Do you have a non-biased cite? The data at that link quotes Americans for Tax Reform.
Norquist is also part of the “Gang of Five”, has ties to Jack Abramoff and big Tobacco.
Nah, he’s going to tear it apart with his bare hands, then use his saliva and tears to glue it back together as a more compassionate nation. He’s like Chuck Norris without the evil badass gene.
He’d be a typical New Labour type. Slightly right of centre.
Nonsense. A classic Voyager episode established that this will turn the whole country into mouth-breathing mutant reptiles obsessed with reproduction.
Not just the red coloured bits. 
I think he’ll be a divisive figure for sure. He has a sort of self-righteous attitude. More domestic terrorism is likely.
But as far as actually getting legislation passed, he has to go through Congress, and even though Congress is Democratic I expect overall reason will prevail.
During the debates he seemed to have some agressive ideas when it comes to foreign policy, like he’s over-compensating for the notion that Democrats are weak on defense. Hopefully that won’t lead to any foolhardy actions.
If Obama is elected I’m sure the black community will overwhelmingly love it. Good for them I say. Hopefully Obama will be an inspiration to them instead of a provider. Hopefully the 1 in 3 (!) incarceration rate for young black men will go WAY down.
It’s not about individuals it’s about policies.
The Conservative Party unapologetically supports the Welfare State and redistributive taxation. They have never tried to get rid of the NHS and have no intention of doing so. That would be political suicide.
Currently the Conservatives are to the left of New Labour. Or pretending to be anyway.
I don’t think Americans really understand either how God-obsessed your society and politics are and how far outside the industrialised norm when it comes to collective provision. How we look in horror at your callous, devil-take-the-hindmost, attitudes to the ‘losers’ in society.
The UK has moved more towards the US in some ways but if the Democrats and Republican parties were transposed to here replacing New Labour and Conservatives the Republicans of the last couple of decades would be a tiny rump party. Third behind the Liberal Democrats.
Latest polls put McCain on just 15% to Obama’s 63%.
As I’ve said before, he has a history of being able to get both sides to compromise and produce a result with which they are at least satisfied, if not happy. I doubt he’ll be substantially less effective at that as a President and not a Senator.
You forgot the beard.
tagos writes:
> I don’t think Americans really understand either how God-obsessed your society
> and politics are and how far outside the industrialised norm when it comes to
> collective provision. How we look in horror at your callous, devil-take-the-
> hindmost, attitudes to the ‘losers’ in society.
I don’t think that Brits really understand how false the image of the U.S. is that they get from American TV and movies is. I lived in the U.K. for three years. I just don’t see the U.S. as being that much more God-obsessed than the U.K. Nor do I see Americans as having that much more of a callous attitude towards losers in society.
Apparently, you missed this recent thread:
In the alternate universe you live in, does Obama have a goatee and use an agonizer on people who fail him, too ?
Will Obama do the terrorism himself, or enlist the aid of his evil minions? Will he just blow up things, or will he turn his enemies over to his terrorist associates?
If a President’s “self-righteous attitude” is a trigger for domestic terrorism, then surely we should have been awash in domestic terror incidents for most of the past eight years? I mean, Bush is notoriously, and somewhat ostentatiously, convinced of his own rightness, not to mention being about as divisive as it’s possible to get, but we haven’t had crazy domestic terror loons being provoked by that to blow stuff up.
Or are you arguing that the crazy domestic terror loons would be infuriated by self-righteousness in a liberal president, but not a conservative one?
Errmm . . . You mean terrorism by Americans? More Timothy McVeighs?
Really?
Because that’s the only conceivable interpretation of that sentence that isn’t totally full of shit.
I think you’ll find Obama is to the right, not the left, of the center of gravity of the Congressional Democratic Caucuses.
I’ve heard the assertion many times that Bush has torn the country apart. How did this work? By what mechanism did he tear it apart?
It can’t possibly be something as simple as “he had policies that significant portions of the nation disliked, and the divisions became acrimonious and hostile,” can it?
No, it’s that he’s done more than any POTUS since Nixon to bring the government itself into disrepute. More than that, he took one of the greatest opportunities history ever handed to a president to build national confidence and unity, and he took a great big dump all over it and passed out in his own vomit, politically speaking.
Maybe so. I don’t remember any plots to kill Bush, but we’ve already had a (brain-dead) plot to kill Obama.
Obama will do nothing to tear this country apart.
As I’ve argued before, what America needs right now is a divider, not a uniter. But I’m not optimistic Obama will be the one to “tear this country apart” the way it needs to be torn apart.
There have been more death threats on the president as time progresses. That’s in part to the effectiveness of the Secret Service and in part due to the Internet and the amount of threats that get thrown around.
Obama will get more threats than Bush, but I think because the trend has been going that way.
Back to the question, the country won’t get torn apart any more than it got torn apart during Bush’s second term.
…No, shit. You can make a good argument that it happened. Nevermind.
Really, though, I don’t think the country is going to have mass riots in celebration.