Democratic Party Implodes

[bobblehead]

One more example from his own website:

Plan for a Clean Energy Future
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

Telling a private industry what product they must make, which basically is saying to the people I will decide what is available to you.

He could just let gas prices rise until the demand for yugo's is high enough to justify their production...believe me, if people want a 50mpg car, the automakers will provide it, but they can't mysteriously make it happen, it takes dollars for research that will have to be paid back by market factors.....except in a socialist nation.

[hoosier]

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

here is a source....the global poverty act is an extremely liberal program and pointing out that a republican co authored it doesn't prove otherwise...its a program to take 845 BILLION extra dollars over upcoming years and hand it to the UN...an orginization that has proven where it stands. He also is for drivers liscences for illegals and raising capital gains taxes from 15% to 28% despite every study ever known to the USA shows this is damaging to the economy. I could go on for more specifics on his stances, but I shouldn't have to. Will meet with foreign leaders without preconditions is just one more that jumps to mind.

Thanks for providing a source for the "most liberal" ranking. Interesting to see that Obama shifted from slightly left of center in his party (16th and 10th previous two years) to most liberal this year. If the Global Poverty Act is really an "extremely liberal program" as you say, does that mean that Richard Lugar is a closet liberal or just extremely confused? :P

[texaspackerbacker]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

You wouldn't be able to provide a source for this, now, would you?

I'm shocked you hadn't heard. This really seems like common knowledge. I typed "Obama most liberal senator" in Yahoo search, and a veritable plethora of links came up. I figured you would find the one below particularly credible, though.

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

BTW, Hoosier, true to form, you wimped out on defending the leftist position on this Global Poverty ACT thing. How could you or anybody possibly support anything so horrendous?

[hoosier]

One more example from his own website:

Plan for a Clean Energy Future
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

Telling a private industry what product they must make, which basically is saying to the people I will decide what is available to you.

He could just let gas prices rise until the demand for yugo's is high enough to justify their production...believe me, if people want a 50mpg car, the automakers will provide it, but they can't mysteriously make it happen, it takes dollars for research that will have to be paid back by market factors.....except in a socialist nation.

The US government is "telling" auto manufacturers what to make as we speak under the Dubya administration, by setting automotive standards. Obama's not going talking about doing anything to upset the cart, he's just suggesting that his admin might be less lenient than Dubya's. Big deal. You conservatives get so bent out of shape every time someone talks about the federal government playing a role in our daily lives, but what you are never willing to face is that the federal government grew far more under your conversative icon Reagan than it had under any post-war president.

[LL2]

I love the title of this thread. I hope them Dems keep imploding all the way through November.

[bobblehead]

I would consider Luger and Hagel wrong on this issue...incidently hagel is the 37th most conservative senater out of how many?? like 45?

Simply pointing out that a republican is voting for something in no way proves its conservative merits. Gov. Kenny Guinn sued the state legislature in nevada to raise taxes without the constitutional requirement of a 66% vote. Rudy is pro choice. Tom Daschle was vehomently pro life and a very liberal democrat.

And being ranked 10th and 16th most liberal in the democratic party is very liberal when you consider that there are more than 55 members in the senate. His average ranking over 3 years is still top 10 most liberal, and he is running for office NOW, not 2 years ago.

[texaspackerbacker]

One more example from his own website:

Plan for a Clean Energy Future
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

Telling a private industry what product they must make, which basically is saying to the people I will decide what is available to you.

He could just let gas prices rise until the demand for yugo's is high enough to justify their production...believe me, if people want a 50mpg car, the automakers will provide it, but they can't mysteriously make it happen, it takes dollars for research that will have to be paid back by market factors.....except in a socialist nation.

The US government is "telling" auto manufacturers what to make as we speak under the Dubya administration, by setting automotive standards. Obama's not going talking about doing anything to upset the cart, he's just suggesting that his admin might be less lenient than Dubya's. Big deal. You conservatives get so bent out of shape every time someone talks about the federal government playing a role in our daily lives, but what you are never willing to face is that the federal government grew far more under your conversative icon Reagan than it had under any post-war president.

Whose fault is that--either the auto regulation thing or the Reagan-era growth of government? Obviously the Dem/lib controlled Congress. While Obama may be the worst, he is far from the only closet socialist on the Dem side. He's damn near out of the closet, though, if you go by his words and votes.

[bobblehead]

Not sure what your point is on the gov't growing more under reagan...you mean he cut taxes and the economy grew a lot, therefore revenues came in much higher and the democratic congress found ways to spend the money?? Your right, gratz.

As far as them telling auto makers what to do, I don't think I ever heard bush or a republican led congress advocate raising the standards that were in place when they got there, maintaining the status quo, yes, and since the cars are there now, its no big deal, but i am still against it.

One other detail, how are you measuring it grew more under reagan...real dollars, percent of gnp, dollars according to the index?? That kind of blanket statement can be interpreted a few ways and I can't really argue it unless I know the basis. It has probably grown much more under bush than reagan.

[Harlan Huckleby]

most Hillary supporters will in the long run lose their vitriol and choose party loyalty over personalism or whatever other factors are motivating them for Hillary and/or against Obama. I'm no longer so sure about you, though. :P

Of course you are correct, but as Bill would say, it depends on the meaning of the word "most". If 8% of Hillary supporters think like me, McCain has a good shot to beat the heavy Democratic tide next fall.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, did you see this lady, Harriet Christian, a NY Dem who supports Hillary, that was ranting on TV today?

Ya, she's a real piece of work, a woman after my own heart. I expect she'll get a prime time speaking slot at the "Democrats for McCain" convention I am organizing.

I was OK with her, except that comment about the black man versus a white woman. Didn't quite follow why only a black man could beat a white woman.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've been thinking about the coming campaign in comparison to Bush-Kerry.

I thought the republican attacks on Kerry were 100% sleazy, the Swift Boat stuff was lousy. You can pull partisians out of any group of people and smear a person.

I expect the Republicans will be worse against Obama, but the difference is that his association with Black Liberation ideology, as expressed by his church and hinted-at by his wife, are legitimate political targets. It will be impossible to deflect the attacks as merely dirty tricks.

I don't know how liberal BO really is. Just a guess is that he is mainstream enough to be president. Being on the left of the Senate means little, its a very centrist body. The extremists are found in the House, where they are elected in local districts.

I AM disturbed that he is supported financially by left-wing people who I don't like. I have more trouble with their style than their politics, but I also have issue disagreements. It is impossible for Obama to say he is a centrist when he is beholden to the left, regardless of his own views.

I expect Obama will win the presidency. But McCain's chances are looking better lately.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, did you see this lady, Harriet Christian, a NY Dem who supports Hillary, that was ranting on TV today?

Ya, she's a real piece of work, a woman after my own heart. I expect she'll get a prime time speaking slot at the "Democrats for McCain" convention I am organizing.

I was OK with her, except that comment about the black man versus a white woman. Didn't quite follow why only a black man could beat a white woman.

I think what she meant is that Hillary would have been much more successful playing the gender card if the more powerful race card wasn't already on the table.

[sheepshead]

I've been thinking about the coming campaign in comparison to Bush-Kerry.

I thought the republican attacks on Kerry were 100% sleazy, the Swift Boat stuff was lousy. You can pull partisians out of any group of people and smear a person.

I expect the Republicans will be worse against Obama, but the difference is that his association with Black Liberation ideology, as expressed by his church and hinted-at by his wife, are legitimate political targets. It will be impossible to deflect the attacks as merely dirty tricks.

I don't know how liberal BO really is. Just a guess is that he is mainstream enough to be president. Being on the left of the Senate means little, its a very centrist body. The extremists are found in the House, where they are elected in local districts.

I AM disturbed that he is supported financially by left-wing people who I don't like. I have more trouble with their style than their politics, but I also have issue disagreements. It is impossible for Obama to say he is a centrist when he is beholden to the left, regardless of his own views.

I expect Obama will win the presidency. But McCain's chances are looking better lately.

The Kerry attacks were justified. Do you know what medals GHW Bush or Bob Dole won in WWII? Neither do I and I voted for both guys. Point is Kerry wouldn't shut up about his damn Vietnam days. The guys that saw the charade back then were sick of it. He had it coming and it was great to see concerned citizens slam the MSM and get the truth out. Scroll up for most liberal. Its documented everywhere. He''s left of that guy from Vermont (I think) who is a self proclaimed socialist.

Obama , cannot win in November, there are certain voter blocks that are essential and he wont come close to winning those: Hispanics, white southerners, moderates (when the RNC gets done with him), middle aged women. working class non-union whites. I look for a 45-46 state McCain landslide. He should win Wisc, Minn and Mich to name a few.

note: Bernie Sanders - Vermont

[texaspackerbacker]

I've been thinking about the coming campaign in comparison to Bush-Kerry.

I thought the republican attacks on Kerry were 100% sleazy, the Swift Boat stuff was lousy. You can pull partisians out of any group of people and smear a person.

I expect the Republicans will be worse against Obama, but the difference is that his association with Black Liberation ideology, as expressed by his church and hinted-at by his wife, are legitimate political targets. It will be impossible to deflect the attacks as merely dirty tricks.

I don't know how liberal BO really is. Just a guess is that he is mainstream enough to be president. Being on the left of the Senate means little, its a very centrist body. The extremists are found in the House, where they are elected in local districts.

I AM disturbed that he is supported financially by left-wing people who I don't like. I have more trouble with their style than their politics, but I also have issue disagreements. It is impossible for Obama to say he is a centrist when he is beholden to the left, regardless of his own views.

I expect Obama will win the presidency. But McCain's chances are looking better lately.

My wife nags me about liberal BO all the time. Right Guard usually fixes it, though.

First of all, Harlan, and this is more for people who aren't already smart enough to oppose the guy, Obama REALLY IS about as extreme as it gets in terms of selling out America--the Global Poverty Act, environmental crap, opposition to security, opposition to interventionist foreign policy, his statement about Americans not being able to eat as much as we want, keep our thermostats where we want, drive SUVs, etc.

Secondly, you STILL are complaining about the Swift Boaters. They were CORRECT--so much so that Kerry couldn't even respond to them. He really DID phony up his three Purple Hearts because that is what it took to get sent home. Similar truth squad-type attacks on Obama will undoubtedly be disparaged by libs too, but that won't diminish the truth of them--and I bet there iare a helluva lot more skeletons in Obama's closet than in Kerry's. Wright, Ayres, Pflaggert, Michelle, all of that would have been discounted by the media as Swift-Boating if the Republicans had done it. Fortunately, it came from Hillary, so at least some of the liberal media reported it credibly.

[sheepshead]

Harlen here's a book for you too: helps put the media in perspective.

To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry (Paperback)

ISBN 13: 9780979984105
ISBN 10: 0979984106