Good one. So what would Obama be? I’m trying to think if there’s a particle that looks just like one thing (a liberal Dem) but acts just like its opposite (a con Repub).
Good one. So what would Obama be? I’m trying to think if there’s a particle that looks just like one thing (a liberal Dem) but acts just like its opposite (a con Repub).
I think that’s grossly unfair. I get your point. I get frustrated when Obama strays far from his base. But to call him a conservative Republican is a huge stretch.
Sounds like any other politician regardless of the party affiliation or idealogy they pay lip service to. It’s one of the reasons I ignore the speeches, stumping, and soundbytes. Their faces change with the shifting of the winds and the real person either isn’t there or is carefully hidden.
Good one. So what would Obama be? I’m trying to think if there’s a particle that looks just like one thing (a liberal Dem) but acts just like its opposite (a con Repub).
I think that’s grossly unfair. I get your point. I get frustrated when Obama strays far from his base. But to call him a conservative Republican is a huge stretch.
I don’t think so. On more than one occasion he’s literally said “this is a republican idea, why are you guys fighting against it”. The Individual Mandate is one example. Obamacare in general is another. It’s one big handout to the insurance companies…straight from the Republicon playbook, Fox lies notwithstanding. He wants to privatize education - Republicon. He continues with Afg/Iraq - Republicon. Just on and on. I voted for him btw, so it’s not like I say these things coming from the right. I just feel let down at every single turn.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 06 July 2012 07:58 AM
Sounds like any other politician regardless of the party affiliation or idealogy they pay lip service to. It’s one of the reasons I ignore the speeches, stumping, and soundbytes. Their faces change with the shifting of the winds and the real person either isn’t there or is carefully hidden.
I think you nailed the bottom line. Almost by definition they blow with the wind. What I find silly is how the pundits treat speeches, etc. so seriously.
Here’s a classic example; the voting public will believe what the propagandists tell them.They don’t look for the facts, just sound bites and urban legend emails filled with hot button issues. Jesus would be stoned by those among us who profess to follow his philosophy.
I don’t think so. On more than one occasion he’s literally said “this is a republican idea, why are you guys fighting against it”. The Individual Mandate is one example. Obamacare in general is another. It’s one big handout to the insurance companies…straight from the Republicon playbook, Fox lies notwithstanding. He wants to privatize education - Republicon. He continues with Afg/Iraq - Republicon. Just on and on. I voted for him btw, so it’s not like I say these things coming from the right. I just feel let down at every single turn.
If you’ll allow me, quit being so fickle. That’s one reason no policy or party can get traction in this country. The voters are too fickle. Vote for Obama again please.
Telling insurers they can’t have conditions and allowing people to remain on their folks insurance isn’t exactly a handout.
For all we know, it could be the beginning of the nationalization of insurance and real reform. Change sometimes has to happen in stages.
I don’t recall him stumping for the privatization of schools.
Afghan/Iraq is another matter. That’s complicated. I didn’t support either conflict-except with my taxes.
I think you nailed the bottom line. Almost by definition they blow with the wind. What I find silly is how the pundits treat speeches, etc. so seriously.
What can I say? It’s all hot air to me. All grandstanding and no substance.
On the rare occasions when these blokes gat their act together, they rarely solve any problems but they’re brilliant in the ways they manage to find to make the existing ones worse.
Groucho Marx got it right when he said that politics was the art of ” looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying all the wrong remedies!”
That’s one reason no policy or party can get traction in this country. The voters are too fickle. Vote for Obama again please.
Telling insurers they can’t have conditions and allowing people to remain on their folks insurance isn’t exactly a handout.
For all we know, it could be the beginning of the nationalization of insurance and real reform. Change sometimes has to happen in stages.
I don’t recall him stumping for the privatization of schools.
Afghan/Iraq is another matter. That’s complicated. I didn’t support either conflict-except with my taxes.
Good one. So what would Obama be? I’m trying to think if there’s a particle that looks just like one thing (a liberal Dem) but acts just like its opposite (a con Repub).
I think that’s grossly unfair. I get your point. I get frustrated when Obama strays far from his base. But to call him a conservative Republican is a huge stretch.
I think the “Schrodinger’s Candidate” line applies to all politicians.
In particular—you won’t really know their position until after the election.
Good one. So what would Obama be? I’m trying to think if there’s a particle that looks just like one thing (a liberal Dem) but acts just like its opposite (a con Repub).
I think that’s grossly unfair. I get your point. I get frustrated when Obama strays far from his base. But to call him a conservative Republican is a huge stretch.
I think the “Schrodinger’s Candidate” line applies to all politicians.
In particular—you won’t really know their position until after the election.
Sure all politicians say things they hope will help them get elected, or say them in a way that they hope will get them elected. But this is a matter of degree. The Shrodinger metaphor applies acutely to Romney way more than most.
The first Presidential candidate that I ever voted for was Richard Nixon. And I voted for him, specifically because I thought his opponent, McGovern, was “wishy washy” and I didn’t want a President who could not stand by his decisions. Terms like “wishy washy” and “flip flopper” are inadequate to describe Romney’s level of duplicity.
The first Presidential candidate that I ever voted for was Richard Nixon. And I voted for him, specifically because I thought his opponent, McGovern, was “wishy washy” and I didn’t want a President who could not stand by his decisions. Terms like “wishy washy” and “flip flopper” are inadequate to describe Romney’s level of duplicity.
Nixon would probably be considered a liberal by the Reps. today.
Total Posts: 863
Joined 2011-11-04
The first Presidential candidate that I ever voted for was Richard Nixon. And I voted for him, specifically because I thought his opponent, McGovern, was “wishy washy” and I didn’t want a President who could not stand by his decisions. Terms like “wishy washy” and “flip flopper” are inadequate to describe Romney’s level of duplicity.
Interesting Tim, Nixon was the first candidate I voted against! I backed McGovern for his opposition to the Vietnam War and his bill to limit defense spending. I found him anything but wishy-washy though. For instance, he stood before the entire Senate and denounced them for sending in our troops to be killed and maimed making this the “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight”. But today he would be viewed as a conservative due to his economic stance. This plus the fact that his running mate had been institutionalized temporarily, lost him the election but I do agree that Romney is the poster child of duplicity.
Someone sent me this. A woman was playing golf when she took a big swing and fell.
The party waiting behind her was a group from the campaign trail that included Mitt Romney. Romney quickly stepped forward and helped her to her feet.
She thanked him and started to leave, when he said, “I’m Mitt Romney and I hope you’ll vote for me this November.”
She laughed and said, “I fell on my ass, not on my head!”
