'm tired of rehashing it to people, but here goes:

(1) I rejected assertions that Obama was the Communist Muslim Anti-Christ who hates 'Merica.

(2) Along that line, I'd had a nauseating gut-full of stupid statements and emails from various rightward directions that insulted my intelligence and my religious convictions (and I'd had nothing comparable from the left). IOW, I had a serious dislike of the Tea Party and it's allies which had rendered the GOP, IMO, the party of fear and ignorance.

(3) I didn't know whether Pres. Romney would be the former Governor of Massachusetts and a wonderful manager or the new Mad Hatter of the Tea Party.

(4) I concluded that the Romney-Ryan economic "plan" was illusory and perhaps even dangerous to the recovery, but probably not too radically different from what I thought Obama would probably do anyway. IOW, neither a great reason for or against.

(5) My previous animosity toward Obamacare was replaced by a willingness to give it a chance, and I could never tell whether Romney would scrap the whole thing, or just "fix" it.

(6) I knew Romney was going to win my state by a wide margin, and I am not quite as sold on the Libertarians as I once was, so I didn't feel like throwing my vote to a third party.

I decided my main priority would be to lend my voice to those who wanted to tell the Tea Party and its GOP lackeys to STFU and stop being the party of the fear and ignorance.

Sorry to make you repeat yourself.


I don't think Obama is a Muslim. I don't think he really has a religion...probably an agnostic or an atheist but uses Christianity for cover. Communist/Socialist? Probably more of a European socialist variety but he knows he can only push those changes so far without alarming the public. He certainly hasn't had a problem with appointing communists and/or socialists like Van Jones or Carol Browner to top positions.

I don't really get many emails from the left or right so I don't don't exactly share your pain. The social issues disturb me about the pubs and dems because they are often used as a litmus test as to whether a candidate is viable. I can't remember a pub presidential nominee that was pro choice or a dem that was pro life.

I don't agree with some pubs positions on a "young earth" or non evolution. Fortunately, I don't see those issues impacting us beyond some school district wanting to teach intelligent design along with evolution. As to the Pubs being the party of fear and ignorance, well, there is some of that but it really isn't affecting my pocketbook. Now the dems, on the other hand, do have policies that affect my pocketbook based on fear and ignorance. Anti science tirades by the "anti fracking" contingent in the dem party that continue to demonize the process with no scientific proof to substantiate their position. Or the constant vitriol by Obama and dems about "subsidies" for oil and gas which are actually write offs that are received by virtually every other manufacturer in the US. Or the Obama appointments of EPA directors that are looking to punish the oil and gas industry. Or Obama banning exploration in the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Or the Obama reduction in exploration on federal lands. When 2/3 of your trade deficit is the result of oil imports it would seem that logic would dictate you try to eliminate that imbalance. Obama's solution was to try to pass a cap and trade policy (that did pass the house) to punish natural gas and oil while making ethanol a favored fuel. Ironically, NG conversions has reduced CO2 emissions by 20% in the last 4 years without cap and trade and the economic disaster it would have created...and the 20% reduction in 4 years was much greater than anything sought by the cap and trade bill. Oh, I forgot to mention, the Cap and trade bill was unilateral so it would have only punished US industry while doing virtually nothing to solve the worlds CO2 issues as China and India were never on board and Obama pushed this legislation at the height of the economic recession.

And, as if Obama and the dem's constant harangue against oil and gas wasn't enough, the sponsor of the Cap and trade bill, Ed Markey, tried to ban NG (LNG) exports to other countries as it would cause the US to lose it's competitive advantage...amazing for a guy that wanted to punish NG with a 22% tax and thereby punish US industry with higher production costs.

Then there was Obama's closing of Yucca...the same nuclear repository that had been approved by the National Academy of Science, 23 congresses, 4 previous administrations and Obama's own Secretary of Energy just months before he assumed office. No scientific explanation was given for its closure or the billions wasted on Yucca's development.

We have a president that stated he wanted to raise taxes on capital gains even though such tax increases have historically shown to reduce tax revenues. He says he wants to do it out of "fairness". I thought a pragmatist would want to raise tax rates to increase tax revenues, not reduce them. And, in speaking of fairness, Obama didn't have a problem giving unions a $60,000,000,000 tax exemption on cadillac plans under obamacare regardless of income. So when joe middle class pays taxes for his healthcare plan old Ivan the union guy gets an exemption. Fairness?

Fear and ignorance? Yep, the pubs have definitely got some of that. Dems...the party of science? Heh, heh...now that's a good one.