You are hereBlogs / Bruce Bartlett's blog / Why Obama Should Reach Out to Conservatives—and Conservatives Should Reach Out to Obama

Why Obama Should Reach Out to Conservatives—and Conservatives Should Reach Out to Obama

By Bruce Bartlett - Posted on 07 July 2008

Barack Obama’s mantra is “change.”  If he really means it, the most important thing he can do is make a genuine commitment to govern from the center and avoid the polarizing, divide-and-conquer tactics that have characterized the administration of George W. Bush.  This means he must reach out to those on the other side—including political conservatives—even if it costs him some support in the Democratic Party’s liberal base.

Simultaneously, conservatives need to reach out to Obama.  While there is no guarantee that he is going to win, the odds favor him decisively at this time.  If conservatives reach out to Obama now there is a good chance that he will be receptive and willing to accommodate them to some extent.  If they wait until Obama’s victory is certain, he will be much less willing to make any sort of deal.

Of course all potential presidents talk during the campaign about the need to change the tone of political discourse in Washington, cultivate bipartisanship, and negotiate with the other side in good faith.  George W. Bush said such things often during the 2000 campaign, promising to be a compassionate conservative.  There is no question that many moderate and independent voters supported him because they believed such promises.

But Bush’s era of bipartisanship pretty much began and ended with the No Child Left Behind Act, which increased educational funding in return for greater accountability by schools.  Liberals like Ted Kennedy took a chance on Bush and supported him in hopes of encouraging further bipartisan efforts.  Unfortunately, none were forthcoming from the White House.

Very early in his administration, Bush seems to have concluded that the narrowness of Republican margins in the House and Senate necessitated a change in strategy.  Rather than negotiate with Democrats to pass more moderate versions of his agenda, Bush instead negotiated only with the most extreme members of the Republican caucus in a bid to gain total party unity.

In a narrow sense, Bush’s strategy was successful—he got the tax cuts and trade deals he wanted with virtually no Democratic votes.  But he paid a price in terms of hardening opposition to his policies that have produced virtual gridlock in Bush’s second term, with Democrats now refusing to confirm even the most low-level presidential appointments.

Obama is right to want to change Bush’s way of doing things, but it will do no good if the only change is from Republican ultra-partisanship to Democratic ultra-partisanship.  He may be successful in the short term by ramming through his program with brute political force and no Republican support, but Obama will pay a price down the road, just as Bush has.  If Obama wishes to be a successful president and a true agent of change, he needs to commit himself to talking to his political enemies, listening to them and having a few conservatives in his circle of advisers.  A little good will now could pay enormous dividends later on.

If Obama does reach out to conservatives, their instinctive reaction will probably be to see it as a trap and refuse to play.  They think his policies are doomed to fail and the more liberal they are the more certain they will fail.  When this happens, conservatives think they can start to pick up the pieces in 2010 and regain the White House in 2012.  If, on the other hand, they cooperate with Obama, they will either reduce the chances of him failing or share in the blame if he does fail.  There is basically no upside from their point of view.

This is exactly the sort of mentality that kept Republicans in the minority in Congress almost continuously for 62 years from 1932 to 1994—they were always waiting for the Democrats’ failures to rescue them from the political wilderness.  Although the American people would often entrust the White House to Republicans, it was mainly because they don’t trust either party to run the entire government.  The Democrats remained the nation’s governing party.

I think it makes more sense to show responsibility and work to implement one’s agenda even if it means reaching across the aisle, rather than hunker down, refuse to cooperate and hope for the other side to screw up.  Any success that sort of strategy achieves will be fleeting at best.

Conservatives also need to be aware of the pressure on Obama from liberals to move to the left.  This pressure will increase the more it looks like he is going to win.  Why should he move to the center if he doesn’t have to?  But if at least a few conservatives get on board with Obama now, when running a centrist campaign is his best option, he will be more willing and able to resist pressure to move left later on.

The window of opportunity for Obama and conservatives to reach an accommodation is small.  But the potential payoff is large.  The nation needs a rest from the hyper-partisanship of the last eight years.  Both sides will need to give something if that is to happen.

Bruce Bartlett worked on the White House staff during the Reagan Administration.

Obama Reaches Out to Conservatives

"There are some very capable Republicans who I have a great deal of respect for," Obama said in an interview with the Associated Press. "The opportunities are there to create a more effective relationship between parties." "On foreign policy I've worked very closely with Dick Lugar," Obama said. "I consider him one of my best friends in the Senate. He's someone I would actively seek counsel and advice from when it came to foreign policy." "I would also seek out people like Tom Coburn, who is probably the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate. He has become a friend of mine."

Coburn-Obama Bill to Create Internet Database of Federal Spending

S. 2590 - U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) hailed the Senate’s passage of the “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,” a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans. “Every American has the right to know how their government spends their money, and then to hold elected officials accountable for those decisions. I applaud my colleagues for unanimously supporting a bill that will aid the American people in that effort,” Dr. Coburn said. “By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this database will help make us better legislators, reporters better journalists, and voters more active citizens,” Obama said. “It’s both unusual and encouraging to see interest groups and bloggers on the left and the right come together to achieve results. This powerful grassroots alliance shows that at the end of the day, Americans want to see Congress work together to get something done and not continue to engage in the partisan gridlock that so often brings Capitol Hill to a grinding halt.” ( database)

Having scored a high-profile victory on their bill to set up an online federal spending database, the unlikely freshman duo of Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) are hoping their fourth bid to crack down on no-bid contracting at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will finally make it to the president’s desk. Obama and Coburn wrote to FEMA director David Paulison last month after viewing reports that the four main no-bid contracts awarded for emergency housing of residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina had bloated from $400 million to $3.4 billion. Four contracts — given to Bechtel Corp., Fluor, the Shaw Group and CH2M Hill — were not reopened for bidding despite the agency’s initial promises to that effect.

But Obama and Coburn, who are also continuing to push their proposal for a chief financial officer to monitor spending on the Gulf Coast, plan to keep leveraging their lack of seniority for more public attention on their cause. “Sometimes freshmen can be more in touch with what people are thinking,” Coburn spokesman John Hart said. “There is plenty of evidence that the longer people are in Washington, the less responsive they become.”- Link

In June 2008 he met privately with 30 religious leaders, which included Steve Strang, current John McCain supporter, wrote in describing Obama's answer to a question on abortion: "The time he took to answer was probably 15 minutes. He came across as thoughtful and much more of a 'centrist' than what I would have expected. He did not appear to be the crazy leftist that is being supported by George Soros and his radical leftist friends. Sen. Obama looked me in the eye as he answered my question, almost as if it were a one-on-one interview." Will Strang vote for Obama? Almost certainly not. But will he regard an Obama presidency as a mortal threat to his most deeply held beliefs? Almost certainly not.


Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn as one of those he would consult

Blessed Reassurance

Yes, We Can!

I think it all depends on how much the Gingrich/Delay philosophy has hung on. It's hard to imagine the same 2000-2006 rubber-stampers being other than anything-but-what-Obama-wants. I'd love to be wrong about that. But, I don't have much faith. At their core politicians are about power, which is all about games and maneuvering. What is best for the country is very low down in their list of priorities.

As far as Obama over-reaching, he only has to look back to 1993 to see an example of how not to "take Washington by storm." We'll have divided government (read: gridlock) in short order if the Democrats steamroll Republicans in an effort to get their agenda passed. And, there are just too many time-sensitive issues (e.g. climate change, alternative energy) to be wasting time on politics and gamesmanship.

Sen.Obama should absolutely not move to the center. The country has changed - what was once considered left positions are mainstream. The country has become a center-left, progressive nation. Thanks to the disastrous presidency of Bush and the republican congress in his first term.

And all of a sudden we have a new schtick: bipartishanship is the new republican 

Sen.Obama could get with a bit of luck, supermajorities in the House and Senate. If he can successfully implement his strategy, he can reduce the GOP to the political wilderness for the next couple of decades.

No time for bipartisanship. No surrender. Change comes through conflict.

This is the beginning of a new progressive era.

Our time is now.

- proud democrat

hear hear!

First of all, Obama has always been in the center as compared to what has classicaly defined left wing. Second of all, he's not getting elected without support of some conservatives, whether you like that or not. A lot of us are lining up behind him, not because he's some pot smoking progressive idealist who thinks they're going to bring big government Utopia to the world, but because he's a down to earth middle of the road realist. Third of all, this sounds exactly like the republican philosophy under Bush:

"No time for bipartisanship. No surrender. Change comes through conflict."

If that's what you want, then you want a continually divided and weaker America, because that's what that will get you. That's exactly the philosophy that has gotten us into this mess. It's the Bush/Rove philosophy. congratulations, you're in great company now. 

And I can tell you this... If you're one of those "progressive" day dreamers who think their "side" has all the answers, then you're going to pull the country over another cliff, just like the "conservative" daydreamers who thought that about their "side".

We're all in this together. You want a united country working together, then don't make me out to be your enemy. Because if you make me your enemy, I will be your enemy and I will wait for you and your "side" to stumble and fall, and then I will pounce like a lion and show no mercy. That's not civilized, I know, but what you advocate is the jungle and if you're going to play by jungle rules, then I am too. We'll both lose in the end like that, but you can have it your way. 

I'm an Obama supporter and I agree with your assessment. While tempting to burn bridges and get revenge it's counterproductive in the long run, not to mention childish. I would love to see battles and debates on specific ideas, not divided by party lines or ideologies. This may sounda bit naive given the last eight years, but I don't think it's impossible. We just have to focus on ideas and solutions rather than parties.

I think turn out will be key for this election. Obama can't afford for the far left of his party to stay home and get really angry. I think his "center" positions, while criticized by some of his party, are not so far beyond the line to lose support from liberals-they will still support him in the voting booth. He will be fine and I do believe he really will continue to work in a bi-partisan way, which will be great for the country.

what? Like FISA?

yeah, who cares about the constitution, right... 

does this new fisa bill violate the constitution anymore or less than the old bill from the 70s? I think not. If it actually was in violation I think people would not be screaming this loud. It's almost as if as citizens we don't even know what battles to fight and what not to fight anymore. Just question any and everything that looks questionable that should do the job of holding them accountable. right? 

Meet "the mushy middle," a complex chunk of people likely to decide the presidential election but difficult to reach and very hard to please. They aren't uniformly conservative or liberal, and they don't fit strict Republican or Democratic orthodoxy. They aren't typically engaged in politics, and they don't much care about the campaign. And like so many others, they are extraordinarily pessimistic. Compared with far-right and far-left voters, this group tends to be more Hispanic, more Catholic than the left and more secular than the right. They are more likely to be married with children and live in far-flung suburbs or rural areas. They also tend to be less educated. Link

Yes Izzy, Obama will continue to work in a bi-partisan way, which will be great for the country.

Yes, We Can!

Great website and post by Mr. Bartlett. As a long-time conservative (paleocon-agrarian) - for nearly 30 years now - and a Texan, I have been deeply disappointed by Mr. Bush. I voted for him in 2000 thinking he would govern as President in much the same fashion as he did as Governor of Texas, that is by truly working in a bipartisan manner to solve the many issues our country faces. As Mr. Bartlett explains - that simply wasn't to be.

I view O'bama's candidacy as perhaps the best chance we have to move beyond the poisonous rancor that has become the modus operandi in D.C. While O'bama's liberal leanings - and those of of the far-left of the democratic party - are worrisome and go against the grain of much of our conservative orthodoxy, that orthodoxy cannot govern the country nor, by itself, provide answers to the looming problems of Social Security viability, Medicare viability, Health care reform, immigration reform, economic renewal, rural development, and redressing the results of foreign policy incompetence that lead to the Iraq war. To address these issues, we must have an executive that will govern from the center and even-handedly seek input and alternatives. This is what I believe the American people are seeking, and in Willmoore Kendall's famous phrase: "In their hips" I think they are beginning to see that possibility in O'bama. For a whole host of reasons, mostly embodied in who he is and not necessarily what policy positions he takes, he offers the best hope for us to get beyond the rancor of the early baby-boomers divisive continual refighting of the ideological positions that emanated from Vietnam and Watergate. Not since Reagan, has a politician had the chance to change the focus of the national debate that will play out over the next 20 - 30 years.

Yes, we can! or as we also say in Texas Si Se Puede.  

Good points.

No matter who wins, be it Obama or McCain, I think they have observed, and learned the lesson from, an administration that has sought to govern through narrow ideology rather than logic, common sense or the broad "consent of the governed."

Neither wants to repeat the same folly of GWB with polarizing, doctrinaire governance.

Hey, G. Oren. Welcome to RFO. Thanks for taking the time to post your perspective. There are a lot of different reasons why we Republicans are choosing to vote cross-party this year, and it's always interesting to hear one more point-of-view.


Personally, it is not Obama’s responsibility to reach out to us, but our responsibility to learn about each candidate.  If we could get passed this I am a republican so I only vote that way, or I am a democrat so I only vote this way, we may be able to move towards a more united nation. 


I also think that this rhetoric about Obama IS MOVING TO THE CENETER is hodge-podge…just goes to show you that these ppl NEVER knew about him.  These so called issues that they proclaim that he is deserting the left for the center are concerns that he ALWAYS been categorized as in the middle or center.  It’s time that we wake up and not continue to fall for this garbage that they want to spoon-fed us.  Our nation is at war with itself and the crisis is now. 

If we could get passed this I am a republican so I only vote that way, or I am a democrat so I only vote this way, we may be able to move towards a more united nation.

Noteworthy and the implications shouldn't be lost on anyone.  True democracy demands more of it's participants than merely showing up on day and pulling a lever one way or the other as group-think reflexes dictate.  Doing so only creates an illusion of democratic representation.  

We need to turn away for the well-worn paths, it only leads towards intellectual laziness and cowardice .  Choose the tougher road.  Search for answers, challenge preconceived notions, entertain alternatives, step into the discussion, weigh it all up, then and then make up your mind.  Take the tougher road and I guarantee your election day experience will change forever.  What was once a chore or obligatio becomes an eagerly anticipated day of celebration.  I say this because you'll emerge from the polling place with a newfound sense of enlightenment and personal satisfaction.  Few truly understand what freedom really means.  That's a pity when you realize this gift previous generations paid for in blood demands a comparatively modest effort on our part in order to preserve and realize its full potential.  

I used to avoid opening up political discussions among friends and aquaintence at the first sign of objection, but no longer. Patience and enthusiasm usually breaks that barrier down.  

Even if that person never turns towards your favored candidate at least he or she is composing arguements and counter-arguements. Rationalizing, thinking, active participation. One more voter actively engaged in the political process weakens the leverage enjoyed by professional lobbiest.:)

Yes, if voters simply read The Audacity of Hope, they'd see that he has been in the center on many issues for quite some time.
You expect me to read an entire book?  Why can't I just rely on talk radio soundbites?
jmartin-As usual, you are right on! When I see certain comments that lack any basis of fact, I assume they are "talk radio soundbyte-holics" who would rather follow someone blindly than spend the time reading or doing some simple research and making up his/her own mind based on fact. It's their loss, really.

Greetings everyone.  Alright, let's not get carried away with this "America is moving to the left" business.

As a prototypical Obamacan, I am THRILLED that he is moving to the center, and hoping that he WILL adopt a lot of what Bush WANTED to do but didn't have the ability to get the nation behind him.  Such as:  making SURE that we finish the job in Iraq before we leave, that we fully implement the Missile Defense initiative, that we keep the tax cuts permanent, at least for all the non-millionaires, and that we emphasize two-parent homes and family values.

Above all, let's remember that, as Obamacans, what we love about Barack is that he is the ANTITHESIS to Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. 

That's true-- Barack is the antithesis to most of the political leaders we've seen try to run our country for the last 20 years.  (Although I still don't put Gore in the same category as Kerry and Clinton, though.)

I think a big promise of Obama is that he's wants to help create consensus and come up with the best solutions while he moves to forge a new political reality.  That's been a CENTRAL component of his message from day one.  You almost get the feeling that certain elements of the left really just weren't listening when Barack was an Illinois State Senator saying things like "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."

How did the far left interpret this?  It makes you really wonder.

John, I just came back to this thread to post basically the same thoughts.  If anyone has listened to Barack Obama from the beginning of his political career, he has focused on the message of unity, of one America, not an America divided by various factions.  Did anyone think that Americans would unify on the far left, or on any extreme position, left or right? 

I honestly don't see Obama as moving "to the center" as much as I see him "practicing what he preaches".  He listens to all sides and opinions, then finds the compromise position, without giving up his core values.  What we must all remember is that his strongest core position is that of a unified America!  To over-simplify, it's like a marriage or any other good relationship.  You talk, you listen, then find a way to work things out so that all can live with the resulting decision. 

As I was watching the Sunday morning pundits this a.m., I was thinking that it was time for Obama to remind the nation of his message of unity.  Maybe to give another speech on the subject, and remind us all that this is why he makes the decisions that he does.  It's a powerful message, and one that doesn't need to be abandoned in the heat of the campaign.

A speech would be great but I'm ready for a town hall or real debate to seal the deal for Obama. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here (especially after the last so-called debate which was really a media hack job/set up!) but I think Obama would really shine, espceially side by side with McCain. What are they waiting for?

But the Obama campaign said today (7/13), that the Illinois senator "is not interested in verbal sparring with Sen. McCain, but has as his priority meeting with voters in the community and bringing his message of change in Washington to them directly."

I don't see how he can avoid it. Eventually he will have to debate.

Yes, We Can!

I just don't see why he'd want to avoid it. McCain will call him a wimp and the voters won't have a chance to hear his great proposals/ideas (and the not-so-great ones from McCain) in the national spotlight for quite awhile. I'm sure it's just the typical front runner technique ("if it ain't broken, don't fix it") since any debate can be risky. I just think lots of people will pay attention and it may help to start turning the "undecided" vote to Obama's corner. I will say that he IS really reaching out to so many communities right now and that sure isn't hurting him. The more people get to know him, the better his poll numbers will climb.

I may be wrong, but I don't think we'll see a one-on-one meeting until after the conventions.  This makes sense in a way, because neither is the "official" nominee yet.

I hope at that time, Obama will show that he isn't trying to duck a debate, for whatever reason.  I think a debate fits his style, but a town hall meeting or two would be a good idea.

And Obama's "move" to the center should be good for his fellow Democrats as well, like myself. Every time I vote for the person that I think will do the better job and uniting the nation and being a bipartisan President. And a few months ago I was pondering what I was gonna do if Clinton won my party's nomination.

I'm so grateful that I have a much easier choice to make in the general election. Barack Obama is the candidate for all Americans, Democrat and Republican. Before his move to the center I agreed with most of his positions, but I applaud his efforts to reach out to people on all sides of the political spectrum. But in my view he has been a centrist long before this campaign started. No I never did read The Audacity of Hope, but it tops my wish list right now.

you should get that book. at first i was not impressed then he started to get my attention. he started talking about democrats/republicans, then values. by the time i got to the constitution i was hooked to that book. it's really really good, imo. as soon as i was done with the book i was canvassing and phonebanking for this man like crazy. i had never done such in my life. he must be our next president. in anycase, that book gave me an idea of who obama was and in all honesty his message never changed.

i think he has always been the centrist if that's what they call it (i guess i'd be called a centrist too!). people sound as if it's a bad thing to be. they say they want bipartsanship, they want solutions and reaching across the aisle to get solutions but the moment politicains begin to do that people scream they are pandering meanwhile the real panderers they need to be calling out slide off the radar completely unnoticed. sigh!

Go Proud Democrat... Sen.Obama should not move to the center.  Isn't the center the same as sitting on the fence? Different opinions expressed in a forum intended to lead to reasonable solutions is what our Senators and Congressional Representatives were elected to do.   America has big problems and we need "big" people to roll up their sleeves and come to the negotiation table and find real answers.  Sitting in the center is the same as dreaming for a win/win situation best suited to one-sided agendas.We need to restore the principal of government of the people, not government of the Republicans or the Democrats, or the lobbists, or big business.  Isn't it clear that Obama knows this to be the case; and isn't his terrific grassroots support the clear evidence that the people are going to speak come November, and December and hopefully for a long time to come.

If we are going to be Republicans for Obama, then don't we need to give him a chance instead of sitting around trying to figure out how to manage the "damage."

I have felt like a disenfranchised Republican for almost 8 years.  Now, I'm just happy being an American with a vote for Obama!

 Yes We Can!

Jeanne from Grayslake

The lead conservativism had over liberalism is the smallest it has been in decades. Self proclaimed conservatives believe "liberal" is a bad thing while holding quite liberal views, in all sorts of areas. Obama believes we should stop playing one group against another. Coalition building depends on the needs of the various groups being met. American people taking care of each other is also gaining popularity and talking about safety net issues. We have opened our country to the global marketplace, but not before assuring our largest corporations that their contracts will be honored, and their manufacturing plants protected. No similar safeguards were created to protect the American workers from the onslaught of having to compete with billions of underemployed workers around the world. People all over the country have waken up to this.

Yes, We Can!

I think the difference is between those who are able to understand how short-term investments pay-off in the long run (and then some) -- e.g. early childhood education, bridges, etc. And those who cannot understand such matters often see such short-term spending as wasteful and inefficient.

I see this in the world of corporate decisions, which is usually very rational in other regards. Perhaps it is because it is difficult to translate/show long-term economic benefits of short-term investments and so they focus on small, tangible and measurable things, that don't have the multiplying effect of more visionary investments.

I work in software and for years have been trying to convince management to invest in "profiling tools," which are tools to demonstrate that every piece of software (all conditional paths) have been tested - and how much. But, it has been a losing argument because they just can't convince the bean counters that it is worth it.

Yet, all of us engineers and low-level managers know it would pay for itself in a few years and then keep on giving after that.

But the bean-counter/GOP philosophy seems to be - if you can't get a bang for the buck today, why bother opening the wallet?

Obama is like JFK in the sense that he understands that short-term sacrifice and investment is essential for long-term success.

The GOP gets that too .... for Iraq. But, for some reason, they're unable to grasp that philosophy for America.

It's better to just decry all taxes; and praise all tax-cuts ... in a knee-jerk fashion, without understanding cause-and-effect or appreciating the need to sometimes spend to make America stronger and more competitive.

Remember when John McCain was against irresponsible tax cuts?

I miss those days.

Tax cuts that are not balanced by a reduction in spending.


Good luck getting Democrats to reduce spending. 


In case you missed it last night - after Rupert Murdoch helped Obama Campaign negotiate Truce with Fox News, Barack Obama did an excellent Interview with Bill O'Reilly.  

Check it out at:  

Last 3 sections of O'Reilly Interview will be on Monday Sept. 8 thru Wednesday Sept. 10th. on Fox News.                         

See also Time Magazine:,8599,1838954,

Obama Meets O'Reilly: No One Dies! 

For More on Role of Rupert Murdoch See Guardian: Rupert Murdoch acted as peacemaker between Barack Obama and Fox News"News Corp boss (Murdoch) ... advised Wolff, his biographer, to vote for the man who eventually became the Democratic presidential candidate during the New York primary earlier this year, saying: "He'll sell more papers." 


I just found this site and it is the most heartening thing I've seen since Obama won the nomination. I'm not a Republican, but I remember when the standard-bearers of the party of Lincoln included John Lindsay, Nelson Rockefeller, and Lowell Weicker. Bravo to you for reclaiming that legacy -- either by reclaiming the Republican Party or starting a new one. 

Hi cschuk, and thank you for the nice words.  You have managed to zero right in on the beliefs of most of us, who consider ourselves to be Goldwater style Republicans.  Hopefully, we will be able to return our party to it's traditional roots.  We have a tough job ahead of us.

Welcome, and feel free to read and post anywhere on the site.

I think Dem majority for a while, will turn us around but we always need BALANCE. 

 Balance is what our country design was built on....however what we need is a stronger more unified and better GOP so that needs to happen and I think it will.

I cannot wait to see who Obama appoints in his cabinet! 

Hi, this is my first posting and I must confess that I have been reading and recommending this site for a few weeks.  Sometimes I have tears in my eyes and am so glad to read what other Americans, especially those as thoughtful, articulate and erudite as you folks are saying.

This country is truly amazing...

That said, yes I am a Democrat, lifelong, the only time I did not vote the ticket was in 1968 when Dick Gregory ran...He was  on the ballot in yes a protest vote, and now I am in San Francisco...I am sure that you have the picture.

I do want to say that I agree with Marx...No not with regard to economics but his theory of dialectics...Theory, Antithesis and Synthesis...

I firmly believe that we have been playing on the margins, at the edge if you will for quite a while...and that this country is ready for some synthesis.

And I read it daily here.

And I am encouraged.

And I am humbled. 


Thanks for being great Americans... 

First spam of 2010?
Nope...these essay people have been very busy in 2010.  At least one every soon as I get one blocked and deleted a new one pops up.  The funny thing is, their translating software stinks. lol 

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.