Posted on 09/07/2012 3:55:40 PM PDT by Kaslin
Back in 2008, during the peak illusory powers of Barack Obama as the post-partisan hopester-and-changer, the media consistently failed to report that the statist beliefs of the Democratic presidential nominee came straight from the socialist playbook. In many cases, the media probably didn't realize it themselves.
At the same time, though, there was, and is, a feeling that such labeling is taboo. Even after an October surprise of a question from "Joe the Plumber" prompted Candidate Obama to reveal his inner redistributionist -- "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told "Joe" in 2008 -- the S-word was verboten.
I took issue with this taboo at the time, and even got called a "Red baiter" on national TV for asking whether Barack Obama would take the country "in a socialist direction."
The answer, of course, was yes: The state is more involved in our economy and lives than ever before, and not just because of Obamacare, which, of course, is a handy moniker for socialized medicine.
To be fair, the socialist direction is in no way a new direction for our country, which has, with only occasional pauses, been moving that way since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and his revolutionary socialist program, which we know, folksily, as the New Deal.
Even under Ronald Reagan, the federal government grew 3 percent. Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, is aptly described as a "corporate socialist Republican," as Michelle Malkin has long chronicled. Bush's saving grace for conservatives may be his signature tax cuts, but his political epitaph remains his socialistically twisted rationale for his "stimulus" plan known as TARP: "I abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."
Truth be told, for 80 years the debate in Washington between Democrats and Republicans has turned on how much government should run our lives, not whether government should run our lives in the first place.
Lately, that seems to be changing. Probably despite their better focus-group-driven judgment, the presidential candidates and the political parties they lead have suddenly emerged from the fuzz of euphemism to inject a rare clarity into election rhetoric.
Democrats believe: "The government is the only thing we all belong to." That's the bottom line of a video presentation at the Democratic National Convention this week. Republicans believe: "We don't belong to the government, the government belongs to us." That's the tweeted response to the Democrats' message by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
For two campaigns that try to avoid the terminology of ideology and philosophy -- as is usual in modern politics -- it doesn't get any clearer, any more "polarizing," than this. And that's a good thing. It divides the two political camps according to their distinguishing ideals: the idealization of state power (Democrats) vs. the idealization of individual rights (Republicans). It's statism vs. liberty.
Democrat keynote speaker Julian Castro, mayor of San Antonio, helped highlight the chasm separating the two parties when he referred to the individual success stories that were showcased at the Republican convention last week. "We all celebrate individual success," Castro said. "But the question is, how do we multiply that success? The answer is President Barack Obama."
For Democrats in the 21st century, the answer to everything is the state. Take the life stories Democrat convention speakers tell, particularly the immigrant success stories, which so many Americans -- even Republicans! -- can invoke. In the Democratic version, modest beginnings are emphasized (the more squalid the details, the better), and the American tradition of upward mobility is catalyzed by a government program and ultimately defined by winning or securing government office. The Democrats' message seems to be: If you work hard and vote Democrat, you can end up in government office, too!
The contrast to the Republican message couldn't be starker. In his "empty chair" monologue, which brilliantly crystallized GOP principles in 10 short minutes, Clint Eastwood put it this way: "I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that is very important. It is that you, we -- we own this country. We -- we own it. Politicians are employees of ours."
Soon, Americans will choose the country's political fate, which, particularly this time around, is also our own role in the future: subjects or citizens? For once, the choice couldn't be clearer.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Without a gun to my head, neither Humphrey nor Stalin. I may have come closer to thinking there is a gun to my head in the last couple days, but I am not there yet.
It would be a vote for a more gradual slide into socialism, perhaps. I’ll vote for Republicans for the House.
The one who killed less people.
Do you think Governor Mitt Romney hates this country? Barack Obama does! Do you think Mitt Romney detests capitalism, the same capitalism that earned him $300 Million or more? Barack Obama does! Do you believe that Mitt Romney would stop Israel from defending itself or stand aside while Israel is destroyed? Barack Hussein Obama would! Do you think that Mitt Romney would raise taxes and impose more red tape and restrictions on job creators, thus stalling the economy? Barack Obama already has. Do you feel that Mitt Romney wants to destroy the oil, coal and gas industries in the USA, thus putting us in the thrall of Islamic potentates who wish us to become Muslims? Barack Hussein Obama is well on the way to doing so. I could go on for hours. I’ve never had any love for Governor Romney, but when the choice comes down to either him or Barack Hussein Obama, a man dead-set on destroying my country, the country of my birth and whose uniform I proudly wore, there is no contest. And that is the choice. No third party or write-in candidate is going to be sworn in next January. As a fellow veteran, I humbly request that you thoughtfully and prayerfully consider your position vis a vis the coming election and do what reason and faith tells you is the right thing for the United States of America. Thank you.
West said a forbidden word. Socialism. As the dumbass news media would tell us, Obama’s just a regular guy, not a socialist.
After Johnson, I didn't vote again until "The Gipper" came along
In 04 I voted "against" the POS, snake, John Kerry and in 08 against Barack Obama as I realized both W and Juan McPain were flaming RINO's, but yet, could not sit those out.
So, I guess I can do it one more time and vote against (while holding my nose) Barack, Barry, Hussein, Soetoro, Obama in order to try and deny this fascist, commie, Rat-Basturd from getting a 2nd chance to destroy our country.
Hubert Humphrey would be a mainstream Republican today. Just sayin’.
To call Romney a socialist is like calling Obama a freedom loving American.
Romney is a poster child of accomplishments in a free county — he started a business and succeeded. Since when is that considered socialist, except in some minds, totally fogged up with hate against Romney, to the extent of even willing to see Obama get a second term, leading to the REAL destruction of the entire country and the spirit of freedom.
Let me fix that....
A Vote For Romney is a Vote Against Communism and a Vote For Socialism
It’s just a jump to the left! And then a step to the right! Put your hands on your hips and move your knees in tight!
Here's praying that it never ever comes to such straits.
Sometimes, you just have to hold your nose and vote for the nominee. I have done so myself and as it had turned out not regretted it. Ronald Reagan was the first President I voted for and I have only voted for Republicans. I absolutely refuse to vote for a candidate of the rat party
Do you have a caller ID? I just don’t answer calls from numbers I do not recognize. It’s as simple as that
And until freedom loving voters change their voting patterns, this will never change for the better, only the worse.
Ultimately the fault lies with us. We've been voting to stay on the slow road to socialism because we attack those who vote to get off. This particular road to serfdom is lined with the same sign over and over: “Just one more compromise.” The slow road or fast road doesn't matter, the destination is the same.
Hubert Humphrey would probably be a Fred Thompson/Newt Gingrich type Republican today.
“Well, a vote for slightly less rampant socialism anyway”
Exactly.
Romney ain’t no Reagan.
There is now overt socialism, the-cat-is-out-of-the-beg move of the Dem’s, and then there is the under-the-radar covert socialism that Romney embodies.
Like some have posted “I’m voting for Paul Ryan....and the other guy”.
I’m thinking past Romney.
Oh, and Romneybot’s, you had better hold your man to conservative NON-SOCIALIST values.....or there is hell-to-pay at FR.
I wouldn’t go that far. But a cross between Lisa Murkowski and Joe Lieberman? Yes.
Still far to the right of Barack Obama and his cohorts.
“Do you have a caller ID? “
Does your caller ID also stop the phone from ringing? Mine doesn’t.
“Hubert Humphrey would be a mainstream Republican today. “
FDR would be a mainstream Republican today and so would LBJ, the “G*d Damned Democrat!” It is sad to see the party sink so low toward Communism as to nominate an extreme left-wing liberal like Romney all in the name of defeating another extreme left-winger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.