Obama for President, Whoever That Is
It’s too bad Barack Obama is such a flaming left-wing radical. Howard Stern has demonstrated that he could just as easily be a moderate, a centrist or even to the right of John McCain and still win anyway. Apparently, coolness trumps all else.
- Not cool: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
- Cool: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
- Not Cool: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”
- Cool: “And it’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
- Not Cool: “Workers of the world, unite!”
- Cool: “People say that we can’t come together to lift up working families…”
- Not cool: Dictatorship of the proletariat.
- Cool: Anything involving the middle class.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Debunking The Candidates’ Debate Claims…
At Tuesday night’s town hall debate, both candidates made claims as to what they’d do in the White H…
October 14th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Aren’t you assuming most Obama voters actually think your “uncool” lines are uncool?
October 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
That’s amazing.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Anwyn, maybe not most, but many. Karl Marx could never win an election, but Obama can, by making Marxism cool.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:18 am
[...] and he said From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. No, that’s not cool. Cool is I think when you spread the wealth around, it
October 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
[...] Xrlq explains how socialism now sounds cool thanks to Barack Thundercats Ho! Obama. [...]
October 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
If “concentrating tax incentives on the lower end of the spectrum instead of the top end of the spectrum” = “Marxism,” you’re going to be out of hyperbole if somebody like Nader ever becomes viable…
October 15th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Someone like Nader (only cooler) *did* become viable, and is in fact the front-runner, so want of options for future hyperbole is the least of my worries right now.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
What’s the ‘uncool’ way of saying hope/change 50 times a speech?
So, I am guessing the word ‘poor’ or ‘lower-class’ is now ‘middle-class,’ since it sounds like everybody in the middle class is poor, stupid, and recovering from a 8 year raping from the white house.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
If you think that Nader is no further left than Obama, you’re just not paying attention.
October 16th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Examples?
October 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Just ask Ralph.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
You’re right, Nader is loopier than I’d remembered. Even so, I don’t think it hyperbolic to describe Obama as a socialist. That is what the NP is about, after all. Like everything else, some socialists are more hard core than others. Particularly the ones who aren’t even trying to win an election, and whose only goal is to eff it up.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Well, it depends upon one’s definition of “socialism,” I suppose. Also worth noting that “socialism” != “Marxism”
Maybe Obama secretly wants to nationalize all of the means of industrial production, but I’ve been flatly unable to find evidence to support this notion. He doesn’t want to nationalize the health care industry. He doesn’t even want to nationalize the health insurance industry. In fact, if you want presidents who are nationalizing stuff, you need to look to the White House’s current occupant.
Hell, I haven’t even been able to find evidence that Obama wants to impose some sort of Long-esque punitive wealth tax. Near as I can tell, he’s got the audacity to want to raise taxes to a level that’s still substantially lower than what existed under St. Reagan.
So I stand by my asserting that your hyperbole is a weeeee bit overblown. :)
October 17th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
If by “socialism” you mean “abolish democracy,” I agree there’s no evidence Obama wants to do that. Why should he, when all he needs to do is yank the broadcast licenses of any TV and radio stations that air ads critical of him? Might as well let us commoners have our silly vote, as long as none of us know what we’re voting on.
As to the kind of socialism generally associated with “Social Democrats” in Europe, the Labour Party in Britain, or the Democratic Socialists of America (whose spin off party endorsed Obama as “their” candidate twice) I don’t see a hell of a lot of difference between what Obama advocates adn what they do. Do you? Bear in mind that Germany has ostensibly private health insurers, too, but once you federalize what has always been a state function before, mandate coverage for all, and even refuse to allow carriers to price insurance according to the risk, you haven’t left a hell of a lot of free enterprise behind.
Not sure where you get the idea that Obama advocates lower taxes than existed under Reagan, unless you are talking about the part of Reagan’s term that preceded Reagan’s tax cuts. Obama’s “cuts” are all based on Clinton-levels, which he disingenuously describes as not a tax cut because … well, just because.
Marx himself famously said of some young followers “If this is Marxism, I am not a Marxist.” But seriously, coolness aside, what the hell difference is there between “from each according to his ability…” and Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around?”