Comments on: Pat Buchanan Poses THE Question About An Obama Presidency

By: RPC

RPC — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:20:01 +0000

Oops, I should have written “Pat Buchanan”, not Pat Robertson.

By: RPC

RPC — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:54:48 +0000

Nicole makes an excellent point. What I think Pat Robertson really ought to be talking about is how we got to this point.

The American people feel largely betrayed by the Republican party generally and George W. Bush specifically. The responsibility for finding ourselves headed into what could be one of the most liberal periods in American politics can be laid clearly at the feet of of the Republican party.

Republicans squandered their post-Clinton conservative mandate on the war in Iraq, among other ill-conceived positions, and now they, and perhaps we, are going to pay the price.

By: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:30:59 +0000

Why, exactly, are we letting Pat Robertson direct the political discourse here? The man who quite clearly and in so many words blamed “the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians… the ACLU, People for the American Way” for 9/11?

Humor writer Lore SjÃ¶berg makes a good point, when he satirizes the Wright question: “It is true that I attended a church with a pastor prone to intolerance and hateful, demonizing statements. However, he was talking about the gays, so nobody cares.” (link) That’s Pat Robertson in a nutshell.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:55:45 +0000

Neither. The assumption in the statement is conflict between extremist views. In fact the broad base of support for Obama lies well outside the extremely liberal segment of the population or he wouldn’t be where he is right now. This is true no matter how many times people like mw and Pat Buchanan try to claim otherwise.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:21:42 +0000

You keep believing that mw, i’m certain people were saying the same things in 1932 about FDR that you’re saying today about Obama, and as I recall the New deal realignment lasted into the 60’s.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:49:40 +0000

Obama is set up rather well going into 2009. Our economy will have bottomed out by then and we will begin a natural recovery within the first year of his presidency. Also, Saddam is out of power in Iraq, the insurgeny in Iraq is over and the new republic there will produce wealth for the global economy rather than be a drain on it, as well as persecuting global Islamic terror rather than support it. Al Qaeda is smashed, OBL is probably dead, the Taliban has been forced into Pakistan where the Pakistani Army could be coerced to pick up the slack.

Obama will not do any of the hard left stuff he has promised, like create a “Patriotic Corporations List” or alter any free-trade agreements. There will be no ethics reform and lobbyists will still have huge influence in Washington. None of his supporters will even notice it. The economy will improve and Iraq is off the T.V. screens, people will feel good again and give Obama all the credit.

My guess is he gets re-elected, that is, unless Iran is attacked by Israel and Obama has to stand up for them, upon which the entire Muslim world will feel betrayed and hate Obama even more then they hate Bush now. If some sort of escalation in the middle east/ south asia happens, expect Muslim leaders to bring up the fact that Obama was born a Muslim and therefore is an apostate. Fatwas for his life will ensue.

By: mw

mw — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:19:43 +0000

If Obama attempts the Avinash “realignment” he’ll be staring at Republican majorities in the House and Senate by 2011. He’s smarter than that.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:40:42 +0000

Too many people are just plain wrong, they still think the nation is center right, when its trending hard left at the moment, the electorate is shifting fast, and its an era whre big government is acceptable again. The reason is, the culture wars era has peaked, heck a lot of the electorate was in diapers in the early 70’s or not even yet born, they don’t have the same feelings with respect to rights conciousness, civili rights etc. For them this is stuff they only know from history books and documentaries. They are much more liberal on issues like god and gays, and they have no desire to refight the vietnam war every four years, for them the war that matters is the one in Iraq, and that is seen as the war of the right, the Carter Presidency and Stagflation don’t have the same meaning to them, as it doe the older generation, to this younger group its the current crisis that is the defining one and its the result of the conservative economic policies of the right. So yeah the so called pundits need to wake up and smell the realignment.

By: shawn

shawn — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:04:43 +0000

I strongly object to Pat Buchanan claiming the label of “us”, as in the majority of americans. The choice isn’t for the liberal fringe or for “the rest of the country”. The past 8 years of government have been almost the exact opposite of liberal policy, yet most of “the rest of the country” doesn’t feel like it has been well served.

Obama’s lifestory is no more unsual compared to the “average” american’s than John McCain. Very few Americans are the son of an admiral. Very few americans married into an extremely wealthy family.

So, what is THE question that you’re talking about? Whether or not Obama shovel every liberal fantasy he can find down our throats? He seems a bit more thoughtful than that, and I’m not sure that sort of measured demeanor is something that can really be faked that well. I think this is just more fear-mongering, more of the only strategy that his opponents have left.

By: mw

mw — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:55:33 +0000

I think he is a one-termer. In the Jimmy Carter mold.