Republicans decry Obama campaign video

[Red Arrow]

Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans.

Depends on the policy and what part of the country you are in.

The right wing's demonization of the term "liberal" has had quite a significant effect.

Care to explain why the left wing's demonization of "conservative" hasn't been as successful?  It's NOT all FOX News.  This has been going on for more than the 15 years FOX news has been on the air/cable.  (I think it's their 15th anniversary they just celebrated.)

[nathanm]

Care to explain why the left wing's demonization of "conservative" hasn't been as successful?  It's NOT all FOX News.  This has been going on for more than the 15 years FOX news has been on the air/cable.  (I think it's their 15th anniversary they just celebrated.)

Probably because the "mainstream" Democrats have been moving in that direction for 25 years now. Why would they demonize the ideology they are moving toward? It makes no sense. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but I don't really feel like getting deep into our nation's change from having a market economy to a market society and how it relates to the historical left/right divide at the moment.

[Red Arrow]

Probably because the "mainstream" Democrats have been moving in that direction for 25 years now. Why would they demonize the ideology they are moving toward? It makes no sense.

So basically, "Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans." is a bunch of hooey.

[Hoss]

So basically, "Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans." is a bunch of hooey.

Which nearly every politician right now is full of.

But the wacko righties seem to have it down pat.

[nathanm]

So basically, "Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans." is a bunch of hooey.

No. The electorate supports many "leftist" policies as long as you don't call them "liberal." The elected, on the other hand, have been moving rightward. Or more correctly, they've been moving toward the philosophy shared with Republicans that we should have a market society, not merely a market economy. The electorate does not believe everything should be for sale. Our "betters", in both parties, disagree.

That's not to say that the parties are identical, by any means, but on that one point there is little contention in mainstream US political thought.

[Red Arrow]

No. The electorate supports many "leftist" policies as long as you don't call them "liberal."

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The electorate agrees with many centrist policies, which may seem leftist to some, but the electorate is not as left or liberal as many left of center would like.  I expect we will have to disagree on this one.

[Red Arrow]

Which nearly every politician right now is full of.
But the wacko righties seem to have it down pat.

The wacko righties are like teenage terrible drivers, just enough to skew the statistics.

[nathanm]

The wacko righties are like teenage terrible drivers, just enough to skew the statistics.

The wacko righties make up nearly half of the Republican electorate in polling.

[Red Arrow]

The wacko righties make up nearly half of the Republican electorate in polling.

Depends on where you draw the wacko line.  You seem to draw it anywhere to the right of Obama.

[Hoss]

The wacko righties make up nearly half of the Republican electorate in polling.

When I say 'wacko righties', I mean those who sort of fall under the Santorum way of thinking.  No birth control, etc, etc....I wouldn't consider Boehner a 'wacko'.  A little bronze, maybe...

[guido911]

This year is going to suck. The left is pissed off because Romney didn't slap down a question about Obama and "treason"? Sheesh...

[Townsend]

This year is going to suck. The left is pissed off because Romney didn't slap down a question about Obama and "treason"? Sheesh...

He should slap her down because she probably doesn't vote.

[guido911]

He should slap her down because she probably doesn't vote.

That's more like it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The electorate agrees with many centrist policies, which may seem leftist to some, but the electorate is not as left or liberal as many left of center would like.  I expect we will have to disagree on this one.

Which shows how far right the hijacked Republican party has been able to pull the country.

And why Obama is a Republican and Reagan was a moderate.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are over simplifying or in denial of what an acceptable alternative is.  Someone here (I don't remember who at the moment.) poo-pooed the concept of looking at a candidate's philosophy as opposed to what they have/will accomplish.  I think a candidate's philosophy is still important.  If enough candidates with a like philosophy get elected, it creates a majority and their philosophy becomes law within some limits.  I believe there are a significant number of Republicans that would rather tolerate a bit of right-wing philosophy than tolerate liberal philosophy.  I will admit there are several in the OK legislature that need to be voted out just to make sure we don't get more "Personhood" type bills.  As I told Heiron, give us some acceptable alternatives, acceptable to Republicans.

You are focusing on the media presentation.  That is only part of what I had in mind.
In order to show this, words become unacceptable or otherwise politically incorrect.  Other words are chosen to take their place until they too become unacceptable as they develop the same derogatory connotations the old words did because the new words did not fix the underlying problem.

Looking at philosophy should be an indicator of what may be possible to accomplish.  And yet, so often, isn't.  The biggest part of the problem is the absolute disconnect between stated philosophy and actions performed and accomplished.

You have been shown a very acceptable list of alternatives (and I personally have even expressed approval of Tom Coburn, even with his right wing leanings - proving my abilitiy to support an acceptable alternative, even if I don't agree with all of it).  The problem is that you have absorbed so much of the Kool-Aid that you cannot accept that there are exceptional alternatives to the one in particular (Inhofe), and that inability to retreat from the extremist position even an inch shows that it is NOT about acceptable alternatives, but IS about the dogma.  In this case, no matter how much extra money Inhofe has cost the taxpayers with his past grafty actions, his vicious lies and unjust/untrue attacks on opponents (that right there is called evil - or politics...), and no matter how ineffective he was for SO many years representing the voters of this state (couldn't even get a committee appointment for his first few terms as representative), as long as he gives the philosophical lip service, the actions/results just don't matter.  As so many Oklahomans believe and vote.

Nothing but the extremist position would be "good" enough.  How sad...

Dan Boren.  Would make a very good Senator to complement Coburn.