Yeh, I know what you mean. Only a really dangerous radical would have campaigned for Goldwater in '64.
I was thinking of the first few years in the White House with Bill. That’s when everyone really got to know her. During that time, she was supposed to be ‘co-president’, and she started the Hillarycare project, wrote “It Takes a Village”, was apparently a force in helping Bill decide to hire people like Donna Shalala, and complained of a vast right-wing conspiracy. She really did come across as very liberal.
Pretty much everything Sam Stone said lines up with my belief system, with two exceptions:
- homosexuality is not going to condemn someone to hell (more to the point, that’s conflating a religious argument with a political one, much like Sam said). (Edit: Sam didn’t elaborate much on the position, so I decided to put in my $.02…I didn’t mean to imply that Sam concurred with gay=going to hell.)
- Hillary Clinton doesn’t concern me because she’s “liberal” - she concerns me because she is aggressively ambitious (ambition is good, aggressive ambition, not so much), and appears to believe that she (and by extension, government) can do it better. This goes back to the heart of Sam’s point about capitalism and government.
It’s a fairly recent phenomenon that the conservative/liberal split has conformed to party lines. There used to be large groups of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. So while segregation might not be a part of Republican history, it is a part of conservative history.
Sam Stone’s post said pretty much what I would say for each of these points, and better than I would have. Terrific post, Sam.
:dubious: Oh, come on! Go to Democratic Underground, go to Free Republic, and see which drips more venom!