web analytics

TWO CHEEKS OF THE SAME BACKSIDE

By Pete Moore On February 9th, 2012

I see that a poll has twenty per cent of Republicans leaning towards Obama. If each party and almost all candidates believe essentially the same things, so what?

20 Responses to “TWO CHEEKS OF THE SAME BACKSIDE”

  1. It is a hard concept for bloated pompous posers like Judge Napolitano to comprehend but many Americans, despite party affiliation, will cross party lines if they feel that one candidate would be better on an overall perspective than one from their own party. Reagan benefitted from this as did Clinton. People who only vote for one party no matter who is running limit themselves.

  2. ” Judge ” Napolitano = Glenn Beck with a Ron Paul fixation

  3. Phantom –

    Judge Napolitano, and Professor of Law Napolitano.

    Do you have an opinion on the subject? Do you believe the two parties can be distinguished, or that they are essentially the same? Do you have an opinion on why twenty per cent of Republicans might be drawn to Obama?

    Come on, this place is crying out for some actual debate for a change.

  4. I said it before and I’ll say it again: Republican voters vote Republican because their mummies and daddies did. Same goes for Democrats. It’s called indoctrination.

    But in essence there’s little difference between the parties. And the party membership of the backside occupying the Oval Office come November won’t make a blind bit of difference to America and the rest of the universe.

  5. Pete – debate what? I’ve pointed out to you that party membership doesn’t necessasrily dictate voting preference for many American voters. In fact winning candidates usually draw from the other party.

    As for Judge Napolitano, I have more respect for Judge Judy.

  6. Rcihard – I don’t think it is a clear as that. Throughout the South within living memory most States which now favor Republicans used to be solid Democratic states.

  7. I think that both parties are poor. They are both corrupt to the bone. It is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon.

    The Dems are generally the party of bigger government, and Obama is the proof. There is a difference between the parties. The Republicans are bought and paid for, but in a slightly smaller way, with some different paymasters.

    There is a crying need for a candidate for somewhat smaller and leaner and much smarter government, but that candidate has not appeared. Mr. Paul is not the candidate – by going too far, including on matters of foreign policy, he holds zero attraction to the average American.

    Romney is the least bad candidate out there. He, like Obama, at least tried to tackle the health care thing, which needed to be done.

  8. “People who only vote for one party no matter who is running limit themselves.”

    We have people like that over here.
    We call them Labour voters.
    Their rallying cries range from
    “SMASH the Tories!
    “STOP the Cuts!!”
    to
    “Toffee nosed Tory Bastards!”

    That many of their more ruthless, ambitious,(but not necessarily articulate), party grandees go on to accept knighthoods is neither here nor there.
    They don’t do irony…

  9. If the Republicans had needed a candidate who understood the health care problem and who had good solutions for it.

    McCain came the closest. The others were obstructionist.

    It is noted that Margaret Thatcher, who some would call a conservative, never proposed undoing the NHS in the UK.

    The US Republicans are against doing anything on that subject because they’ve done zero homework. It is a major Achilles Heel for them.

  10. Maggie was/is a Conservative -perhaps with a small ‘c’.
    IMO her primary goal was a stronger more progressive and more confident Britain, Maggie knew that the unions (some whose leaders supposedly had links with the Soviet Union) were crippling this country.
    As I have said before the great tragedy is that there were no men who would step up to the plate, and then there were no men who could steer her when she was going off the rails..
    I admire her. Frankly, the men were far happier slapping each other on the back and telling each other what “jolly fine fellows they are!”
    It took a woman to change things for the better. 🙂

  11. Margaret Thatcher was a radical, not a conservative.

  12. It is interesting that American conservatives idolize her.

    I’m not sure that any of them are aware that she was an early proponent of AGW theory, and that she was quite fine with the existence of the NHS.

  13. No, she was a Conservative (small ‘c’) with a radical agenda. She was/is a patriot with middle class values.
    But the guys were still backslappers…. 😉

  14. Phantom –

    She was only a proponent of AGW for political reasons. She wanted to replace coal with nuclear power and that was the hook she hanged it on. Apart from that, she didn’t show the slightest inclination to promote AGW in and of itself.

  15. Phantom,
    This country has a love affair with the NHS. At its best it is a brilliant institution.
    As it was in the ’70s under Union control, so it is now, except it isn’t so much unions that are the problem as the political philosophy which continues to endanger the future of our economy:
    state control,
    state spending,
    social inclusivity
    a “no blame and no accountability” culture.

    The great mantra of our times?
    “Lessons have been learnt!”

  16. Agit8ed,

    “Maggie was/is a Conservative -perhaps with a small ‘c’.”

    I didn’t know about her small “c”. Did Denis approve?

  17. Boom Boom!

    Trust an evolutionist to lower the tone…

  18. Richard – Colm will be upset you beat him to that one.

  19. Agit8ed,

    Whaddya mean “lower the tone”? Did you read the headline to this post? 🙂

  20. Yeah,
    butt that was funny.. 🙂