Doesn't it?
To a relativist everything depends on point of view. But if insanity is to be a meaningful, useful description to a diverse society, it must describe an agreed upon, verifiable condition.
I wasn't trying to defend or distract from Zimmy's name calling, rather just trying to articulate what some people may be thinking.
So you left, unexplained, the dangling "it all depends" to explain how the electorate might be insane if it elected a scary Republican. No doubt it's just personally unique to me, but that made me laugh.
I'm not sure history will view the Obama Administration has "hard to the left".
He certainly hasn't been hard to the left on foreign policy, immigration or taxation.
What would hard to the left on foreign policy be? What does hard to the left in immigration mean? Would insisting that States cannot implement immigration policies to help in the capture and deportation of illegals be hard left? Would taxing the rich at even higher rates than the already higher progressive rates be hard left? Would raising taxes in a depression be hard left? Would spreading the wealth be hard left? Would insisting that the Constitution is lacking because it does not prescribe what the government can and must do for the people be hard left?
Take out the individual mandate in the health care bill and a lot of the key provisions have been supported or even proposed by Republicans in the last 20 years.
Take out the individual mandate and there is no health care bill. The bill requires that hard left provision. Much of what has been proposed by Republicans in the last 20 or more years has been leftist. As I've said in this forum before, the Republican party today is about the same or even left of the JFK Democrats. The Democrat party since FDR has steadily pushed the so-called "center" to the left, the Republicans following to survive, so that both parties have accepted the drift away from the Consitution and toward the growth of Central power. The MSM even criticized Nixon for being an autocrat. And the Repubs have gone to the left of Nixon.
He has nominated more liberal judges yes, but they don't seem like radicals. As for spending, Bush had no problem handing out stimulus dollars or bailing out private industry and he's not a lefty. Between Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama they all seem to have worked to increase the size of our debt.
Yes, his two Supreme Court appointments do seem relatively like radicals. Bush has acted as a lefty when he handed out dollars and bailed out private industry. Those are not conservative actions just because a Republican (see above) did them. Increasing the size of our debt to unsustainable amounts is not conservative. It is very liberal.
So I'd disagree that Obama has been "hard to the left" at all. If he was the real liberals wouldn't be so mad at him right now
Hard to the left of what? To the left of "real" conservatives? Or to the left of current mainstream Republicans that have shifted left for many years. So, are you admitting that "real" liberals are hard left?
That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.
What favors Obama most in the general election is the nomination of another Republican who is Democrat light. If there is no significant difference between candidates, why change?
I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.
Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.
-spence