http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/05/17/carly-simon-parody/

Has anyone coined the phrase “Obamatons” to describe his followers and the press yet?

Could Pres. Bush’s “appeasement” be a cousin of Pres. Reagan’s: “evil empire”?

In impossible diplomatic situations, is Pres. Bush the first powerful person to point out the jaw jaw emperor has no clothes?

Could President Bush’ statement one day be viewed as a historical clarion (as Pres. Reagan’s statement is viewed)? If so, what gives President Bush’ statement such power and notoriety?

“You know somethin’s happening/But you don’t know what it is/Do you, Mr. Jones (here substitute ‘Mr Obama’)?”

I rest my case…

The actual result of the dust-up is to eliminate Hillary from the conversation. And eliminate her from the news. The visible contest is, for these few days at least, between McCain/Bush and Obama.

This shift in perceptions should be good for a few more superdelegates for Obama, more if he can keep pushing Hillary out of the limelight.

Smart or Lucky? I don’t know.

Reagan appeased the Iranians with armaments back in the 1980s and you people worship him for his “tough treatment” of terrorists. Please explain to me why Obama’s willingness to talk is worse than Reagan’s arming of those bazturds. Is it because Reagan was violating the laws HE signed himself, is THAT why he’s tough while Obama is “weak”?

Barry Goldwater would endorse Obama over McCain, especially after Duh-buhya passing on $10 TRILLION in DEFERRED TAX INCREASES to future generations. The NeoCons have betrayed everyone, even the Republican party. The coming “Liberal Rout of 2008″ is squarely on your shoulders, and we True Conservatives won’t be able to get control back until after The Point Of No Return.

“Reagan appeased the Iranians with armaments back in the 1980s and you people worship him for his “tough treatment” of terrorists. Please explain to me why Obama’s willingness to talk is worse than Reagan’s arming of those bazturds.”

Okay, we didn’t care which side won. A few people (whom I agreed with) at the time said straight up it would be great if both sides could loose. Ergo, giving both sides weapons and/or other help to weaken each other was in our interest.

“Barry Goldwater would endorse Obama over McCain, especially after Duh-buhya passing on $10 TRILLION in DEFERRED TAX INCREASES to future generations.”

Sure, Barry Obama has already signed on to a bunch of new tax increases that will flush the economy. Lifting the social security cap… there is 6% more on employers… and another 6 on our taxes. Cap gains… and that’s just he has already owned up to… none the less, enough to push our taxes up there with stagnant social dem Euro countries…

If Reagan was so close to your idea on foreign policy why do you not like the guy? Really - you want to convince me that a president that you dislike (for policy reasons) believes exactly as you do therefore I should also agree with you?

Obviously Danometer fully well knows the answer to his question and is shown in his disdain for him. But leftist/liberals always seem to find this an “effective” argument. I can’t say how many hated conservative leaders were actually highly liberal.

I find this syndrome even funnier when stating that Goldwater would support the furthest left/big govt presidential candidate the US has ever seen. Yea, keep repeating that - maybe make some “Goldwater for Obama” pins. I’m sure there are quite a number of conservatives will think “Dang, if Goldwater spoke from his grave to this guy and said Obama is a small govt conservative it *must* be true” - either that or you look like a real idiot.

The Audacity of Hope machine simply needs the truth to be told about it.

Barry Goldwater would have supported Obama? My goodness. The level of delusion in the democrat party has reached a fever pitch.