Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sort of like how right winger think Obama is a socialist.
No not really, because it's not really inaccurate to call Obama a socialist. Of course I agree it's probably true that some right wingers use that term without having a clear definition in mind, in which case it does become a kind of magical thinking.
Plus for the most part Obama is more accurately termed a fascist than socialist. In socialism the government owns and operates the means of production, whereas in fascism it is left in private hands, but with so much regulation and gov't intervention that 'private ownership' becomes merely a legal fiction.
No not really, because it's not really inaccurate to call Obama a socialist. Of course I agree it's probably true that some right wingers use that term without having a clear definition in mind, in which case it does become a kind of magical thinking.
Plus for the most part Obama is more accurately termed a fascist than socialist. In socialism the government owns and operates the means of production, whereas in fascism it is left in private hands, but with so much regulation and gov't intervention that 'private ownership' becomes merely a legal fiction.
So you're saying Obama is radical right-winger rather than a radical left-winger? Because socialism = left-wing and fascism = right-wing
So you're saying Obama is radical right-winger rather than a radical left-winger? Because socialism = left-wing and fascism = right-wing
No not at all. Fascism is a collectivist variant and therefore left of center. Right wing, at least as now generally used in common parlance is individualism. The moderate right would be someone like a Mitt Romney, Michael Medved, or Rush Limbaugh who wants a fair amount of individual liberty but still wants collective control of things like drug use and family structure. The mid-right would be like a Bill Buckley or Barry Goldwater who wants gov't roads, military, police, bridges, etc. but not much else. The far right would be libertarians who figure that even gov't roads and bridges are not such a good idea.
There was a biography of Poppa Bush on one of the cable channels this Thursday, and PBS has a DVD on him as part of their "The American Experience" series, if anyone's interested.
I'm pretty sure Reagan still hasn't gained the respect of many liberals.
Reagan actually had liberal respect before modern day Republicans started invoking his name and legacy every election cycle. In 1984, Reagan carried every state but Minnesota. The economy was great under Reagan for the most part and there was a national unity and pride that no longer exists in this country. Nowadays though, every Republican who runs for election invokes Reagan so he has lost a lot of respect from the left.
I think HW mainly lost because of Ross Perot. Remember Bill Clinton only got 43 pct of the popular vote in 1992, yet managed to win the election. If not for Perot, HW would have gotten a 2nd term, perhaps Bill would have run in 1996, and not having the cred from his first term, might have lost to Bob Dole, which in turn might have meant W would have never been elected prez.
Good analysis. Perot didn't carry a single state but he took enough of the popular vote to seriously damage HW Bush. Perot took far more votes from HW Bush than Clinton.
Good analysis. Perot didn't carry a single state but he took enough of the popular vote to seriously damage HW Bush. Perot took far more votes from HW Bush than Clinton.
I don't think HW Bush would have been re-elected even if Perot had not been running. His approval was way too low (hell, I believe it was below 40%). Incumbents running for re-election virtually never overperform their approval ratings in so far as the percentage of the vote they receive (this is something that Obama supporters seem to be clueless about this year).
Don't get me wrong - I like HW Bush. I certainly would have voted for him in 88 and probably would have voted for him in 92, but I wasn't old enough to vote either time. That being said, the economy was in bad shape in 92 and a majority of Americans did not approve of how HW was handling his job.
I don't believe that Perot cost him the election. I think the bad economy at the time (even though it was starting to improve) cost him the election.
I think a number of issues cost him the re-election. Could be that he's using Perot as a scapegoat to feel better about his loss.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
