Obama doesn’t want to be called a liberal. Even though his positions seem to be uniformly “liberal” (used here in the modern, statist sense, not the classical sense).
I recall another liberal presidential candidate who didn’t want to be called a “liberal”:
JIM LEHRER: Do you think he successfully painted Dukakis as a liberal?
MS. STEELMAN: Oh, no, the beauty of last night was that he didn’t have to paint at all. Dukakis clearly painted himself as a liberal. His responses were right down the liberal line, every one of them. That was the thing that most of us inside the Bush campaign found most remarkable is that he didn’t even try to move to the center. George Bush, on the other hand, I think has shown himself as a very moderate candidate, a very conservative candidate at the same time, conservative on the issues where the American people believe the Reagan Administration has been successful, interest rates, inflation, economy, and moving forward on other issues where the American people clearly believe we need to have some answers like child care and others. And we think it was a very good debate because we didn’t paint anything. There was no image making. Dukakis is a liberal and it showed. Bush is very much in the mainstream of American values and American opinion. And that showed.
It didn’t work out very well for him.
Of course he doesn’t want to be called a liberal. People would think that he has sex with horses.
People would think that he has sex with horses.
Which “people” would think that? Was this supposed to make sense?
Gosh, Rand, don’t you know Obama transcends mere labels? That His thought can’t be categorized, let alone coherently expressed, in mere words? Indeed, can we say He is beyond mere words and grubby, verbal-oriented thinking, that He is the apotheosis of post-rational Man?
Yes! Yes We Can(TM)!
Collectivists are always in denial. Call them “collectivists” ot “socialists” and they deny that; now, after early 20th Century socialists went through all that trouble of hijacking the term “liberal” as a warm-and-fuzzy (and hence more saleable to the elctorate) label for “socialist,” and got the masses to accept it, they don’t want to be called “liberal” either. How about just “State-f***er”? Do they like that term better?
Here’s Mr. Empty Suit talking to the Jews, like Jesus:
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=71813&v=4910704021
Clearly he can’t put together a coherent sentence. Not one that Carl Pham can follow anyway.
I imagine that Obama speeches are going to denegrate to simply singing, “Hop-ey hope hope, chang-ey change change” over and and over again.
“Of course he doesn’t want to be called a liberal. People would think that he has sex with horses.”
Good for me I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that ^_^
Fine. I’m tired of the statists sitting on the word “liberal”. Can we have the word back now? You guys can all move on to something more fitting.
“[Obama’s] positions seem to be uniformly ‘liberal'”
What positions? Obama’s so weak on specifics that you can hardly say what he stands for, if he stands for anything.
Dennis Kucinich is a liberal. Ralph Nader is a liberal. Painting guys like John Kerry or Al Gore as liberals, despite their conservative records, just goes to show how far the political center has shifted to the right.