SECOND A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

Yesterday, in response to a question from a reporter suspicious of why he wasn't wearing an American flag pin on his lapel, Barack Obama explained his belief that for some, the pins became a substitute for "true patriotism." The senator said he would instead "try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

I didn't expect leading conservative voices to understand, but I was a little surprised at the ferocity of the response. Jonah Goldberg described Obama's perspective as "staggeringly stupid," and "the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of him doing." Another prominent far-right blogger responded this way:

Seriously, you want this for President of these great United States.This is how he catches the attention of a media aligned with the terror force? This useful tool won't wear an American flag pin? Talk about pandering to the radical base, he ought to run against Ahmadinejad. He is scoring points with Georgie Soros, won't be waiting long for his on his Soros stipend, I'm sure. What's Obama Hussein's new campaign slogan, "America Sucks!" ?

Quote:

Hogwash. If you want to know why the Republican party is in shambles, read this:

Quote:

Yesterday, in response to a question from a reporter suspicious of why he wasn't wearing an American flag pin on his lapel, Barack Obama explained his belief that for some, the pins became a substitute for "true patriotism." The senator said he would instead "try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

I didn't expect leading conservative voices to understand, but I was a little surprised at the ferocity of the response. Jonah Goldberg described Obama's perspective as "staggeringly stupid," and "the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of him doing." Another prominent far-right blogger responded this way:

Seriously, you want this for President of these great United States.This is how he catches the attention of a media aligned with the terror force? This useful tool won't wear an American flag pin? Talk about pandering to the radical base, he ought to run against Ahmadinejad. He is scoring points with Georgie Soros, won't be waiting long for his on his Soros stipend, I'm sure. What's Obama Hussein's new campaign slogan, "America Sucks!" ?

For starters, people got tired of being associated with these drooling retards. Then, when they realized that these drooling retards had ideological allies running the show in the Bush administration and then began to experience their idiotic policies, they moved from disgusted to outright hostile.

Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion.

Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.

And that isn't even getting into the COMPLETE and TOTAL corruption of our political processes at every level. The **** is really going to hit the fan after we vote these jackasses out of power in 2008.

Screw them. I got out. They can have their party. I will vote for Democrats and little L libertarians and isolationists until the crazy people aren't running the GOP. The threat of higher taxes in the short term isn't enough to keep me from voting out crazy people and voting for sane people with whom I merely disagree regarding policy. Hillarycare doesn't scare me as much as Frank Gaffney having a line to the person with the nuclear football or Dobson and company crafting domestic policy.

That is why the Republican party is in shambles. The majority of us have decided that the movers and shakers in the GOP and the blogospheric right are certified lunatics who, in a decent and sane society, we would have in controlled environments in rocking chairs under shade trees for most of the day, wheeled in at night for tapioca pudding and some karaoke.[/b]

That is why the Republican party is in shambles. The majority of us have decided that the movers and shakers in the GOP and the blogospheric right are certified lunatics who, in a decent and sane society, we would have in controlled environments in rocking chairs under shade trees for most of the day, wheeled in at night for tapioca pudding and some karaoke.

Democratic -- Obama.
I'm not a devotee like Sozobe and Butrflynet, but I like him best, with Edwards a close runner-up.

I regard the coming election with a bit of sadness. None of the candidates, of either party, inspires me with confidence. Those I like best (Mccain and Romney) are probably unelectable. Each of those with a viable chance of winning (Hillary, Obama, and Guliani) gives me reactions ranging from dread to unease.

Now I see that Thomas likes Obama, and Edwards "a close second" !!!!! This from a guy who once used a photo of Milton Friedman as his avatar !@!!! I am shattered ! Going from Friedman to a well-coiffed sleazy tort lawyer pseudo populist, is a journey whose distance and landmarks I can hardly imagine.

I regard public health care matters as the province of our states.

In a decade in which the European states, one after the other, are discovering that their excessive social welfare systems are no longer affordable, and, partly because of them, are having difficulty adapting to even low levels of needed immigration, I can see no reason for us to adopt the same disease.

Thomas:
May we know your opinions
of Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises ?

georgeob1 wrote:

I regard public health care matters as the province of our states.

That's a valid stand on healthcare. If Republican candidates consequently defended this intention instead of touting phony solutions like health care accounts, they might convince me.

georgeob1 wrote:

In a decade in which the European states, one after the other, are discovering that their excessive social welfare systems are no longer affordable, and, partly because of them, are having difficulty adapting to even low levels of needed immigration, I can see no reason for us to adopt the same disease.

How about the fact that, measured in dollars per policy holder, your healthcare system is even more excessive and hence less affordable? Admittedly this is not an argument against universal healthcare on a state level, but it is an argument for universal health care -- which Republicans in general do little about, Schwarzenegger and Romney being exceptions.

If, like George, you don't give a fig for those who can't actually afford the health care, our system is preferable.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If, like George, you don't give a fig for those who can't actually afford the health care, our system is preferable.

Well, George is right about one thing: The US could implement universal healthcare on a state-by-state basis, just as Europe can implement it on a country-by-country basis while leaving the EU out of it. If it were a politically realistic alternative, I'd support it. But it doesn't appear to be a politically realistic alternative, judging by the fact that only a handful of states have it.

There's also the question of specialization. In many cases, the best service available or ONLY service available may not be located within your particular state. Will out-of-state service be covered under the state-ran plans?

How about the fact that, measured in dollars per policy holder, your healthcare system is even more excessive and hence less affordable? Admittedly this is not an argument against universal healthcare on a state level, but it is an argument for universal health care -- which Republicans in general do little about, Schwarzenegger and Romney being exceptions.

non-dynastic Democrats

They have one child and there's no present hint she'll move in a political direction.

blatham wrote:

They have one child and there's no present hint she'll move in a political direction.

err, actually Chelsea Clinton's been showing up on some addendums to Power 100 lists as someone to keep an eye on (most recently, I think, in the October 2007 Vanity Fair)