Why Do So Few Admit To Being Liberals?

[uscitizen]

I think the funnier question is why so many right wingers deny being Republicans after Bush.

And 30% of republicans still think Bush was a great president.
And 90% of the remaining would re-elect Bush again if they could.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As opposed to what, blaming Bush? You left nothing that required retort. Get over yourself.

Blaming Bush for 2 wars with no means to pay for them. Well yes..that's what he did. Not only that..he cut taxes.

No deflection, distortion or revision is going to change that. It was disastrous. Along with many other policies that were remarkably terrible.

If one wants to support that..fine. But this constant denial of what exactly went on during the Bush administration is backward.

I am a big fan of the Demmings cycle. And the first thing you do to fix a problem is identify the flaws. Not ignore them.

BTW... the title of this thread is "Why do so few admit to being liberals"? Not, "Is it all Bush's Fault"? Try to focus.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think the funnier question is why so many right wingers deny being Republicans after Bush.

And 30% of republicans still think Bush was a great president.
And 90% of the remaining would re-elect Bush again if they could.

And... most Obama voters would re-elect Oama given his massive failure of an Admin.

So?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think the funnier question is why so many right wingers deny being Republicans after Bush.

And 30% of republicans still think Bush was a great president.
And 90% of the remaining would re-elect Bush again if they could.

So, does this mean 63%?

 

[Sallow]

BTW... the title of this thread is "Why do so few admit to being liberals"? Not, "Is it all Bush's Fault"? Try to focus.

This sort of reminds me of an old cliche; "Physcian heal thyself".

 

[topspin]

A party that lost by millions picking up in mid terms means nothing, except the beloved gridlock.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

BTW... the title of this thread is "Why do so few admit to being liberals"? Not, "Is it all Bush's Fault"? Try to focus.

This sort of reminds me of an old cliche; "Physcian heal thyself".

You're the asshat chiming in 180 degrees off-topic. Care to try again?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A party that lost by millions picking up in mid terms means nothing, except the beloved gridlock.

Very insightful there Forest Gump. Perhaps for your next post you could enlighten us as to the pooping habits of the Koala.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As opposed to what, blaming Bush? You left nothing that required retort. Get over yourself.

Blaming Bush for 2 wars with no means to pay for them. Well yes..that's what he did. Not only that..he cut taxes.

No deflection, distortion or revision is going to change that. It was disastrous. Along with many other policies that were remarkably terrible.

If one wants to support that..fine. But this constant denial of what exactly went on during the Bush administration is backward.

I am a big fan of the Demmings cycle. And the first thing you do to fix a problem is identify the flaws. Not ignore them.

At the very-least, Liberals/Progressives can now say....

WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!​

September 2002
​

"With their trademark bravado, the Bush administration recast warmed-over or failed initiatives as sure bets. And for a while, the media, the public, and even some Democrats bought in. Today, however, its signature domestic accomplishment--the 2001 tax cut--seems destined to yield dividends of deficits and political fallout for years to come. When you look past the promises and the tough talk and the spin, you see an administration whose major policy initiatives are stalled or postponed to some unspecified point in the future."

 

[topspin]

A party that lost by millions picking up in mid terms means nothing, except the beloved gridlock.

Very insightful there Forest Gump. Perhaps for your next post you could enlighten us as to the pooping habits of the Koala.

your posing something of value is as reliable as Betts not fumbling.

 

[Sallow]

BTW... the title of this thread is "Why do so few admit to being liberals"? Not, "Is it all Bush's Fault"? Try to focus.

This sort of reminds me of an old cliche; "Physcian heal thyself".

You're the asshat chiming in 180 degrees off-topic. Care to try again?

Again..insults do not pass for well reasoned debate..no matter how angry they are..

And if one reads the OP carefully..which was basically cherry picked from various sources and probably a little old..the contention mainly is that the right has been successful in mapping the word "Liberal" to some pretty unfavorable terms..like Elitist. I would say some of that is true. Fox news is particularly well funded, propagandistic and somewhat successful at pounding the same points like a hammer day in and day out. But that seems to be changing.

And no amount of babbling on about how President Obama is some sort of "Boy King" or "Messiah" or declaration of victory well before elections are over adds to the validity of the argument for "Fewer people are calling themselves Liberal" meme.

 

[Sallow]

At the very-least, Liberals/Progressives can now say....

WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!​

Actually..no.

Some very good legislation has been passed to remedy a good deal of the problems created by the prior administration.

And instead of helping..the party that use to be in power is hindering every effort to get things right. As is their prerogative. But it's not especially helpful. And considering that what is being offered up as an alternative, is very much the same thing that was already tried during the Bush administration..is probably somewhat dangerous..if you favor growth, prosperity and progress.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What about a muscular foreign policy and tax cuts of Kennedy, and the environmental policies of Nixon, or would you think he was a liberal?

Be serious.

What about Obama escalating the Afghanistan war, increasing the drone attacks on al qaeda, AND cutting taxes as well as supporting extending 95% of the current tax cuts. By your own 'logic' that would make Obama a Kennedy Republican.

In my words, Obama is a Tyrant.

In my words, you're a Sore Loser.

 

[NYcarbineer]

soggy adds nothing but childish insults

Soggy is a David Duke supporter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, you do realize that in today's political landscape, JFK would be a Republican, and would be pilloried by the left.

That's a time worn myth.

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?
John F. Kennedy - Wikiquote

Add in he was villified as a communist/catholic "manchurian" candidate by the Birchers, who are the equivalent of today's Tea Party.

JFK cut taxes. Democrats today want to repeal the tax cuts, which is effectively a tax increase, the exact opposite of what their supposed role model John F. Kennedy did.

JFK was strong on national defense. It could be argued that Kennedy was hawkish when it came to foreign policy. JFK wanted to protect American interests, even if it meant military force would have to be used. Today's Democrats want to pull out of a war we're winning and by giving Iraq up to terrorists and Iran, take a gigantic step backwards in the War on Terror. That doesn't look like a move out of the Kennedy playbook.

When JFK ran for President against Republican Richard Nixon, it was Nixon who championed environmental issues, not Kennedy. That's not to say Kennedy and today's Republican Party are against the environment, but Nixon and today's Democrats are willing to make businesses and the economy suffer to protect it.

JFK was very religious. There was a huge controversy when Kennedy ran for Commander and Chief. Many wondered if the American public could ever vote a Catholic into office. Of course there are rumors that a bunch of already-dead people in Chicago and Frank Sinatra are to be credited for the JFK victory, but nonetheless, Kennedy looked the controversy in the face and laughed at it. John F. Kennedy confronted the worries of many and gave one of the most famous religious speeches in modern history. Now, remind me quick, which party is it that is stereotyped as being more religious? Yeah, I think you got my point there.

JFK is well known as one of the leaders in the civil rights movement. His Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson, finished what Kennedy and many African-American leaders had started. But both JFK and LBJ had to team up with Republican members of congress to defeat Democrats, like Al Gore's father, who were against the Civil Rights Act.

JFK famously declared, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what can you do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Now if you didn't know who said those unforgettable words, who would you guess had said them: a Democrat or a Republican? Democrats are promising voters the government will do everything for you. "Hey, can't afford to get the latest cell phone model? Don't worry, elect Democrats and the government will buy it for you." Whereas Republicans lean more on the side of personal responsibility. And spreading freedom to mankind, you might have guessed George W. Bush had said that if you didn't know any better.

Right vs. Wrong... I Mean Left: JFK - Just on the Web

 

[JBeukema]

As soon as I read 'liberal' and then 'progressive' and you thought they were the same, I knew you didn't have a clue what you're babbling about.

 

[JBeukema]

For the same reason why Most Democrats will not admit to supporting their Agenda Items in Congress the last 2 years.

Because it is EXTREMELY unpopular to admit to.

Goes for the Reps, too.

TARP, anyone?

 

[JBeukema]

For the same reason why Most Democrats will not admit to supporting their Agenda Items in Congress the last 2 years.

Because it is EXTREMELY unpopular to admit to.

What agenda would liberals be ashambed to admit to?

How many Democrats running for office do you see admitting to voting for the Health care bill, or Omnibus, or stimulus? How many are admitting they support cap and trade?

The only Dems even mentioning Stimulus and Health care in their adds, are doing so to point out they VOTED AGAINST them.

Not true.

Rachel Maddow addressed the fallacy of this 'common wisdow,' last week.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, you see, you just shot yourself in the foot...

Walesa is anti-Communist, so, by definition, not a liberal.


And the strategy of trying to coalesce around various heros who are not liberal by careful analysis, you show the weakness of your argument.

And this might interest you:
"Today, in Chicago, anti-Communist hero Lech Walesa is headlining a Tea Party Rally. The Rally is in support of Republican Candidate for Governor Adam Andrzejewski. 20+ years ago an American President helped Lech take back his country. Today Lech returns the favor and helps us take back ours."
Friday Free-For-All: Walesa Edition - Big Government

Care to retract?

You're kidding right?

Liberals have been the most stauch anti-communists in history. Something about the implementation sucks. Usually they wind up being dictatorships or oligarchies.

See: Kennedy vs. Soviets.
See: LBJ vs. North Vietnam.

Although you have had tough competition, this is truly the most ignorant, falacious post in the thread....

rdeanie will be hard pressed to beat you to the bottom.

Being a Communist for much of the last century was not a theoretical matter. Communists working in Democratic administrations in the thirties, forties, and fifties, had a profound influence on which countries would fall under Communist control….The USSR ruined Eastern Europe, which was not exactly like East Timor. These were sophisticated countries. The Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe consisted of backwoods savages conquering sophisticated civilizations.

And the Democrats were rooting for the savages.

“On September 2, 1939, the day after the outbreak of war in Europe, Whittaker Chambers had told much of what he knew about Soviet espionage in the United States to Adolph Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and President’s Roosevelt’s advisor on internal security. Immediately afterwards, Berle drew up a memorandum for the President which listed Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the other leading for whom Chambers acted as courier. One was a leading presidential aide, Lauchlin Currie….Roosevelt, however, was not interested. He seems to have dismissed the whole idea of espionage rings within his administration as absurd.” ‘The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the KGB,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p.107

Truman promoted known Soviet spies to positions of influence after having been warned they were Soviet spies. He denounced the investigation of Soviet spy Alger Hiss as a “red herring.” He responded to Winston Churchill’s historic Iron Curtain speech by inviting Stalin to come to America to give a rebuttal speech.

I'll assume that all of your posts pack as much knowledge and veracity as this one.
Dismissed.

 

[Sallow]

Of course, you do realize that in today's political landscape, JFK would be a Republican, and would be pilloried by the left.

That's a time worn myth.

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960) TurnLeft:What is a Liberal?
John F. Kennedy - Wikiquote

Add in he was villified as a communist/catholic "manchurian" candidate by the Birchers, who are the equivalent of today's Tea Party.

JFK cut taxes. Democrats today want to repeal the tax cuts, which is effectively a tax increase, the exact opposite of what their supposed role model John F. Kennedy did.

JFK was strong on national defense. It could be argued that Kennedy was hawkish when it came to foreign policy. JFK wanted to protect American interests, even if it meant military force would have to be used. Today's Democrats want to pull out of a war we're winning and by giving Iraq up to terrorists and Iran, take a gigantic step backwards in the War on Terror. That doesn't look like a move out of the Kennedy playbook.

When JFK ran for President against Republican Richard Nixon, it was Nixon who championed environmental issues, not Kennedy. That's not to say Kennedy and today's Republican Party are against the environment, but Nixon and today's Democrats are willing to make businesses and the economy suffer to protect it.

JFK was very religious. There was a huge controversy when Kennedy ran for Commander and Chief. Many wondered if the American public could ever vote a Catholic into office. Of course there are rumors that a bunch of already-dead people in Chicago and Frank Sinatra are to be credited for the JFK victory, but nonetheless, Kennedy looked the controversy in the face and laughed at it. John F. Kennedy confronted the worries of many and gave one of the most famous religious speeches in modern history. Now, remind me quick, which party is it that is stereotyped as being more religious? Yeah, I think you got my point there.

JFK is well known as one of the leaders in the civil rights movement. His Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson, finished what Kennedy and many African-American leaders had started. But both JFK and LBJ had to team up with Republican members of congress to defeat Democrats, like Al Gore's father, who were against the Civil Rights Act.

JFK famously declared, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what can you do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Now if you didn't know who said those unforgettable words, who would you guess had said them: a Democrat or a Republican? Democrats are promising voters the government will do everything for you. "Hey, can't afford to get the latest cell phone model? Don't worry, elect Democrats and the government will buy it for you." Whereas Republicans lean more on the side of personal responsibility. And spreading freedom to mankind, you might have guessed George W. Bush had said that if you didn't know any better.

Right vs. Wrong... I Mean Left: JFK - Just on the Web

What point is trying to be made here? That a self admitted liberal was not a liberal?

If one tries hard enough..I suppose the Easter Bunny could be real too.