Great McClatchy article reflects the true, positive shift taking place in America:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/50009.html

It would have been nice for Steven Thomma to have provided links supporting his claims. Without this support, we must conclude that he is simply stating an opinion. In any case, I disagree with his opinion. I think Obama won the primary because the left is tired of the Clintons and want a change.

In terms of mainstream America moving to the left, I don't think that is the case at all. If it were, Obama would not be moving to the center in order to woo the independant voters.

The title of your thread implies that the article mentions Rank and File Republicans are also moving to the left. Given the article doesn't mention that at all, I can only assume it is wishful thinking on your part. If rank and file Republicans truly were moving to the left, they would be embracing McCain. Instead, much of the conservative base will be holding their nose as they pull the lever for McCain.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that in this republican dominated, Bible belt community, the tide is turning. Dramatically. I hear comments such as, "I am a conservative, but it turns out that the Republican party isn't". And now that they are having to pay for some of their own medicine, and pay a large portion of their health care costs, and their homeowners insurance has doubled even though their homes have lost 1/3 of their value, and there is no community transportation for them to access, they are..well, they are pissed. They are not only unhappy with their party, they feel that they have been played for fools.

I can attest personally to the Republicans I know who are supporting Obama. Friends and family who have never backed a Democrat before are proclaiming they will vote Democratic this year. They are the moderate and pragmatic Republicans, not the rabid, right-wing extremists. They are the ones who will be holding their noses and voting McCains, the ones who are so extreme they could not possibly stray from the Republican brand, even if their own common sense informs them they should.

Found an article from the TIME archives that illustrates what the Opener was suggesting.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1824100,00.html
highlight

The Plot Against Liberal America


The most cherished dream of conservative Washington is that liberalism can somehow be defeated, finally and irreversibly, in the way that armies are beaten and pests are exterminated. Electoral victories by Republicans are just part of the story. The larger vision is of a future in which liberalism is physically barred from the control room - of an “end of history” in which taxes and onerous regulation will never be allowed to threaten the fortunes private individuals make for themselves. This is the longing behind the former White House aide Karl Rove’s talk of “permanent majority” and, 20 years previously, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s declaration to the Republican convention that it’s “the job of all revolutions to make permanent their gains”.

The pattern was set by Margaret Thatcher. Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul,” she said, echoing Stalin. In the 34 years before she became prime minister, Britain rode a see-saw of nationalisation, privatisation and renationalisation;

Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservatives in Washington and the “field marshal of the Bush plan”, according to the Nation magazine, has been most blunt about using the power of the state “to crush the structures of the left”.

The longing for permanent victory over liberalism is not unique to the west. In country after country, business elites have come up with ingenious ways to limit the public’s political choices. One of the most effective of these has been massive public debt. Naomi Klein has pointed out, in case after case, that the burden of debt has forced democratic countries to accept a laissez-faire system that they find deeply distasteful. Regardless of who borrowed the money, these debts must be repaid - and repaying them, in turn, means that a nation must agree to restructure its economy the way bankers bid: by deregulating, privatising and cutting spending.

read it all

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/...tate-government

Got link. Your few acquaintences don't constitute a majority. I'm betting I can point to just as many conservative acquaintences who would never consider voting for a democrat.

You are looking at this from your liberal view of the world, assuming that liberal ideas represent absolute truth. There are many who would vehemently disagree with your view of the world.

In any case, the polls would tend to dispute the notion that Republicans are embracing liberal ideas.

But what IS the Republican Party? The party of individualism, abolition, self-reliance, civil liberty and small, efficient government has morphed into the party of Plutocracy, Corporate Socialism, Corruption and Imperialism. This is precisely how Rome went from a Republic to the Imperium. Need I remind you that Julius Caeser got his start running "Privatized" fire companies? If you paid him, they put out your fire, if not, you burned.

Please don't assume that anyone assumes something so ridculous as "absolute truth" exists. That's certainly not in MY "liberal view of the world".



And there are many who would vehemently disagree with the FACT that the Holocaust happened. This is no way to make a point, peak...lol



Polls disputed the notion that Truman beat Dewey, even while it was happening. And we have all seen how accurate polling has been in the last few election cycles.

All polling in large, majorly important politcal contests should have a disclaimer attached, like the old pinball machines: For Amusment Only.

You are still operating in your liberal world view. Within that worldview, it is no surprise that is how you see the Republican Party.

What's the relevance? You didn't even supply a link.

My response was directed towards eyeswideopen. Given the tone of his response, when coupled with other items he has posted, I feel confident in my assessment.



The Holocaust is well documented, thus those who deny it occurred are out of touch with reality. One's view of the world is personal, formed by life experiences. My comment was made to refute the notion that one's world view trumps anyone elses world view. Apples and Oranges comparison.



Its kind of funny how many of you point to polls that support your arguments and shun those that don't.

http://www.kfc.com/

Got the link. Now what about the relevance?

I'm sure "he" is happy you are confident in your "assessment".





Look, the neocons history of failure and misery-causing policies of the last eight years is well-documented also. And we're not going to go through all this Lakoff's "world view" stuff again.

Peak...I know you know this, but something isn't registering.

Lakoff is a liberal.






There you go, again...(channeling Ronnie to hilarious laughter).

Many of us is NOT me, and in the very post you are replying to I told you the "many of" argument was no way to make a point on this.

Just the same, please link me to my poll-praising posts that support my arguments.

Peak...you don't have to respond to EVERY stick I poke you with.

Sorry, not playing.

Only in the Liberal blogosphere.




I'm flattered that you remember my interest in Lakoff from the prior RRMB. In any case, My "world view" arguments don't originate with Lakoff, though Lakoff does mention it within the context of his work. On the old RRMB I was touting Lakoff's Moral Politics, Nurturing parent versus strict father, etc..

world·view

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worldview



Of course he is, and he is ostracized by the right for his leftwing positions. I don't agree with his politics, but am fascinated by his insight into how people conceptualize the world.

Hold their nose to vote repug, the damn repugs have been pulling their puds while corporations and foreign countries take us down from within. They got wood stiffing the country for 4 more trillion added to the fed credit card. We got raped, our Constitution stolen, I had to undress at an airport just to take a damn airplane to Vegas from LAX. The repugs have turned us all into criminals giving us cavity searches for shoe bombs.

I think we are entering an era marked by the extinction of the "rugged independent" - the hallmark of America.

The rugged independents who "built" the US could do so with a patch of land, a mule, a well or water source, some seed, a lot of hard work and a bit of good luck.

Today, the land indebts them for their lifetime, the mule runs on diesel, the seed belongs to Montsanto. A lot of hard work and good luck still helps, but the cards are now stacked against the rugged independent.

We are entering a time when we are all linked. We depend critically on other nations for much of what we need to survive. Our carelessness has fouled water, made food species scarce or extinct. Our numbers increase competition for increasingly scarce resources.

Those people claiming the 'rugged individual" birthright are more likely the silver spoon set. They can make it by being born to advantage, not by sweat and luck; the cards are stacked in their favor.

Maybe ideas of mutual interdependence and (OMG) socialist ideas are gaining ground because it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary folks to make a living as ordinary folks did 200, or even 100, years ago. And we are rapidly, by our actions, making it impossible to go back.

What I think I hear you saying is that America is no longer the land of opportunity. If that is the point you are trying to make, I couldn't disagree with you more.

It is just getting much harder to create the life of yesturday. Cars are 30 thou, houses are 250 grand, loaf of bread is 3.50, milk is 4 bucks. The repugs really know how to hurt a middle class guy.

It was fine while median income was rising at the same rate as inflation. The problem is that inflation has outpaced median income and tax breaks (which could be used to compensate the gap) are going to those who need it the least and are more likely to bank it instead of spend it.

No, I'd never say such a thing. Compared to other countries, it's easier for an individual to "make it" (meaning become ridicuously rich) in America than in probably almost any other country. And of course, exceptional individuals, say like Barack Obama, can make it anywhere. Even unexceptional individuals, like, <insert infamous, but rich, scoundrel name here> can make it in America.

What I am saying is more about everyman and his dependence on "critical infrastructure", which is what he depends on to survive.

Two hundred years ago, in 1808, say, "critiical infrastructure" was simply the land. The water was clean, there was plenty of land, wood, the soil wasn't poisoned, wildlife was plentiful. Of course, diseases were less curable and people had to make their own provisions for food, shelter, clothing. They lived low on the "food chain" of human infrastructure. That model worked not just for the exceptional individual, but for many average people, most of the ones who "settled" the West.

At the other extreme, today, the water is often unsafe to drink, the fish carry heavy metals, the wildlife is protected, burning is prohibited, and people live on small patches of land too small to sustain their numbers. Instead, they "survive" on a "thick" layer of critical infrastructure. They need gas from the mideast just to get to work. They increasingly need the internet to shop. They RELY on globalized supply chain just to get themselves food and products which they no longer build for themselves in their own communities. Increasingly, the average individual is being compromised by this thick, globalized infrastructure and finding it harder first to make ends meet, then survive. But he can't go back to what worked 200, or 100, years ago, because we've burned all the bridges.

Inflation is not something that just cropped up in Bush's administration, and you certainly can't blame it on Republicans.


http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflati..._and_effect.asp


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Hist...ion_Ancient.svg

Do you believe Americans had a higher standard of lliving 100 years ago than they do today?

The point I was making also was not so much about "America" but about the globe.

The reason I tied America to "rugged individualism" is that because of our history, where rugged individualism was a trait that helped build this country, that we defend a very me-centric worldview. I think that "me centric" worldview is increasingly not working so well, anymore, globally, but we are still defending it. I think we are betting on an old, losing horse because it's won for us in the past.

Do the numbers bear you out in relation to other industrialized countries? Who has a greater chance of making it to the middle our upper middle class, a poor man in Scandinavia or a poor man in Appalachia?

Depends a lot on what we think constitutes "quality of life".

If by standard of living, you mean how long we live, how much stuff we have, then I'd say it's higher now.

If you measure standard of living as quality of life, say framed by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, then you'd include human needs like community, creation of beauty, more of the "self actualization", then I think it's not at all clear. Some of the things we need as human beings I believe are less available now. It'd be a good subject for discussion.

I measure this partly by my own life. I'm 61, so I actually remember half of that hundred years you ask about. And I feel some of the change. I remember the first TVs and the curious mind numbing effects they had, for me. I remember what a blessing real washing machines were to my mother. But I also remember the beginning of the "convenience" era when they wanted to help us go faster and faster. And I remember the start of the "disposable" era, when they assured us it was better just to toss the disposable stuff. I remember dreading atomic bombs, aimed at us from the other side of the planet. I'll have to say that I was more content 40 years ago - of course I was a young man then also, so it's hard to disentagle.

Is our "standard of living" higher now? I don't know. I think our "quality of life" is lower.

That's a bit of a non sequitur; of course the standard of living is higher. Even in third world countries the answer would still be positive even if only marginally so.

What you should be asking or looking for is the distribution of wealth and how evenly it has been spread.

That may be true. However, I use analysis tools I learned as an Objectivist and examine the Republican party from Ayn Rand's perspective. This is what I see.

An Alliance between the Mystics of Faith(Conservative Evangelical Christians) who want you to obey because God said so, and the Mystics of Muscle(Neocons) who want you to obey or they'll beat/torture/kill you. Both have rationalism, liberalism and government as the enemy unless only they control it. Then they use it as a tool of oppression on their political and philosophical enemies. Waht they have in common is they BOTH want YOU to OBEY.

What kind of comparison is that?

Why not make an apples to apples comparison, such as "who has the better chance of making it to the middle class - the most destitute person in America or the most destitute person in Scandinavia". Your comparison of any poor person in Scandinavia with someone from one of the poorest regions in America is absurd.

Why should we be using socialism as our standard?

You purport to be examining the Republican party objectively, yet your conclusions remain entrenched within your liberal view of the world.

the Mystics of Muscle(Neocons) who want you to obey or they'll beat/torture/kill you.

Does this really sound like an objective assessment? I'm betting Ayn Rand would see your examination as anything but objective.

False construct.

Liberalism IS the center of American politics.

Obama doesn't have to "move" anywhere. If anything, I'd prefer he move even further to the left.

And in addition to the daughter of Eisenhower dumping her ties to the GOP, I cannot COUNT how many Republican friends of mine has looked at where the leadership has taken the country, and just gone, "That's f-ing crazy. I'm outta here."

The fact is that when you poll Americans on issues alone, and leave off the party associations so that no "Team Republican" or "Team Democratic" loyalties slip in to the evaluation, CONSISTENTLY, the grand majority of Americans come down on the Liberal side, even if they self-identify as Republican later.

All that's really happening in this country over the last 35 years or so, is that the Republicans have done a better job at disinformation and propaganda, demonizing Liberalism and intentionally mischaracterizing it.

But the lies are getting a little frayed around the edges now, because Republicans have had COMPLETE and TOTAL control, and have fucked up so monumentally, that only the devoutly blind refuse to see it.

People of all political stripes are bginning to WAKE UP and see that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes by a bunch of con (or Neocon) artists, and they aren't having it anymore.....

Now all Liberals have to do is CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY state who they are and what they are about, and they'll win in a walk.

The only thing that saves the GOP's access to power now, is election fraud.

No its not. Provide links please.



I too would prefer that he move further to the left. This would all but doom any chance he has of being elected.



Pretty much all of my Republican acquaintences have no intention of voting for Obama. What's your point?



Provide links please.



Left wing rhetoric



Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

By "rugged independents" do you mean slaves???


Back to the topic:

The Republican party isn't what it used to be... I'll admit that. I still think conservative ideology is based on selfish ideals. On that note, people are beginning to realize that they have been fooled by the neo-cons in the republican party... Some are coming over slow by saying 'the repub party has changed'... Others are stronger and say "i was hoodwinked"... and then you have the honory idiots that loyal at all costs... "don't show me proof that I'm wrong." The more people get educated with facts, circumventing the MSM, the more people realize the left should really be the center. I think a lot of people that are sleepwalking with the Repubs have similar sentiments with the left, but don't realize it because of the ad hominem politics of fear they deal with. (While others are just selfish... and even still have more in common with the left because policy benefiting corporate and wealthy well-being do not benefit them.)

It sounds like an informed one.

It sounds like someone who has examined the history of the Neocon Movement and the Dominionist/Reconstructionist Movement and who has come to a CONCLUSION about who and what they are based upon the evidence.

(For further information on this, I'd highly recommend watching, "The Power of Nightmares" and reading the two-part Harper's Magazine investigative report "Soldier's of Christ".)

What you are doing is mistaking/confusing (intentionally so, because it advances your argument) being able to come to a conclusion based on the evidence, with someone who merely has an opinion about something in advance of knowing the facts.

This is a mistake the media is making rather consistently. In an effort "appear" balanced, they will give two arguments Right and Lft equal time/weight, without regard to determining which is actually TRUE.

And even in the matter of pure opinion, as Douglas Adams would say, "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others."

It is not biased to state the truth. And if one side or another has also found that truth, it is not wrong to say, the Democrats are correct on this issue, or the Republicans are incorrect on this issue, irrespective of your personal political bent.

Truth, is truth. Nothing could be more objective than that, and Ayn Rand afficianados can suck it if they don't like it, simply because more often than not, truth has a liberal "bias".

Or more precisely, Liberals are better able to determine that which is truthful or not.

No, GCurry is saying that in modern society we are INTERDEPENDENT, and that there is a survival value in cooperation, diplomacy, creativity, and sustainable thinking in such an environment.

GCurry is simply saying "No man is an island apart from the main."

Nothing wrong with that.

As perceived by those on the left. It doesn't make it so however.





Left should be the center? According to 5x5, the left is the center.



You are operating from within your view of the world. Within that view I can understand how difficult it must be for you to conceive how anyone could not see things as you do.

Conservatives don't want anyone to be able to state a conclusive position, without being able to level charges of bias - because they are seeking to undermine the determination of truth itself.

But how is that any different today than it was 100 years ago?

the Mystics of Muscle(Neocons) who want you to obey or they'll beat/torture/kill you.

So you believe that when all of the evidence is in that Republicans want everyone to obey them or they will beat/torture or kill them? How is that an informed conclusion??? Maybe you could point to some evidence that would support this conclusion.



I think I will pass.



I'm assuming you are referring to your opinions, which we should take as factual.




Translation, liberal arguments should be given more weight and more play in the press.



No disagreement here.



What you are really trying to say is that Liberal opinions should be given more weight, because Republicans are clueless.

I know you are, but what am I? LOL. Nice argumentation.

You want links? Pick up a copy of the entire history of the United States. It's right there. This is a Liberal country. It always has been. And from the time of the Royalists on down, Conservatives have been on the wrong side of every issue.


No, this would make more of the 50% of Americans who don't bother to vote come out and vote for him, because at last they'd see someone speaking for them and taking a stand for TRUE American values.


That my Republican friends are smarter than your Republican friends? (Sorry man, you set that joke up all on your own.... )


There was verifiable election fraud by Republicans in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. In the case of 2002, people have already gone to jail for it, and more will follow. It isn't merely theory (conspiracy or otherwise) to presuppose that such a trend will continue in 2008. It's merely intelligent, and well, common sense.

Republicans have been playing these games for about 40 years and faced a court injunction in the 1980's because of it. They've simply gotten very good at coordinating it in recent years, and the privately owned voting systems have helped them considerably.

It wasn't until 2006, that they faced any real pushback in terms of shear VOLUME of voters overwhelming their fraudulent tactics. But had those tactics not been in play, 2006 would have been an even bigger landslide for Democrats. No doubt they'd have had a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Priceless. You nag for links, but when I provide you with two easily locatable, unbiased sources, from highly reputable news organizations, you refuse to even look at them.

This is what Liberals mean when we say Conservatives are "voluntarily ignorant".

I live by trying to think outside my box. Even so, everyone can only operate from within their own view of the world. My view of the world attempts to take into consideration why another person may view the world differently.

By saying "left should be center" I mean a lot of left views should be considered centrist views. (Though I know some can go pretty far left...)

You believe the Republican party is the same that it was when Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Hoover were presidents?