>Wrong, dude. This all comes down to your definition of "anyone". I meant "anyone" in the sense of someone who matters while you take the broad view and include partisan commentators. That, Chris, is the difference. You are being too thin-skinned on this by including bomb-throwers. You know as well as I that there are leftists who will play this game with GOP candidates as well as rightists who will play this game with Democrats.
>
>I honestly do not know how effective the commentary is in the public. Sadly, probably pretty effective based on the shallowness of the general electorate.
>
>And, yes, I do think he's the Manchurian Candidate and last I looked I am entitled to an opinion. His positions change on an almost daily basis depending on who he is talking to. He wants this so badly that he will say and do anything his staff tells him. If you research with an open mind his positions on issues over the last 6 months you'll see that.
>
>But back to the main point: Not only does he rail against those "questioning his patriotism" but if you look at the whole speech he goes on to define what patriotism is. And this is key - conservative candidates don't do this as far as I can tell. And why is that? Because conservatives are not INSECURE about what patriotism is. Liberals, like Obama, feel compelled to explain what they mean by patriotism because it differs from the norm. Without the explanation it would fall flat on the ears of the every day American joe.
>
>Chris, put your leanings aside and ponder this objectively. Do some research. Logically, dispassionately, you'll come to the conclusion that I'm right.
>
>
You mean like how he railed against FISA during his primary race, and now he votes for it?