Re: Democrats and Republicans...
A Lone Voice wrote:Next time you hear one of the evening news broadcasts, or read an analysis of the upcoming Texas/Ohio primary, listen to what the 'experts' are discussing.
From National Review:
One thing we're learning from this election: These really are different parties.
First, look at the Democrats. Listen to the discussion about their strategies. Hillary needs to win more blacks and men. Obama must capture more Hispanics and peel away more white women. Both need to fight for "the youth."
Now look at the Republicans and how we talk about them. Can McCain win over conservatives? Should he apologize for his support of amnesty or his opposition to tax cuts? Can Romney convince pro-lifers? Will Huckabee ever make inroads with economic conservatives? Were Rudy's positions on gays, guns, and abortion too liberal?
HmmmÂ….
Excellent point, and appropriate to highlight again. What are the Democrats talking about today, including Mr. Obama, race, gender, the list goes on. Republicans talk about issues and ideas.
You're right okie...race, gender, equality, and the virtual implausibility of having a black(ish) president are not issues that the nation should concern themselves with.
....at least the conservatives, McCain specifically, talks about "the issues"...you know, the same issues with the [/i]same policies[/i] and the same perspective as the Bush administration.
Americans are tired of Bush, they are tired of Bush's policies and they are tired of the direction the entire republican party has taken a once great nation.
Yeah, they are talking about issues and ideas, but not good ones, not new ones and not ones that reflect the interestes of the majority of Americans.
That is because Obama and Hillary are in basic agreement on the issues.
When a Dem is finally nominated, you can be sure that the Dems will hit the issues hard.
The Reps are not discussing many issues. McC has flip-flopped so that he is now in favor of the tax cuts for the super-rich. He has always been anti-choice and anti-gay marriage, and hawkish on the wars. Therefore, McC fits in very well with the extreme right.
So you don't think driving a democrat of 70+ years to vote for anyone but Obama is a problem for the democrats. He sounds just like Bush did when he ran in 2000. Change, change. Bush changed things ok. 8 more years of change should reduce the middle class to serfhood. And don't give me that crap about going to his spin sites. He is just another big business clone.
rabel22 wrote:So you don't think driving a democrat of 70+ years to vote for anyone but Obama is a problem for the democrats. He sounds just like Bush did when he ran in 2000. Change, change. Bush changed things ok. 8 more years of change should reduce the middle class to serfhood. And don't give me that crap about going to his spin sites. He is just another big business clone.
Obama is a big business clone?
Really?....in the same category as Bush 1 and 2? As Gore? As Kerry? As Cheney? As Romney? et. al.?
rabel22 wrote:So you don't think driving a democrat of 70+ years to vote for anyone but Obama is a problem for the democrats. He sounds just like Bush did when he ran in 2000. Change, change. Bush changed things ok. 8 more years of change should reduce the middle class to serfhood. And don't give me that crap about going to his spin sites. He is just another big business clone.
So why vote for anyone then?
Stupid question e brown. Ill vote for someone but it wont be Obama. I have to vote in order to bitch about the government. Otherwise people like you would call me a hipocrite.
rabel22 wrote: I have to vote in order to bitch about the government. Otherwise people like you would call me a hipocrite.
That is an excellent reason to vote.
You realize that the right to vote means equally the right to abstain from voting?
I would suggest rabel vote third party. Same effect but somehow more noble.
