The Most Divisive Campaign in American History

[Indy Vidual]

This is an UnAmerican campaign. It is an Anti-American campaign. It is a campaign by those who hate and fear what America was and who resent having to care about anyone outside their own group. Its group jingoism, its dog whistles and special privileges are repulsive and cynical, treating the people of a great nation like a warren of rats eager to sell each other out for a prize from the Cracker Jack box of identity politics entitlements.

The Most Divisive Campaign in American History (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-most-divisive-campaign-in-american.html)

[LibertyEagle]

Wow. A lot of truth in there.

[fisharmor]

I'm still not voting for Rmoney.

The point of the article isn't lost on me. Obama represents the destruction of old America and its replacement with something the author considers worse.
It's this simple: Rmoney is the old America, and I consider the old America pretty damned bad.

Take a polarizing figure in old America, like Reagan. "Conservatives" love him with a passion, and leftists hate him with at least equal passion.
When you point out to "conservatives" that Reagan instituted permanent federal gun control, appointed leftists to SCOTUS, and actually started the idea that the president can send forces anywhere in the world with no congressional oversight or approval, you are met with blank stares.
They simply don't process what you're saying.

When you point out to leftitsts that BHO is a fucking liar who has broken every single campaign promise he made in 2008, and they're more likely to get blood from a stone than live to see BHO give them something substantial, at least they recognize this.

They're still going to vote for him, but they reckognize that they're voting for evil.
This is not the case with Rmoney's supporters.

I'm not doing anything to kick Obama out (short of supporting RP, that is).
And the reason is simple:

We have a choice between old America, status quo, the continuing erosion of our liberties and march toward bankruptcy, and nobody recognizing it (Rmoney)
and new America, all new evils, which still amount to the continuing erosion of our liberties and march toward bankruptcy, and people recognizing it fully (Obama).

I fail to see how he's the worse choice.

[Iptay]

Is that aimed to scare me into voting for Romney or something?

[AuH20]

Every previous election was a contest between two American candidates who wanted to preside over the United States.

This is wrong. I can think of three elections specifically. Woodrow Wilson in 1912, FDR in 1932, Bush/Clinton in 1992.

[LibertyEagle]

Is that aimed to scare me into voting for Romney or something?

I didn't notice any particular great things said about Romney in that article. I think it was just pointing out how horrible Obama is.

Both stink.

[Aratus]

we all have yet to experiance the two conventions.
we are about to experiance a media onslaught from
both sides that will put CEO meg whitman to shame!

[Indy Vidual]

we all have yet to experiance the two conventions.
we are about to experiance a media onslaught...

In B4 the "post-convention bump" polls show up.
Note: Nothing to see here, just something very predictable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJK3tOyhp6c


Every election is divisive, but this one might get really serious.

[devil21]

Gotta wonder why the author doesn't see Romney as being backed by the same interests that back Obama. We know this to be true. I was expecting to read something about how both candidates represent international interests such as bankers, multinational defense contractors, and the NWO elites that want global control. Article seemed like another fearmongering scare tactic to push votes to one candidate while ignoring that both candidates are essentially the same.

[anaconda]

and actually started the idea that the president can send forces anywhere in the world with no congressional oversight or approval

Truman (Korea)? Johnson (Vietnam)? Nixon (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos)?