The 'Obamican' Phenomenon

In early April I visited the political battleground of suburban Philadelphia to interview a bunch of former Republicans who'd registered as Democrats to vote for Barack Obama in the April 22 primary. These interviews formed the basis of my latest Nation article, "Pennsylvania's 'Obamicans.'"

The story is largely set in Doylestown, one of Philly's oldest and most picturesque exurbs. It's a swing town in a swing area in a crucial swing state. As such, the political trends in Doylestown and the rest of Bucks County are pretty indicative of what's going on throughout Pennsylvania and the rest of the country.

The article is subscription-only on our website (so become a subscriber!), but I'm posting an edited excerpt below for the loyal readers of this blog.

Doylestown, like much of Bucks County, used to be deeply, proudly, Republican. "In my youth, in central Bucks County, I grew up without knowing any Democrats," James Michener wrote in Report of the County Chairman, his account of volunteering for John F. Kennedy in 1960. "My mother thought there might be some on the edge of town, but she preferred not to speak of them." Things began to change in 1992, when the recession that year pushed Bucks County toward Bill Clinton. In the following years, as the GOP increasingly became identified with the religious right, the county voted for Democrats for President. Yet until recently, Republicans controlled all the levers of local government.

A surge of Democratic activism in the past few years has turned Doylestown, and much of the county, from red to purple--and quite possibly to blue. In 2003 Republicans dominated the borough council 9-0; now it's 6-3 Democratic. After sending Republicans to Congress in every election since 1993, in 2006 Bucks County's 8th Congressional District elected Democrat Patrick Murphy, a 34-year-old Iraq War vet. In January there were 21,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in Bucks. By early April, thanks to a massive voter-registration drive, Democrats outnumbered Republicans for the first time since 1978, when Democrats briefly held sway after Watergate.

What's happening in Bucks mirrors trends throughout Pennsylvania, where the state Democratic Party has added a remarkable 300,000 voters since January. Nearly half of these Democrats, according to the state board of elections, are new or previously unregistered voters lured by the excitement of the Clinton-Obama race. The other half are former Republicans and independents who switched to vote in the Democratic primary, mostly for Obama. Before the March 24 registration deadline (only registered Democrats may vote in the April 22 primary), the Obama campaign made an all-out effort to convert disaffected Republicans, otherwise known as "Obamicans."

In Bucks County there are "regular Obamicans"--former Republicans who volunteer only occasionally for Obama, if at all--and "super-volunteer Obamicans," Yeager tells me, half-jokingly. Christine Harrison, a peppy former travel agent who dates her ancestry back to President Benjamin Harrison, is a super-volunteer Obamican. Raised in a family of lifelong Republicans, Harrison has never in her life voted for a Democrat. But after watching the Democratic debates and Obama's victory speech in Iowa, she caught the Obama bug. Harrison attended the opening of his office in Doylestown, the Friday before Super Tuesday, and met Peachy Myers, an energetic veteran of Obama's South Carolina field team, who asked her to volunteer. "I told her I'm a Republican and she said, That's OK," Harrison recalls. "So I said, Well, let me be your very first Obamican! And I changed my registration right there." Harrison's now a volunteer coordinator for Obama, spending all her waking hours helping to get a Democrat elected President. Ten members of Harrison's all-Republican family have since changed their affiliation--all for Obama.

Victor Unger, an 80-year-old retired research director for a chemical company, is more of a regular Obamican. Unger has been a Republican since he moved to Bucks County in 1968. Almost two years ago Unger and his wife, a Democrat, heard Obama speak about his book The Audacity of Hope. Unger read both of Obama's books and "was really impressed by his intellect." "He's running at the right time in our history," he says. Unger changed his registration in March and began occasionally stopping by the Obama office to help out where needed.

It seems like every prominent Democrat in Bucks used to be a Republican--or is married to one. Congressman Patrick Murphy's wife, Jennifer, a 33-year-old lawyer, is another lifelong Republican. "Every time I went to the polls I saw a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot, and I voted for a Bush or against Clinton every time," Murphy says. Her husband was the first Democrat Murphy ever voted for, and Obama will be the second.

Like many Republicans in Bucks County, Murphy describes herself as fiscally conservative and socially moderate. "I still, for the most part, consider myself a Republican," she says, and inverts Ronald Reagan's famous maxim: "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party and this President left me." Disaffected Republicans in Bucks, furious at how George W. Bush and the religious right hijacked their grand old party, are voting Democratic in the primary out of frustration, not because Rush Limbaugh told them to. The quagmire in Iraq and the downturn in the economy matter to these voters, but so do issues of personal freedom, like reproductive rights, technological advances like stem-cell research and protecting the environment--all neglected or opposed by the current GOP.

Many of these Obamicans are voting as much against the Clintons as for Obama. "I hate the Clintons," Harrison told me point-blank. "I find Bill fairly reprehensible," Unger said, "and have overwhelmingly negative feelings toward Hillary." Many Obamicans, these included, said they'd vote for John McCain in the general election if Clinton was the Democratic nominee, or wouldn't vote at all. Harrison said all ten members of her family would switch back to the GOP.

Obama's Republican supporters see in him what Bush promised to be in 2000: a great uniter. "He doesn't see me as a sworn mortal enemy because I'm a Republican," Jennifer Murphy says. Clinton and Obama may be virtually indistinguishable liberals on most policy positions, but Obamicans see their man as a kindred spirit, someone who will--as his campaign often reminds us--bring people together and bridge the partisan divide.

What's striking--and a little disturbing--about the Obamican phenomenon in '08 is how much it rests not so much on specific issues but on the candidate's personal characteristics and calls to transcend race and achieve political unity. Will these same voters still support him when Obama tries to withdraw from Iraq, or pass universal healthcare, or raise taxes on the rich, or push for any number of policy programs that are likely to anger many core Republicans? The Obamicans could turn out to be just another passing political fad. After all, conservative columnists like David Brooks and George Will heaped praise on Obama early in the campaign season, only to turn against him later. In a general election, McCain--with his maverick reputation, however dated or inaccurate--could stop the bleeding in places like Bucks County, keeping the remaining moderate Republicans in the GOP fold.

Obama is expected to do well in Philadelphia and its suburbs, but he faces an uphill climb in the rest of the state. Yet if he can go on to win the nomination and keep his Republican converts in the Democratic column come November, and beyond, he may achieve what no President since Reagan has--an enduring realignment of crossover voters.

Comments (88)

1. Stand-by for HAPPY and the ditto-heads to "explain" how you've been "duped", Mr Berman...and how it's all part of El Rushbo's "Operation: Chaos" and that few, if ANY Republicans are "really" switching to Democrat and how they'll all vote "Bush-44" (aka McCain) come November.

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 1:17pm

2. "Grrrrr....arrrghhh.... "Demoncrats"....mnnnhhharr...rrrarllrgarl...."Alibama".....mrrrghhhhrr.. ...dddrrraaggglll.... "secular regressives".....mmarrrrrh.... grrrrrrrrrr...... slather...drool.... "Hillary Rotten (Satan's favorite daughter)..... grrrrrrrrr.....arrrggghhhh.... "I'm an independent!"-----Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/18/2008 @ 1:16pm

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 1:18pm

3. The Big Q: what will Obama then DO with this historic realignment that appears to be in the making? Destroy, as Reagan & his successors have? Or build anew. W&Co are leaving sufficient burdens to make rebuilding extremely difficult. Billary certainly haven't been offering renewal.

   Posted by sloper at 04/18/2008 @ 1:22pm

4. Posted by SLOPER 04/18/2008 @ 1:22pm

   Remember the other parallel to Reagan....Obama would be coming on the heels of a President who's given us "stagflation"... as well as "American personnel bogged down in the Middle East as pawns of a Shiite government"!

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 1:35pm

5. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2008 @ 1:34pm

   Aren't you supposed to say "Amen" after a prayer?!??!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 1:36pm

6. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 1:43pm

   Yes, Darin, 'cuz I'm sure the average American voter is going to wait on the "official definition" of a recession to come before deciding how to vote on Nov. 4th.

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 1:51pm

7. And I can see some slight differences between winning the war in Iraq and sitting with your thumb up your ass for a year and a half while our embassy personnel are held hostage.---Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 1:43pm

   Yes there is.

   Of course, that presumes we're "winning in Iraq", doesn't it?

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 1:52pm

8. right Forrest!

   Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/18/2008 @ 1:16pm

   alas.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 2:27pm

9. Posted by MASK

   happy's already given obama 1/3 of a vote as he voted for him in the texas primary.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 2:28pm

10. The Big Q: what will Obama then DO with this historic realignment that appears to be in the making?

    Posted by SLOPER 04/18/2008 @ 1:22pm

    pay interest on interest on interest.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 2:29pm

11. Posted by MASK 04/18/2008 @ 1:35pm

    egad! it's

    (are you familiar with middle eastern rodents?

    http://www.mammalogy.org/mil_images/images/mid/1248.jpg)

    great gerbil day all over again.!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 2:37pm

12. Posted by MASK 04/18/2008 @ 1:36pm

    more like "ah maaaannn"

    < pout off/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 2:38pm

13. If so, we'll be having sex with other people's spouse in no time, all over the country.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 1:37pm

    i'm e-mailing that to your wife.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 2:39pm

14. thumb up your ass for a year and a half

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 1:43pm

    wouldn't nail growth become a problem?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 2:41pm

15. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 2:37pm

    No doubt noting the rodent's Latin name..."Rhombomy OPIMUS!"

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 2:41pm

16. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 1:37pm

    Dogs and cats, living together...Mass hysteria!

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 2:42pm

17. opimus sub prime.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 3:06pm

18. In Calabria, it is said that "when it rains with sun, the foxes are getting married."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 3:08pm

19. I guess the only thing that would be more convincing is if you were talking to swingers. If so, we'll be having sex with other people's spouse in no time, all over the country.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 1:37pm

    I am looking forward to that!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/18/2008 @ 3:39pm

20. Hey Mask, You need two quarters of decline to qualify as a recession. Q4 07 was positive so the earliest a recession can be called would be in Q3 if Q1 and Q2 turn out to be negative.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 1:43pm

    we've been in a recession for a while:

    http://www.shadowstats.com/

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/18/2008 @ 3:41pm

21. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 04/18/2008 @ 3:41pm

    No, no, no, ILP. You know as well as I do that the official definition of a recession is "something that happens AFTER George W. Bush leaves office"....or if it does happen before that, then "Presidents have no control over the economy....except when times were 'good'...and then Bush gets credit!"

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 4:00pm

22. William Greider -- The Nation -- 5 November, 2007: '...Bill Clinton delivered his "New Democrat" party, accompanied by lots of happy talk about magic words like "synergy" and how "modernization" would create a more stable (and profitable) financial system. It did the latter, for sure, but not the former.

    Actually, the combination of insurance, investment banking and old-line commercial banks multiplied the conflicts of interest within banks, despite so-called "firewalls" supposed to keep these activities separate. Much like Enron, placing some deals in off-balance sheet entities did not insulate Citigroup from the losses in its swollen subprime housing lending. The bank has so far written off something like $15 billion and more to come.

    Think of Citigroup's rise and fall as another high-water mark for the conservative order. Like Social Security reform, it looked like a sure thing in politics. It was accompanied by the usual encouragement of lavish campaign contributions. On the downside, no one will remember having voted for it....'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/18/2008 @ 4:01pm

23. Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 04/18/2008 @ 4:01pm

    Temarc, the river Temarc in winter.

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 4:17pm

24. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 4:19pm

    Okay, Darin, put your money where your mouth is...maybe literally...heheh.

    Prediction time....will we be in a recession come the last week of October/first week in November...i.e. Election Time?

    Yes?

    No?

    Won't answer directly because I know you save this stuff, MASK? (heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 4:28pm

25. The only 'crossover' vote that Obama will be getting is from the terrorist-leaning factions. He just got the endorsement of Hamas, for example:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php

    I think Obama's coalition is pretty well characterized by the self-loathing fringe left in America, the terrorists, and the followers of 'Reverend' Wright.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/18/2008 @ 10:54pm

26. Speaking as one of the "disaffected Republicans" I wrote the following:

    GOP office holder switched to vote for Obama April 15, 2008

    Having been elected to three terms as a Bethlehem Township commissioner under the Republican label, I feel an obligation to inform people that I have changed my party affiliation to Democratic. The reasons for my disenchantment with the GOP began in 2004, and climaxed with this year's election.

    1. The war in Iraq was unjustified, diverted attention away from Afghanistan, and has increased the threats against the United States.

    2. In abandonment of fiscal responsibility, our budget deficit has grown to over $9 trillion, 46 percent of which is funded by foreign interests.

    3. The powers of the presidency have grown in ways that threaten our constitutional separation of powers, and our civil liberties.

    The GOP, under McCain, will continue these trends. I intend to vote for Barack Obama in hopes of seeing pragmatic, yet inspiring, intellect guide us in a new direction.

    Jerry Batcha

    Bethlehem Township

    Copyright © 2008, The Morning Call

    Posted by jjbatcha at 04/19/2008 @ 12:07am

27. Third Ward , Township of BethlehemCommissioner * Four Year Term * Vote for One

    Jerry J. Batcha (R)462Martin W. Comer (D)256Township of BushkillSupervisor * Six Year Term * Vote for not more than Two

    Howard E. Kostenbader (D/R)884Jason Smith (R)714Paul K. Klotz III (D)360scattered (write-in)2

    Township of Bushkill

    Auditor * Six Year Term * Vote for OneRobert H. Beck (R)679scattered (write-in)1Borough of ChapmanCouncil * Four Year Term * Vote for not more than FourBrian Silfies (write-in)15Curtis Fehnel (write-in)15Frank Silfies (write-in)14Nancy Groff (write-in)12Borough of ChapmanAuditor * Six Year Term * Vote for OneAlan Groff (write-in)6scattered (write-in)4

    no way. jerry, is there really a township called "bushkill"?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 12:13am

28. http://www.visitbushkillfalls.com/

    beauty.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 12:14am

29. a real life obamican.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 12:16am

30. MBB

    Carter did not sit with his thumb up his ass. I might remind you that all the hostages did get out and the Iranians didn't get a single one of their demands. The only thing they got were the assets that Carter had frozen, and some of that was, in fact, reserved for a tribunal that would eventually award damages to the hostages.

    We can compare that to Reagan whose response to his own hostage situation was to give arms to Iran.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2008 @ 12:25am

31. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2008 @ 12:25am

    BRUNOWE, Reagan clowned you folks on the left and you know it. All you've got left is muttered absurdities and the faint hope that nobody brings up the 80's too much. Carter was the apotheosis of the weak-kneed, fatuous, hot-house flower brand of moral idiocy of the left, and he left this country in the biggest shambles since the great depression. Shall we talk about 14 percent home mortgage rates, or would you rather not? Reagan turned all that around in a period of ten years with policies that drove the left to absolute hysteria, mainly because they were as profoundly good for America as they were apposite to the dogma of your loser of a philosophy.

    Nowadays, when lefties are pressed to speak about what happened in the 80's, they are reduced to softly muttered absurdities such as 'gee, the Soviet Union would have fallen anyway'. Of course, you hope no-one brings up the leftist refrain from the 80's that Reagan would start WW III, or that the 80's were a 'decade of greed' (as if the poverty produced by Carter's idiotic policies was somehow noble or good). Now, you're talking about what a softie Reagan was. Which was it, BRUNOWE? Dangerous cowboy or weak-kneed poseur? Can even YOU decide? No, you can't obviously. Because in your mind, he's one or the other, depending on whichever point you need to make. It's called cognitive dissonance, my friend. Your world consists of nothing but soft-peddled absuridities in service to a patently failed leftist ideology.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 10:05am

32. and the Iranians KNEW Reagan was saddling up, and also knew that Reagan was no Carter.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 04/19/2008 @ 09:33am | ignore this person

    Rubbish. Again, I point out that Reagan actually sent them weapons. They got more out of him then they did out of Carter. The key factors were the death of the Shah in July 1980 and Iraq's invasion of Iran in September of that year.

    PONTIFICUS First, it was Volcker who did the interest rate hikes that throttled inflation (which was just as big a problem under the Republicans Ford and Nixon as it was under Carter). Second, Reagan left us with huge deficits that took years to undo (and that Bush II reinstated with a vengeance).

    Second, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He talked a good game but his foreign policy gave us the Iran-Contra scandal, the misadventure in Lebanon, the feel-good invasion of Grenada.

    He does get points for the INF treaty but the dual-track policy (negotiations AND the deployment of the Pershing II) had been decided in November, 1979.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2008 @ 10:27am

33. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2008 @ 10:27am

    BRUNOWE, I see your arguments as mere rationalizations. As you well know, Reagan was the complete opposite of everything the left stands for. And he was as successful in turning around this country as your President, Carter, was at running it into the ground. The responsiblity for the deficits can be quite plainly laid at the feet of the Democratic Congress, which regularly, memorably, and with relish decreed Reagan's spending proposals as 'dead on arrival'. Typically (and necessarlily) as a leftist, you now choose to abscond from responsiblity for the deficits, because of course with your philosophy, no responsiblity can be taken.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 10:51am

34. So, do I think Q1 and Q2 will show negative growth (meaning a recession)? Yes.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/19/2008 @ 10:03am |

    Okay, so we're going into recession, possibly even likely "stagflation" and we've got 150,000 troops bogged down in Iraq with little if ANY political solutions forthcoming.

    So...I'll stick with my analogy. Bush has brought back the Carter years, PONTI!

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2008 @ 10:55am

35. These arguments over Reagan are generalizable to the political schism that exists in this country. Leftism, as an attractive dogma, exists primarily in the coddled segments of American society, e.g., universities and with suburban housewives, where its tenets are rarely if ever tested in the real world.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 10:56am

36. Posted by MASK 04/19/2008 @ 10:55am

    LOL, MASK. The media jerks the string, and you go right along. Don't you realize that these economic 'crises' only arise during election cycles, MASK? Just like the homeless really aren't a problem except during Republican administrations? Don't you remember how the homeless virtually disappeared as an issue after Clinton was elected? Did they go away? No...but you sure stopped seeing stories about them.

    Here's a bit of advice, MASK. Pay attention to that man behind the curtain when you listen to the news.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 11:00am

37. BRUNOWE, we should have a discussion of how the 'Omnibus' spending bill was used by Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Congress during the 80's to present Reagan every year with a 'sign it or shut down the government' spending bill which busted the budget. Now, we hear you lefties saying that it was Reagan's fault for signing it. "You didn't stop us from spending, so it's all your fault!" Not exactly responsible, now is it?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 11:04am

38. The responsiblity for the deficits can be quite plainly laid at the feet of the Democratic Congress, which regularly, memorably, and with relish decreed Reagan's spending proposals as 'dead on arrival'.

    Typical factless response from you. The deficit was caused by a combination of the Reagan tax-cuts and the increase in defense spending (much of the latter being necessary). Discretionary domestic spending actually fell as a share of GDP. You conveniently leave out that Reagan got the tax cuts he pushed for during his first year or so in office.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2008 @ 11:07am

39. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2008 @ 11:07am

    BRUNOWE, tax receipts actually INCREASED as a result of Reagan's tax cuts...just as they have with Bush's. Exactly as both said they were supposed to do, and exactly as both said they would. Now you're saying they CAUSED the deficit in both cases, and not profligate spending (which skyrocketed at both times)? In which parallel universe?

    And this also brings up the interesting question for you: if tax cuts 'cost' the government money, then shouldn't the converse be true, that all the government needs to do to generate wealth for itself is to raise taxes? You see no point of diminishing returns there? At all? Would it be reasonable to assume under this theory of yours that the government which taxes its citizens the most is the wealthiest in the world, with the least problem with spending as much as it pleases, without deficits?

    More interestingly, BRUNOWE. Since three-quarters of the budget now consists of entitlements and other expenditures dreamed up, promoted and protected by leftists and Democrats...which do you want to do? Raise taxes dramatically? or cut the benefits that are mostly responsible for creating this huge, unsustainable, and ever growing deficit issue? And are your candidates willing to admit this to the American people?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 11:29am

40. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2008 @ 11:07am

    Discretionary domestic spending actually fell as a share of GDP. You conveniently leave out that Reagan got the tax cuts he pushed for during his first year or so in office.

    GDP increased dramatically under Reagan because the economy was stimulated by tax cuts, just as it has been under Bush. In both cases, tax receipts have gone up quite a bit. The problem, of course, is that in both cases uncontrolled spending by politicians from both Parties far outstripped the increase in tax receipts. Democrats regularly lead the charge when it comes to demanding more spending. The media supports this by playing up poverty for all it's worth, with hordes of MASKs regularly providing the Pavlovian response.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 11:39am

41. Don't you remember how the homeless virtually disappeared as an issue after Clinton was elected?

    unfortunately (for your argument), Clinton wasn't a Leftist. so, your argument is therefore mute.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2008 @ 11:40am

42. Posted by DARLADOON 04/19/2008 @ 11:40am

    unfortunately (for your argument), Clinton wasn't a Leftist. so, your argument is therefore mute.

    Well, despite being 'mute' my argument can speak for itself. And the media fell in love with Clinton because he was one of the 'good guys' (a Democrat, as are 85 percent of reporters), not a leftist (although his 'wife' is and was). Just as people like MASK only woke up to the fact that both were oleaginous liars, only when it became convenient to do so, the media has fallen out of love with them now.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 11:43am

43. In short, the point is not that we're not taxed enough. The problem is the government is spending too much. Way too much.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 12:00pm

44. Well, despite being 'mute' my argument can speak for itself

    conservatives love to prance around proclaiming Clinton as a leftist, in order to make "our" policies look weak and ineffective, despite the fact that, as i said earlier, Clinton is not a leftist.

    therefore, as i said earlier, your line of argumentation is mute.

    And the media fell in love with Clinton because he was one of the 'good guys'

    the media "fell in love" with clinton? and not only that, but because "he was one of the good guys"?

    could someone else please say something more stupid than this so i can just forget it?

    The problem is the government is spending too much. Way too much

    so, then, i guess bush, mccain, reagan, etc.......spent too much. so, i guess, then, they're not really conservative. hmmmm.......

    seems like pontificus doesn't have much of a linear point, more of a circular one....

    Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2008 @ 12:11pm

45. i simply don't understand why conservatives don't like the clintons. they are arch-conservatives.....far superior to mccain.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2008 @ 12:25pm

46. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2008 @ 11:00am

    Where did I mention "the homeless"?!!?!?

    How about home OWNERS? and a rising rate of foreclosures? How about even MARYBRET, your fellow "All is well" right-wing friend, saying we will be in a recession in a few short months? How about gas prices rising to, even indexed, prices resembling the late 70s?

    Face it, PONTI...Bush, in his last year in office, and McCain, running as "Bush-44", are going to be running on a "Jimmy Carter" economy and a "Lyndon Johnson" war.

    That's a great combination, huh?

    Only hope you guys have is if you can, along with your Hillary allies like FRANKG, convince everybody that SOMEHOW that "Muslim, America-hating, drug-dealing 'boy' with the weird name" can make things worse...with McCain promising more of the same.

    By Nov. 4th...that may be a hard sell.

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2008 @ 12:40pm

47. The problem is the government is spending too much. Way too much.----Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2008 @ 12:00pm

    Yep....$12 Billion a month and nothing to show for it.

    Not HERE of course...somewhere in the Tigres and Euphrates valley.

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2008 @ 12:41pm

48. GDP did not increase dramatically. The average GDP growth rate during the Reagan administration was 3.4% which was lower than the 5% of the Kennedy/Johnson period.

    It is actually on track with the 3.3% average rate of the Carter period and the 3.1% average of the post-1945 period. It is also comparable with the the 3.7% average of the Clinton administration (which, however, ended up with a budget surplus and a lower poverty rate than what it started with). That's good, but it isn't even close to dramatic.

    For what it's worth, he actually does look good compared to the sub-3% rate that prevailed under his Republican colleagues Nixon/Ford, Bush I and Bush II.

    tax receipts actually INCREASED as a result of Reagan's tax cuts.

    Tax revenues increased because of the growing economy. You haven't established that the Reagan tax cuts were more responsible than 1) what Volcker did, 2) the Keynesian pump-priming of the increased defense spending and 3) the sizable drop in oil prices in the mid-80s. One could argue that his deficits were a drag because they crowded out private credit.

    that all the government needs to do to generate wealth for itself is to raise taxes? You see no point of diminishing returns there? At all? Would it be reasonable to assume under this theory of yours that the government which taxes its citizens the most is the wealthiest in the world, with the least problem with spending as much as it pleases, without deficits?

    Typical fallacy of the excluded middle. Never said there weren't diminishing returns. Incidentally, both Clinton and Obama are willing to let Bush's tax cuts expire.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2008 @ 1:42pm

49. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Typical fallacy of the excluded middle. Never said there weren't diminishing returns.

    You never said there were, either. In fact, leftists never do. The implication and premise of most of your arguments, typical of a leftist, is that there is no point of diminishing returns. You say that you never said there wasn't, but you never said that there was, either. Incidentally, at what point DO you think we are taxed enough, and the government is spending too much?

    Incidentally, both Clinton and Obama are willing to let Bush's tax cuts expire.

    Big surprise there. What leftist ever said the government has enough of our money? Even theoretically? None that I know of!

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 4:51pm

50. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Congress is primarily responsible for spending AND spending, BRUNOWE. Check your copy of the Constitution.

    The Democratic Congresses of the 80's bear most of the responsbility for overspending and deficits of the Reagan years, and the Republican Congress of the Clinton years gets much of the credit for reigning in what would have been the Clinton's hellacious overspending (National Health Care, anyone?). The rest of the decline in spending in the 90's was a result of the 'peace dividend' creditable to the Reagan/Bush victory over Communism.

    One need not look at historical figures to get a sense for what's really going on here. The Democrats are the party of tax and spend. It is they who engineered the coming fiscal catastrophe of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and it is they who are going to trump even all that with trillions more for government-run health care. The Republicans are the Party of defense, and nominally of lower taxes. Regrettably, recently the Republicans have become as bad as the Democrats in overspending. But of course, the Democrats will never practice any fiscal austerity whatsoever. They get elected by promising freebies from the government, paid by other people's money. Pure political pandering.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 5:14pm

51. Hey MASK, question for you. If unemployment was 10 percent, would you consider that to be a crisis?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 5:22pm

52. Posted by FDR42 04/19/2008 @ 5:10pm

    And that is no accident: by CALLING liberals "leftists," by purposely CONFLATING the two, they hope to discredit mainstream liberalism.

    Liberals are just lukewarm leftists. They're both soft in the head, the leftists are just a little more advanced into the socialist/statist utopian economic fantasy and its accompanying dogma and, therefore, hatred for the empirical, libertarian principles upon which this country was founded. By the way, where do the 'Progressives' fit into all this?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 5:28pm

53. The US DEBT is measured in trillions (something like 70% of GDP). The US deficit (the shortfall in one year) is measured in hundreds of billions (something like 4% of GPD).

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/19/2008 @ 10:12am

    thanks. that sure made things better.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 6:56pm

54. therefore, as i said earlier, your line of argumentation is mute.

    Posted by DARLADOON 04/19/2008 @ 12:11pm

    how does one mute their fingers?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 6:58pm

55. Ever heard that war stimulates the economy? Certainly not my preferred way....but it does work!

    Posted by HAPPY2 04/19/2008 @ 5:39pm

    especially when you borrow the "cash" from your enemies.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 6:58pm

56. PONTIFICATE and MARYHARTMANMARYHARTMAN...some good advice....seriously this is good advice and you'll end up doing it anyway in 4-5 months.

    Just skip ahead now...over the "Things are fine, just a WEE bit of downturn, but nothing major. Slight tick to the south, but nothing major and Bush's economic plan will ride us out of it by New Year's"....

    and go straight to "It's the Democratic Congress' fault for not ______ like Bush wanted!!!!" OR "It's the Democrats' fault for saying they're going to let the tax cuts expire!"

    I'd just skip ahead, guys.

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2008 @ 8:19pm

57. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/19/2008 @ 6:58pm

    We used to pay for wars.....AND usually maintain public support.

    But when you want to maintain public support for a LESS popular war...you put it on the "credit card" and leave it for the 44th President to handle...either Obama or "Bush-44" (McCain).

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2008 @ 8:25pm

58. A note of congratulations is in order for Barack Obama, who this week won the endorsement of another terrorist organization. Clearly, he is the terrorist's choice.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 8:38pm

59. Posted by MASK 04/19/2008 @ 8:19pm

    MASK, you're like a little puppet dancing on the media's strings. They say jump, you say 'how high?' You gladly lap up whatever propaganda you are fed. For 15 years, Hillary Clinton lies to your face, but the media tells you she's not, so you believe it. On the 16th year, when it is not longer convenient for the media to make you believe that, now you realize, dutifully, that she is a liar. And Eastasia has ALWAYS been at war with Oceania! LOL!

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 8:41pm

60. The implication and premise of most of your arguments, typical of a leftist, is that there is no point of diminishing returns.

    Please cite one liberal who said that there weren't any. You don't get to just assume that. Typical of you to make things up.

    What leftist ever said the government has enough of our money? Even theoretically? None that I know of!

    You mean the tax cuts for the rich that, along with the senseless adventure in Iraq, have dug us into a huge fiscal hole?

    Congress is primarily responsible for spending AND spending, BRUNOWE. Check your copy of the Constitution.

    The Democratic Congresses of the 80's bear most of the responsbility for overspending and deficits of the Reagan years

    So the Democrats get praise for the tax cuts? According to you, it was the Reagan tax cuts that supposedly created the economic growth during his administration. PSince it was a Democratic Congress during Bush IIs first two years, are those Democratic cuts as well? Perhaps you should check yourself for consistency before handing out reading assignments. Further, your statement overlooks the influence a politically powerful President can have in Congress.

    Further, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was passed without a single Republican vote. It provided tax breaks for small businesses and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit as it raised taxes on the rich and the upper middle class. It was this act that set us on the course to a budget surplus.

    The rest of the decline in spending in the 90's was a result of the 'peace dividend' creditable to the Reagan/Bush victory over Communism.

    You mean the collapse of Communism due to its own inefficiencies and the decline of oil prices in the mid- and late-80s?

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2008 @ 9:07pm

61. Reagan/Bush victory over Communism.

    what crappola......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 9:24pm

62. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2008 @ 8:41pm

    ROFLMAO....so there is no recession and things are just peachy in Iraq.

    That's the "truth", Winston? And any talk of bad economic times and still no political progress in Baghdad is what....lies from Emmanuel Goldstein???

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2008 @ 10:51pm

63. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2008 @ 9:07pm

    You mean the collapse of Communism due to its own inefficiencies and the decline of oil prices in the mid- and late-80s?

    Yes, BRUNOWE, for you it's all a terribly inconvenient coincidence. Why, it's just a coincidence that after 4 years of Jimmy Carter and a 100 percent Democratic Congress, that interest rates were 21%, inflation was 14%, unemployment was 12%, and Soviet communism was on the march everywhere in the world! How can anyone blame poor Jimmy, much less his wonderful socialist and weak national defense policies which you lefties continue to believe in! It's just a coincidence that after 9 years of Reagan's radically new policies of confrontation, new policies that you lefties consistently fought tooth and nail and swore would cause WWIII, that instead the Soviet Union collapsed, because that would have happened all along anyway! All just a coincidence! And with your kinds of coincidences, we'd all be flat broke! Bwahahahaha!

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2008 @ 11:00pm

64. Under the spreading chestnut tree

    I sold you and you sold me

    There lie they, and here lie we

    Under the spreading chestnut tree

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 11:44pm

65. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2008 @ 11:00pm | ignore this person

    All that bloviation and not a single fact.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2008 @ 11:44pm

66. Under the spreading chestnut tree

    I sold you and you sold me

    There lie they, and here lie we

    Under the spreading chestnut tree

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 11:45pm

67. damn warpage!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 11:45pm

68. One did not know what happened inside the Ministry of Love, but it was possible to guess: tortures, drugs, delicate instruments that registered your nervous reactions, gradual wearing-down by sleeplessness and solitude and persistent questioning."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2008 @ 11:45pm

69. You know, BRUNOWE and MASK have inspired me to start making a list of what I'll call, perhaps, 'MASK and BRUNOWE's Most Amazing Coincidences that DO NOT DISCREDIT Their Preconceptions of the World'.

    BRUNOWE: Reagan did not win the Cold War, it would have won itself! And the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed after 9 years of Reagan's new policies of confrontation was PURE coincidence!

    BRUNOWE: It's just a coincidence that inflation was 14%, unemployment was 12%, and interest rates were 14% under Carter, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Carter's policies.

    MASK: The media only discovered that the Clintons, by pure coincidence, only became liars about the time Hillary ran against Obama.

    MASK: Every time there is a Presidential election and the Republicans are in power, the economy is in crisis! And conversely, when Democrats are in the White House, it's almost nirvana! And he's got the statistics to prove it! Although some measures may need to be redefined!

    MASK: The fact that four Hollywood liberal antiwar films all bombed was purely attributable to the incredible coincidence that they ALL FOUR JUST HAPPENED TO SUCK, and nothing to do with the idea that Americans were rejecting the left's knee-jerk defeatism.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2008 @ 08:31am

70. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2008 @ 08:31am

    Again, PONTI....so there IS no recession...in fact we're in a boom.... and I guess the fact that Iraq is now like Switzerland has been kept from us by that durn liberal media?

    And all this talk about "recession" and "no political progress in Iraq and the withdrawals must be 'paused'"....are "just because it's 7 months until 'Bush-44' McCain gets elected"...

    uh...right?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2008 @ 10:26am

71. Posted by MASK 04/20/2008 @ 10:26am

    So sad to see your resort to straw men again, MASK. It makes you seem pathetic. The fact that I dispute the economy is in some media-manufactured crisis means I'm claiming we're in a boom? The fact that the media is spoon feeding you disinformation about the state of progress in Iraq means that I'm claiming that Iraq is as stable as Switzerland? How childish, MASK. Really. Work on that a little and get back to me with something.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2008 @ 12:17pm

72. Posted by MASK 04/20/2008 @ 10:26am

    So sad to see your resort to straw men again, MASK. It makes you seem pathetic. The fact that I dispute the economy is in some media-manufactured crisis means I'm claiming we're in a boom? The fact that the media is spoon feeding you disinformation about the state of progress in Iraq means that I'm claiming that Iraq is as stable as Switzerland? How childish, MASK. Really. Work on that a little and get back to me with something.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2008 @ 12:20pm

73. My prediction for the next Newspeak from the liberal/environmentalist crowd: global cooling! Again! In the 70's: global cooling! the 00's: global warming (oh, excuse me; is it now 'climate change' already?): the 20's: global cooling again? stick around and find out! One thing's for sure, whatever the media is peddling, the MASKs of the world will be buying it! After all, Eastasia has ALWAYS been at war with Oceania! And the Clintons have ALWAYS been liars!

    Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2008 @ 12:24pm

74. "And I can see some slight differences between winning the war in Iraq"

    What happened to mission accomplished? The war is over already.

    Posted by johnny canuck at 04/20/2008 @ 4:24pm

75. And we can start a new series called SIMPLISTIC "ANALYSIS" BY PONTIFICUS.

    We all know that the inflation had to be Carter's fault because there wasn't any during the Nixon/Ford administrations (wait, yes there was).

    We all know that the oil shock of the late 70s was all Carter's fault (no it wasn't).

    We all know that Reagan MADE Volcker bring up interest rates to choke off inflation and then ease up slowly. He also single-handedly lowered oil prices in that decade (wait, no he didn't).

    We all know that Reagan's mighty words ("focus of evil in the modern world" and "evil empire") brought down the Soviet Union. It had nothing to do with its economic decrepitude or the collapse of oil prices in the 80s (which is what kept the USSR from collapse sooner).

    PONTIFICUS against demonstrates that it's amazing what you can believe when you choose to ignore the facts.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2008 @ 5:25pm

76. wouldn't it be great if the kids helped us elect an intelligent human being for change

    Posted by julien38 at 04/20/2008 @ 5:48pm

77. McCain is toast folks. He's flip-flopped more times than a well-done burger on a grill. His bankrupt ideas on what the right-wing-nuts call "winning in Iraq" -- which means tens of thousands more displaced internal refugees, who knows how many more dead, trillions more spent, and catastrophic damage to American influence-- have zero traction with those of us in the reality-based community. Obama may not be perfect, but he's going to clean the old nasty geezer's clock big time. Must really suck to be a far-right republican fascist wannabe these days, if the desperate tone of Pontifidiot's posts are any indication.

    Posted by tnathant at 04/20/2008 @ 6:09pm

78. Posted by FDR42 04/20/2008 @ 5:40pm

    All of those things had a part. But it wasn't just Reagan's words that brought down the Soviet Union, it was his military, economic, and diplomatic policies that brought about the final denouement of one of the most evil regimes in history. To take just one example of many, it was Ronald Reagan that signed the agreements that brought about unprecedented disarmament of nuclear weapons, not the weak-kneed moral equivalent policies of fools like Jimmy Carter. Those very same policies which were opposed at virtually every turn by the left, which was as almost uniformly wrong then on just about every policy that matters as it is today.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2008 @ 7:37pm

79. If they keep doing that if Obama nominated, they deserve to be expelled from the Dem party. In fact, if he gets nominated they should leave no stone unturned in trying to get him elected.

    Seems to me that if they do that if O gets nominated they are politicians first, Dems second, and Americans last.

    Posted by johnny canuck at 04/20/2008 @ 7:38pm

80. Let's not forget the USSR was embroiled in a huge costly quagmire of a war - Afghanistan - which was a massive drain on their resources.

    Posted by johnny canuck at 04/20/2008 @ 7:39pm

81. Posted by JOHNNY CANUCK 04/20/2008 @ 7:38pm was in response to Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/20/2008 @ 7:32pm

    Posted by johnny canuck at 04/20/2008 @ 7:39pm

82. Here's a prediction for any and all to save and throw back at ME...

    PONTI, HAPPY, and MARYBRET will be "slightly altering" their "the economy is a bit slow, but not that bad" happy talk by Labor Day to....what I said they should go ahead and start using...

    that is blaming the recession on "the Democrats failing to do what they 'should'" or "the 'threat' of Obama winning and 'raising taxes sky-high'".

    And it will coincide with Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest doing the same thing.

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2008 @ 7:59pm

83. Note to MBB, the Clintons are undermining themselves. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party is pretty sick of them and their rovian bs. Prepare for a big blue November wave because the conservative revolution is over, its gross corruption is palpable, and McCain's honeymoon with the media doesn't mean squat to people actually struggling to make a living.

    Posted by tnathant at 04/20/2008 @ 8:04pm

84. I don't think Carter or any democrat since FDR can be considered left wing... Center left maybe. As for Obama making new democrats, I think it's the Republicans who are responsible for that.

    Posted by Bolter at 04/20/2008 @ 8:33pm

85. Posted by MASK 04/20/2008 @ 7:59pm

    Actually, MASK, now that you brought it up...

    I think it's quite apparent that the stock market has been recovering pretty much at the rate at which McCain's prospects have been improving. Pretty much at the same rate that both Hillary and Barack 'God Damn America' Obama are pretty much showing why they will be unacceptable to the majority of the American electorate. Perhaps HAPPY can provide us with a graph?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2008 @ 12:14am

86. As a minirity I like Mr. obama. But let's be real: Mr. Obama cannot win. Why waste our vote for foyr more years of the war in Iraq which we also cannot win?.

    --------

    Newsmax/Zogby Tracking: Hillary Gains in Final Weekend

    Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:23 PM

    Article Font Size

    The final weekend before Tuesday's important primary election in Pennsylvania was good for New York's Hillary Clinton, as she made a definitive move toward victory over rival Illinois' Barack Obama, a fresh Newsmax/Zogby daily telephone tracking poll shows.

    She gained two points over the past 24 hours as Obama lost one point, and she now leads 48% to 42%, the latest polling shows. Meanwhile, the undecideds dropped by two points. Her edge was three points yesterday but had wobbled within a tight margin. Clinton's advantage is still within the margin of error, but she is close to getting beyond it as Election Day looms. -------------

    Posted by HelenDAO at 04/21/2008 @ 03:02am

87. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2008 @ 12:14am

    "People are hurting and hurting badly. They are worse off now than they were 8 years ago."

    Guess which candidate for President said that, PONTI?

    (Hint-He did so after FIRST trying HAPPY talk and saying "One could argue that things have been pretty good.")

    Posted by Mask at 04/21/2008 @ 08:57am

88. I certainly hope you're right, but after fighting for progressive causes in this right wing country for 30 years, I don't get pumped until I see it in writing.

    Posted by diafos at 04/22/2008 @ 12:03am