Not that it matters whether or not Barack has sense enough to demand his volunteers not display such communistic paraphernalia, since his candidacy is a veritable Liberal tsunami, but if people can support a man who has yet to seriously discuss the details of his message of hope and change, they're not going to care one whit about this.
From the ad:
"Che Guevara may be fashionable among the nation's leftist college students, but it was Guevara who was "supreme prosecutor" during the show trials after Fidel Castro seized power, overseeing the execution of countless people. Cuba is also still under a U.S. embargo and, last time we checked, is still a Communist dictatorship, despite the fact that Fidel Castro just resigned and may be an ideal pick for the better half of Obama's ticket. Seems the Obama campaign is trying to communicate an idea, even if the candidate himself appears bereft of them."
Way to go, Barack! No empathy for the unborn! Plenty for communist murders! Hail to the Chief! Viva la Estados Unidos!!!
Buy the shirt here.
Guaranteed to make Michelle Obama proud to be an American
-----
[For the Language Impaired, this post is an exercise in sarcasm, and a disdain for Liberal hypocrisy]
6 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You mean executions of the war criminals in Mexico under employ of the U.S. government and its puppet at the time. Is that what you're talking about?
Don't they have a "he needed killin'" defense in Georgia anymore (Or Alabama? I can never remember which Dothan you're in).
Oh, and "communist" is not "socialist" -- and you will not deter many of Obama's supporters by throwing that word around. I got a couple of pure socialist streaks in me, myself.
BTW, I know you're just gettin' warmed up for the general election. I encoruage you to continue on. If you're this panicked and shrill now, you'll be a real farcical mess by summer.
Actually this post is fairly decent advertising to anyone except the extreme right wings of politics and religion in this country -- and winnin' y'all over was never a remote possibility. Since any press is good press, in general, TELL US MORE ABOUT WHY YOU THINK OBAMA IS A BAD, BAD MAN. 'Cause if you think so, then I know it's so extreme for me not to be too concerned with it.
But seriously, what do expect will happen? Worst case?
Do you think we'll become a socialist country? Do you think that terrorists will invade our schools? That abortions will rise in numbers? I keep seeing fearful but vague predictions of the "horrors" of a Clinton or Obama presidency, I'm just wondering what you're fearful will happen.
If all of this sounds a little familiar, it's because in 2004, National Journal named John Kerry the most liberal senator of 2004 (John Edwards was fourth), which became one of the principal talking points of the Bush-Cheney campaign, repeated at literally every campaign rally for months.
Already, this is getting plenty of play, and for all I know, this might even help Obama in the primaries, because there are plenty of liberal Democrats out there who want some reassurance that Obama really does stand with them.
But before anyone takes the National Journal rankings at face value, it's worth noting how very flawed the methodology is. Indeed, it was misleading in 2004, and it's equally misleading now.
Taking a closer look at this year's results, Obama and Joe Biden were both considered more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders. This, alone, should make one wonder about the reliability of the rankings.
Better yet, National Journal's press release on the rankings noted the criteria was based on 99 key roll-call votes last year: "Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes." So, Clinton voted for the liberal position 77 times, Obama voted for it 65 times, which makes Obama the chamber's single most liberal member. Got it.
What's more, Obama was the 16th most liberal senator in 2005, and the 10th most liberal in 2006, before racing to the front of the pack in 2007. National Journal suggests this has something to do with Obama moving to the left to curry favor with Democratic primary voters.
But there's a more logical explanation: Obama missed a whole lot of votes in 2007 -- he's been on the campaign trail -- but was on the floor for many of the biggest, most consequential votes. In nearly every instance, he voted with the party. And with that, voila! The most liberal senator in America.
Except that's not much of a standard. The rankings use an amorphous meaning of the word "liberal," and the percentage doesn't take missed votes into account at all (which also helps explain why Kerry nabbed the top spot four years ago).
The Congressional Journal ranks Obama as number 9 and Hillary Clinton as number 11.
Your exerpt is irrelevant. These guys get ranked every year by various groups and with their own criteria for what is the most lib or conservative. That Obama jumped up to first is no big deal, only a reflection of activity while in office. And by the way, I believe 65 out of 66 is a higher percentage than 77 of 82 so he gets the more lefty prize. But the space between he and Hillary is never depicted as wide.