Jun 17 2008
Independents Moving To McCain – A Group Obama Cannot Lose
Major Update: Â In the Year of The Democrat, Obama is not doing as well with Democrats as McCain is among Republicans:
There is a remarkable consistency across all these polls, one that helps us draw certain boundaries around the electorate. There will always be variation, either random or events-driven, but the rough plot lines of the next few months are clear:
(1)Â McCain runs better among Republicans than Obama does with Democrats. The difference is not that big — eight points in the CBS News survey, if I recall, and five points here — but it is noticeable. This is probably an after-effect of a contested primary; it may also have to do with racism, with unease about Obama’s resume, and with unease with the content of his message (butter versus bread.) There are more Democrats than Republicans, so Obama comes out about even, if a little bit ahead. Given the composition of the electorate, he should be doing a little bit better among Democratic women, among white Catholics in the Midwest and among national security-conscious swing voters.
Yeah, yeah, yeah – it’s all about Obama’s skin pigment and not about the fact he is the most far left candidate with the least experience ever run. Â The guy is a media-made puppet who hangs out with people who hate America so much they use to bomb it in their youth. Â The fact is Obama is losing the Reagan and Hillary democrats, just as he did in the primaries. Â And it will only be getting worse as we head to the election. Â This wave is still building. – end update
The largest voting block in America is Independents. Â Many of whom are ex-GOP supporters chased from the Republican Party by the purity wars that erupted over the last few years and led to the GOP losing Congress. Â As expected, these independent voters are rejecting the far left liberalism (and apparent heavy handed tactics as he takes the reigns of the Democrat Party) and moving towards McCain, as shown in a recent poll:
In the first Washington Post–ABC News poll since the Democratic nomination contest ended, Obama and McCain are even among political independents, a shift toward the presumptive Republican nominee over the past month. On the issues, independents see McCain as more credible on fighting terrorism and are split evenly on who is the stronger leader and better on the Iraq war. But on other key attributes and issues — including the economy — Obama has advantages among independents.
McCain, being a moderate conservative (instead of a ‘true’ conservative), is closer to the natural median of American views. Â And he has a nagging habit of being conciliatory, respectful and willing to work across the aisle. This bugs those closer to the fringe who sometimes seem to want civil war instead of civil discourse. Â If I am right about the mood of the country they want to stay away from the fringes. Â Obama, for all his sweet talking facade, is very liberal and is showing a negative side to his persona:
The Obama team announced today that it had picked former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle to serve on its general election staff. Fair enough: Solis Doyle is a native Chicagoan with deep ties to many senior Obama aides.
But Solis Doyle — who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself — has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.
At least that’s how Clinton loyalists see it. “It’s a slap in the face,” Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. “Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It’s a message. We get it.” She said it was a “calculated decision” by the Obama team to “send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket.”
Obama is cold and calculating once you get past that veneer of ‘hope’. Â I still say the guy is out of his league and will not wear well over time. Â Which will be the big surprise results for this earliest of early primaries. Â I bet there is way too much time for one of these candidates before election day.
Â
Thought I read this morning that the independents are split between Obama and McCain?
Sippin’ the Kool-Aid while the ground slips from under Grumpy McSame’s feeble feet:
Quinnipiac just released a poll with Obama holding a 47-43 (41-45) lead over McCain in Florida, outside the 2.6% margin of error;
Ohio 48-42 (Obama was down 40-44);
Hey! Great new feature, i.e., the edit function. Nicely done, AJ.
&
Pennsylvania 52-40 (Obama was up 46-40);
Gallup Daily: 46-42, with McInsane unable to crack 42 % for weeks;
Rasmussen: 45 – 40; Rasmussen Markets: 65-35%
Intrade: 63.1 – 33.5
AJ: Please consider the following.
We need some Big Thinkers to analyze this stuff.
I have two parts.. the first is a post Larry Johnson made on his blog. Yes, the guy is of questionable veracity, however, his comment is such that his own credibility is not a factor as he is just presenting a few observations that when taken together form a disturbing picture of Obama
The second part is a comment I made, independently on a UK newspaper blog.
When I take what Larry wrote and consider it along with what I wrote, I see a very dangerous picture emerge.
PART 1
Larry’s blog
1) Proteinwisdom looks over Barack Obama’s senate record and finds it less inspiring than his rhetoric. But as to that rhetoric, proteinwisdom mentions that lots of THAT was cribbed from Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.
SusanUnPC covered that here at NQ as well, but it bears repeating.
Read the rest->
Proteinwisdom reminds us that during Obama’s state senate tenure:
The WaPo told a similar story in March, 2008:
2) Also, at The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder looks at several recent polls and finds some trends:
*McCain does better w/repubs than Obama w/dems
*Independents are split almost evenly between McCain and Obama
*McCain’s support may not be as enthusiastic as Obama’s
*The traditional democratic issue of the economy isn’t working for Obama
*Obama is is a good position to do better.
3) John Podhoretz, discussing the disasterous Obama interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, says Obama makes mistake after mistake when off the teleprompter. While he is masterful at delivering a prepared speech with the prompter, he gets into trouble one-on-one. Think he’ll agree to any townhall debates soon?
NQ covered this same interview today in “ABC News: ‘Danger Signs’ for Obamaâ€
4) At realclearpolitics, an AP report says the DNC plans to sue to compel federal investigators to look at the McCain campaign. The DNC contends the McCain campaign violated election finance law.
Oh jeez. More election lawyering. Just what we all want. . .
5) And from the “holy crap†department: at JohnMcCain.com, they have video of the Obamoids booooing the mention of Hillary just before the Gorical bestowed his blessings on the chosen one.
Back at ya, Obamoids.
6) USAToday has a piece about the ongoing budgetary crisis at the DNC, where some events are being cut to save cash and in the hope Obama’s donors will pony up more money.
Interestingly, or not, organizers blame the long primary season for the lack of corporate enthusiasm. They say that because there was no clear nominee early enough, would-be support was tepid. Organizers also say Denver isn’t quite the corporate center as, say, Boston is.
Oooooooh. Where’s the money? If it’s Obama’s party, why doesn’t he pony up? He has been a fund raising maniac, by all accounts. Just don’t blame a long running primary or the host city for not being attractive enough. That’s just “sour grapes.â€
7) At the NY Daily News is a story about a joint fund raising event later this week where Hillary will try to persuade her donors to throw good money after a bad candidate in Obama.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at THAT fundraiser. Obama probably hopes he won’t find what he calls the usual Hillary supporters – you know – the racist, low information dead enders. Or the jerks who flash the finger as they get out their checkbooks. .
PART 2
Now here are my comments:
On a blog that’s on the UK paper,The Telephragh, they have some of their reporters here in America that contribute. They’re obviously in the bag for Obama. So I wrote the following to them as a critizism that they have totally shut down their brain.
Now if you take what I said and add it to what Larry has said.. I got a chill that went from my toe to my head…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/june08/mccainwomen.htm
On a blog that’s on the UK paper,The Telephragh, they have some of their reporters here in America that contribute. They’re obviously in the bag for Obama. So I wrote the following to them as a critizism that they have totally shut down their brain.
Now if you take what I said and add it to what Larry has said.. I got a chill that went from my toe to my head…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/june08/mccainwomen.htm
On a blog that’s on the UK paper,The Telephragh, they have some of their reporters here in America that contribute. They’re obviously in the bag for Obama. So I wrote the following to them as a critizism that they have totally shut down their brain.
Now if you take what I said and add it to what Larry has said.. I got a chill that went from my toe to my head…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/june08/mccainwomen.htm
On a blog that’s on the UK paper,The Telephragh, they have some of their reporters here in America that contribute. They’re obviously in the bag for Obama. So I wrote the following to them as a critizism that they have totally shut down their brain.
Now if you take what I said and add it to what Larry has said.. I got a chill that went from my toe to my head…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/june08/mccainwomen.htm
On a blog that’s on the UK paper,The Telephragh, they have some of their reporters here in America that contribute. They’re obviously in the bag for Obama. So I wrote the following to them as a critizism that they have totally shut down their brain.
Now if you take what I said and add it to what Larry has said.. I got a chill that went from my toe to my head…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trailmix/june08/mccainwomen.htm
On a blog that’s on the UK paper,The Telephragh, they have some of their reporters here in America that contribute. They’re obviously in the bag for Obama. So I wrote the following to them as a critizism that they have totally shut down their brain.
Now if you take what I said and add it to what Larry has said.. I got a chill that went from my toe to my head…
Use your brains people.. how could someone whose entire political history consists of associating with Nation of Islam, Marxists, Far Left Terrorists, the most corrupt politicians in Chicago/Cook County/State of Illinois, Communists, Pro-HAMAS Palestinians, Black Liberation Theology (fusion of mutant Christianity and Latin American Marxism)/Deranged Catholic Priests
and think this guy has been Mr. Hope and Change!
You’re being manipulated by masters of PR.
And you’re lapping it up.
If the United States is great now.. why does Obama keep emphasising he wants RE make it?
We’re great because we didn’t go the European way. We’re great because we explicitly REJECTED European ways. Europe is in its last throws, WW-I has started a process which has resulted in a culture that is on the road to Cultural and Demographic Suicide.
America must not be remade.
Yowzah!! Vince must be drinking the Powerized Kool-Aid, cause he’s posting bilge faster’n the pumps can pump it out.
In a closely related story, concern about women who supported Hillary Clinton abandoning the Democratic nominee in favor of McCain also appear to be unfounded, according to Quinnipiac.
Add the non-traditional states to Ohio, PA and Florida, throw in the cinch states of NY, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Wisconsin, etc and you see an electoral map with Obama far above 300 electoral votes, and McSame a blown out bias ply tire on the freeway of life.
wws…
ronald reagan had only eight years of government experience – three fewer than obama. teddy roosevelt and woodrow wilson both had thinner resumes than obama. wilson served a single two-year term as the governor of nj prior to becoming president. ultimately it is not expoerieence that is important but judgment. both mccain and hillary showed by their iraq votes that all the experience in the world means bubkis if you don’t know what to do with it.
as for liberal – that’s a judgment call. but the national journal article that the rnc uses for the talking points that propoganda sites like this repeat verbatim is very easily debunked if you take a close look.
Norm,
W. Wilson was the inventor of “Public Administration” and a disaster for the country. That is the most popular college major in France. Reagan had experience outside of government and a sound philosophy. Obama’s only experience was as a street hustler and machine politician. And his whole philosophy is “Let the lawyers or government do it.”
For Obama’s judgment, consult Ayres, Rezco, Wright, Pfleger, Michelle, and his last foreign policy speech.
Your “operator” man wants to return to the days of Jamie Gorelick and deconstruct the very tools that have kept you safe.
You sound like a man who slept through the remaking of the Middle East and haven’t awakened.
macker…
all of your claims are subjective judgments, and your hyper-partisan gutter-snipe extremism is showing. the statement made in the original post is that obama is the least experienced to run and, like much of the tripe on this site, it is factually incorrect.
the re-making of the middle-east? you must mean the strengthening of iran and it’s allies? no i haven’t been sleeping thru it. i’ve been hoping we can get to 1.20.9 and the end of this nat’l nightmare.
Norm,
Yes, my calling Wilson a disaster was partisan. I was referencing his statism. And, yes, my calling Reagan’s philosophy “sound” was partisan. I was referencing his individualism.
I stand by my comment on Obama’s experience and judgment.
Bama, in his last foreign policy talk, said 911 should have been treated as a legal, criminal matter. Any thoughts about “judgment” here?
Our historical successes in the ME may seem like a “nightmare” to you, but that is just proof that you’ve been sleeping.
Norm, we need to do more than just get to the end of the national nightmare. The criminals in the Bush Administration must be punished. Lest Macker and Vince et alii think I use the term criminal loosely, let me quote Major General Antonio Taguba’s (USA-Ret.) preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report based on medical examinations of former detainees:
No doubt that war crimes were commited by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, among others. Following WWII, German and Japanese officals were executed for less.
Bush, Cheney, and Rummy did not commit any war crimes. There are no evidence that they did. You won’t find any that will stand up in the non-activist court.
“No doubt that war crimes were committed by….” –
Throwing out stuff like that won’t gain you any respect except in the fever swamps of the Left.
The Axis leaders were not executed for less.
Maybe McCain will have an opportunity to pardon Rezco , Obama, the NYT editors, the Dem mortgage profiteers……
norm doesn’t know a thing about history. Wilson was probably the closest we got to having Fascism in this country.
Here is some info on the “Progressive Movement”.. )It doesn’t talk about Wilson)
As usually leftists only complain about what other people while standing up and speaking for nothing.
Curse of the Progressives
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/sandefur-progressives.html
by Timothy Sandefur
We live today in the world the progressives made. The administrative state they built has received vast transfusions of funds by crusading politicians from Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush, but the creature itself is a product of what Michael McGerr calls the “stunningly broad agenda” of the progressive age. “A Fierce Discontent” collects numerous examples of that agenda: from laws regulating wages and prices, to censorship, land-use planning, prohibition, and even segregation. The progressives, McGerr writes, “wanted not only to use the state to regulate the economy; strikingly, they wanted nothing less than to transform other Americans, to remake the nation’s feuding, polyglot population in their own middle-class image.”
Timothy Sandefur is a College of Public Interest Law Fellow at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Unfortunately, although McGerr brings together a wealth of sometimes shocking material showing how profoundly anti-individualist the progressives were, he somehow fails to arrive at a solid definition of the term. This undermines his larger theses. According to McGerr, progressivism, a radical and thorough attempt “to reconstruct the individual human being” and to “reshape values and behavior,” was led primarily by the middle class, which sought to impose its values on the entire society. “More inclined to socialism than they liked to admit,” writes McGerr, progressives “were radical in their conviction that other social classes must be transformed” so as to conform to a middle-class vision of the proper order.
There are two primary problems with this interpretation. It does not tell us what that “proper order” was, and it is inconsistent with the elitism of the progressives themselves. Unlike populism — the movement that foreshadowed the progressive age — progressivism was led primarily by intellectuals; by people like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, and many other names that would re-emerge in Franklin Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust.” While it is easy to describe the “values” of progressives as middle class, a more precise definition would include its overriding hostility to individualism and the dynamic society that it created. Progressivism was a technocratic movement that sought to organize progress along tracks that the intelligentsia thought were the right ones.
This would require a genuine revolution of American society. Inequalities of wealth or condition were the result, said socialists, of a society based on corrupt notions of justice inherited by capitalists. Marx wrote that:
While it is easy to describe the “values” of progressivism as middle class, a more precise definition would include its overriding hostility to individualism and the dynamic society that it created.
“[I]n the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will. . . . The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. . . . It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”
In other words, transactions between actors in society are so influenced by mores or other social influences that the law inevitably institutionalizes inequalities. When trans-actions are later made according to these laws, the transactions are tainted by this inequality, and these become precedents for further transactions, Êad infinitum.
Thus even a consensual transaction today cannot be said to reflect an objective, nonpolitical meeting of the minds between buyers and sellers, because it is permeated by social influences which “determine” the parties’ “consciousness.” The mores of individualism, of working for what one gets and then being free to keep it, were among these influences, and to eradicate them meant transforming morality as well as politics.
For instance, McGerr notes that the progressivist Walter Rauschenbusch “emphasized the fundamental importance of transforming individual human beings.” He quotes Rauschenbusch: “The greatest contribution which any man can make to the social movement is the contribution of a regenerated personality. . . . Such a man will in some measure incarnate the principles of a higher social order in his attitude to all questions and in all his relations to man, and will be a wellspring of regenerating influences.”
In 1900, such a far-reaching assault on individualism was much more radical than today. Its leaders, therefore, advertised their campaign in terms their target audience would accept: moral uplift; protecting the weak; helping the poor; serving your fellow man. This packaging attracted the middle-class audience, raised on Victorian moralism; Mencken said that Woodrow Wilson spoke to voters in “vague and comforting words — words cast into phrases made familiar by the whooping for their customary political and ecclesiastical rabble-rousers. . . . ” The union of government and altruism — what came to be called the “Social Gospel” — was born. This explains the apparently middle-class origins of progressivism. But the product itself was — as with all socialist movements — built by elites and sold to the people, not the other way around. Despite their frequent invocation of democracy, the progressives were quite un-democratic; their state would be a democracy programmed and operated by experts. John Dewey, for instance, insisted that “the cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy,” but he defined democracy as “that form of social organization, extending to all the areas and ways of living, in which the powers of individuals shall . . . be fed, sustained and directed.” Directed by whom? By Dewey, of course.
The progressives’ moral relativism gave the illusion of democratic values because of its majoritarian style. But in fact, it set the standard of justice as The Rule of the Stronger, whoever that rulemaker might be.
Progressivism transformed democracy from rule by the people into rule by a government elite in the name of the people. As McGerr writes, “In 1908, the Democratic platform demanded, ‘Shall the People Rule . . . ?’ It was a deceptively simple question. Who were ‘the people’ . . . ? It was not obvious at all.” Indeed, “the people,” as used by collectivists, has always meant the rulers, who claim that being controlled by the state is in “the people’s” interest, whether they like it or not. Even the socialist historian Eric Foner criticizes the progressives for being overly confident “that the state could be counted upon to act as a disinterested arbiter of the nation’s social and economic purposes.” But when their bureaucracy failed to reach this unreachable star, the progressives’ only solution was to further insulate the bureaucracy from public influence. The result of this was a state that was less democratic, not more. As their pursuit of “rational,” disinterested economic planning increased, so too did the exclusion of the voices of the people, who seemed always, to the progressives, to be tainted with “partisan” interests.
Consider also the many exclusionary programs created by the progressives — programs which show that not everybody counted as “the people,” notwithstanding the progressives’ “pull-together” rhetoric. When Theodore Roosevelt said he had to “stop the influx of cheap labor, and the resulting competition which gives rise to so much bitterness in American industrial life,” he was explicitly excluding a vast group of the world’s population from achieving the prosperity and “more abundant life” that the progressives invoked as their aim. In this case, organized labor was “the people,” not the Chinese immigrants.
Legal segregation was another progressive “solution.” The late 19th century saw a rash of lynching throughout the nation — in some years, more than one every other day. “The solution,” McGerr writes, “was a dramatic intensification and codification of segregation. . . . Through differing mixtures of law and custom, every Southern town, city, county, and state tried to achieve two goals: first, to send an unmistakable message of racial inequality that would intimidate blacks and reassure whites: second, to deprive blacks of so much economic and political opportunity that they could never threaten white power.”
In short, the progressives failed to solve the problem they created, which Richard Hofstadter describes as “whether it is possible in modern society to find satisfactory ways of realizing the ideal of popular government without becoming dependent to an unhealthy degree upon those who have the means to influence the popular mind.” They failed because this task is impossible — and because whose influence is “unhealthy” depends entirely on whom you ask. Like all government intervention, progressive “solutions” were subject to the public-choice effect. As government becomes more powerful, as it redistributes more resources to favored groups, the incentives for lobbying increase. Government power then falls into the hands, not of the most deserving, but of the most politically adept. Since the 1900s, political innovations intended to put “the people” in charge have sooner or later been taken over by political elites. And every year’s crop of candidates speechifies that this time, they really will eliminate the “special interests,” and empower “the people” to rule through a new menu of agencies and bureaus.
But progressives had also destroyed their only hope of rescue from government-by-faction when they attacked the concept of natural justice. Progressive political theory laughed at the idea that human beings were naturally free, or that political principles preceded the state. Instead, since “social being determines consciousness,” justice could be chosen a priori and imposed by government: a society was “unjust” if it differed from some preconceived idea of the “good society.” And without any pre-political standard of justice, those shaping society (on behalf of “the people”) were free to choose any standard they wished, and once written into law, it became, ipso facto, justice. The progressives’ moral relativism gave the illusion of democratic values because of its majoritarian style. But in fact, it set the standard of justice as The Rule of The Stronger, whoever that rulemaker might be. This is how progressives justified violating individual rights in the name of “democracy,” even though previous generations had understood that democracy could never legitimately violate individual rights. For Justice Holmes, it was a oxymoron to say that a law was unjust — it was “like shaking one’s fist at the sky,” because “the U.S. is not subject to some mystic overlaw that it is bound to obey.” But without a pre-political standard of right and wrong, how could progressives complain when government was taken over by “special interests”? Moral relativism undermined their appeals to democracy, therefore, even as it enshrined the absolute rule of the majority.
Even rituals like the Pledge of Allegiance — a progressive invention for inculcating national obedience — remain today.
Imposing preconceived standards of justice on society meant a lot of cutting and stretching, and thus progressives saw World War I as “a special opportunity for reform, a chance to promote their agenda at point after point.”
“In particular, the need to raise an army, stimulate the production of food and war materials, and ensure loyalty would require an activist state. ‘Laissez-faire is dead,’ declared a reformer. ‘Long live social control. . . . ‘ The activist state would surely cripple the progressives’ old enemy, individualism. ‘War necessitates organization, system, routine, and discipline,’ observed the journalist Frederick Lewis Allen. ‘We shall have to give up much of our economic freedom. . . . We shall have to lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step. . . .’ Full of “social possibilities,’ the war, John Dewey suggested, would constrain ‘the individualistic tradition’ and teach ‘the supremacy of public need over private possessions.”
Nothing quite that serious came from the progressive era. But it made serious inroads on the political and moral independence of Americans. The notions that government should push society into a more “just” form; that disinterested “experts” could run society the “right” way, without being swayed into evil by the wiles of lobbyists; that it is “cynical” or “nihilistic” to argue that government should confine itself to more mundane tasks; that natural justice or natural rights are superstitions; that the personality is the result of environment — all of these have remained. More subtle forms of progressive control have remained also: the state monopoly on education, for example. Henry Adams said that “all state education is a sort of dynamo machine for polarizing the popular mind; for turning and holding its lines of force in the direction supposed to be most effective for state purposes.” Dewey and other progressives openly embraced this justification, and when educrats today criticize homeschoolers for failing to “socialize” their kids, they are simply reverting to the language of their progressive forebears. Even rituals like the Pledge of Allegiance — a progressive invention for inculcating national obedience — remain today, and are defended even by conservatives otherwise hostile to the progressive movement.
These all indicate the final failure of McGerr’s otherwise very interesting book: he imagines that the progressive era is over. The election of Calvin Coolidge, on an explicitly individualistic platform, ended the progressive dream, writes McGerr. “Reformers,” he says, “had to sit back and watch the Republican administrations of Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover pursue a politics of individualism and laissez-faire.” Yet he admits that “the nation would not abandon progressivism and its ideas completely,” and that Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and other presidents pursued progressive goals and employed progressive methods. What could possibly distinguish the New Deal or the Great Society from progressivism? For McGerr, the difference is that while the latter:
“knew, better than the old progressives, how much the people were eager for Washington to help ensure their prosperity . . . [they also] realized that most Americans wanted to be left free to pursue pleasure, to indulge in the individual gratification of consumerism. The task of government was to make sure Americans could afford pleasure, and then get out of the way.
This is true, but a better explanation is that welfare statists since the 1930s represent, not the repudiation of progressivism, but just new turns in the public-choice effect that the progressives set in motion. The vast bureaucracy they created is conquered by one pressure group after another — prohibitionists, the “war on poverty” crowd, corporate powers, social conservatives, and back again. The post-progressive age has not given up on the progressives’ “ambitious” work; it has simply shifted from one collective fad to the next, employing the government in a host of sometimes absurd and contradictory reform agendas, each announced in the next State of the Union address.
McGerr’s book brings together hundreds of useful examples which reveal the darkness of this political vision. Unfortunately, he fails to follow the stream to its philosophical headwaters of collectivism, moral relativism, and elitism. Doing so would be a mighty task, but it would help to make the case against the chaotic power lust of the modern progressive state.
McCain says wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) – Republican John McCain would put the United States on course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 if elected president, the Arizona senator said on Wednesday.
McCain, his party’s presumptive nominee in this fall’s presidential election, is laying out his plan to make the country energy independent.
“If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America,†he said
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00921120080618?feedType=nl&feedName=ustopnewsevening
Macker, you drooling idiot, its not just me that says Bush is a war criminal. The Maj. Gen. in the United States Army who investigated Abu Ghraib has said, in writing and on the record:
The cowardly criminal you so slavishly worship is going down. Obama will be elected, and Bush will be prosecuted.