• You can go screw yourself, Strummerson. Since your idol, Obama, seems to be fixated on car metaphors, you only know two gears: forward and reverse, sarcasm and bitterness.

    The incredible shrinking President is rapidly falling into irrelevance. Instead of blaming your fellow myDD'ers for this, blame Obama himself. At this point, he has fucked up the Democratic party and the entire country as well. History will be kind to Barack Obama: it will forget him.


  • You've posed a non sequitur, one that even for you is fairly simple minded; think about it:

    Back in the late 60's, we had a deeply flawed, corrupt President, who was then followed by another President who was much worse. There is nothing today which says that such unfortunate history has to repeat itself.

    Obama is deeply flawed, but worse yet, totally incompetent and unequipped to handle the demands of the modern Presidency. Once we get rid of him, we'll hopefully get a live one, a President who is up to the job.


  • You were just saying what a dozen or so people here---women and men---already feel about the great Marco. When people elected Obama, they were voting with their emotions, pure and simple. When, at some point in the future, they elect Rubio, they'll be voting with something else. The puritans here just need to accept that, and to get over it.


  • My heart wants to bring back the Clintons, but my head says to go with Jim Webb.

    The problem on both sides is that we're increasingly faced with candidates that I regard as non-serious people. The elite media conspired with the p/c elite Democrats to give us Obama in 2008; they created a personna of someone who was gifted, an intellectual heavyweight. Those of us who are willing to think objectively realize that BO is an intellectual infant. Worse yet, he is immature, petulant, self-absorbed, and unwilling to ask for help when he needs it.

    After 4 years of Obama and 8 years of W, people may be ready to embrace "the stature thing" again come 2012. Someone like Jim Webb would compare very favorably with Obama on our side, and with Palin/Huckabee/De Mint on the Repug side.

    Grant it, there was a GOP tide yesterday. But one message that is getting overlooked is that voters clearly have no time for "non-serious" people like Joe Miller, Sharrrron Angle, O'Donnell, and Ken Buck. Maybe that will motivate some on our side to show the door to Obama/Biden, and bring in someone serious, someone who deserves to be called, "President".


  • The more you write about politics, NFS, the more evident that you know very little about how it works:

    "Rubio couldn't get 50% of the vote. If Clinton hadn't meddled in this race, first rewarding Meek for tampering with the primary, then trying to get him to pull out, Crist would have cruised to victory."

    No, Rubio couldn't get 50%; he only got 49%. That in itself is pretty incredible, given that he defeated a popular sitting Governor and Congressman. Garnering approx. half the votes in such a race speaks to Rubio's dynamism and ability to communicate with the voters....and would predict a fairly bright future for him in national politics.


  • comment on a post Crash and Burn Day for Dems over 3 years ago

    Obama's talk last week about the need to "punish your enemies"---while not surprising---was sickening, and not appealing to most voters. Obama is a petulant, thin-skinned little squirt who is in so far over his head that it's frightening.

    About a year ago, I wrote here that the one President Obama resembles most closely is Richard Nixon. He has all of Nixon's bad qualities, and none of his good ones. He is humorless, self-absorbed, and paranoid about media outlets that he regards as unfriendly. Nixon was obsessed with the treatment he got from the Washington Post; fast forward to today, where Obama whines at least once a week about how mean Fox News is to him. He needs to man up and get over it.

    And with Obama now going public about his intention to "punish his enemies", the comparison with Nixon is complete. We've all seen this movie before, and it has a bad ending. Obama is going to get a whipping today, and the President you see thereafter will be nastier than ever.


  • on a comment on Gallup: 60 - 80 seats over 3 years ago

    Right. Feingold can't win a Senate race in Wisconsin, but he can win the Presidency, as you put it, "all by himself".

    Think about what you're writing before you post comments.


  • on a comment on Gallup: 60 - 80 seats over 3 years ago

    After tomorrow, Feingold is history. Why would the Democratic party want to run a failed United States Senator as its nominee for President?


  • on a comment on Gallup: 60 - 80 seats over 3 years ago

    You still don't get it: this is a center right country. Trust me: Obama is going to get an ass-kicking tomorrow, and it's not because the country regards him as insufficiently liberal. They want a return to Clinton-style pragmatism.


  • on a comment on Gallup: 60 - 80 seats over 3 years ago

    You're making the mistake of confusing what you personally like with what the country as a whole prefers. This is a centrist country, and radicals like yourself just can't bear to admit it. Your comment on health care provides a perfect example:

    "The house of representatives dared to do what the American people actually wanted. They passed a healthcare reform bill with a national health service built into it."

    No, no, no. The American people to this day are negative on Obamacare. The reason that people are so angry is that they feel their representatives voted that monstrosity into law, in defiance of their wishes. And for these voters, tomorrow is payback time.

    And like many liberals, you make elections and issues way too complicated. This is about jobs, and the economy. If Obama had devoted one quarter of the effort he gave to passing his horrible health care bill to fighting joblessness and reducing unemployment, I can assure you he wouldn't be facing the ass-kicking that he is going to receive tomorrow.


  • on a comment on 99% there over 3 years ago

    and he then proceeded to ignore the economy for two years. He showed more interest in the projects/issues which he felt would secure his place in history (health care, Cap and Trade) than he did in the pocketbook issues which affect everyday Americans.

    With real unemployment exeeding 17%, it's clear that the President exists in some kind of alternate reality, divorced from the concerns of this country's citizens. Ultimately, history will be kind to Barack Obama: it will forget him.


  • comment on a post Fault to the Core over 3 years ago

    Many of us here have been wondering when Obama would eventually cross the Bush-ian era approval threshold, and make it down to the 30's. According to the Harris poll, it happened this month:


    It's pretty clear why we're headed for a shellacking next Tuesday. When a fish rots, it rots from the head down.


  • comment on a post Fault to the Core over 3 years ago

    Most of the comments here are a series of ad hominem attacks on Jerome, and are a script we've seen before: Obama (and perhaps other Dems like Tim Kaine, in this case) are criticized in a diary, and Obama's supporters respond by launching into personal attacks on the diarist.

    One can only conclude that the reason they engage in these attacks is that they are unable (or unwilling?) to defend Obama. At this point, his record is so sorry---and he is so incompetent---that he is a difficult subject to defend. So instead of demonstrating support for the incredible shrinking President, the Obam-orons resort to personal attacks on Jerome.

    This is both petty and juvenile, but it's what people do when they can't debate or win an argument based on the merits.


  • on a comment on Fault to the Core over 3 years ago

    I'm willing to overlook the typos, but not the stupidity:

    "Tea Baggers are 99% right wingnut jobs and thats not eletist it's fact. There have been serious pols confirming that fact."

    You refer to a group of people with a pejorative term like "wingnut jobs", and then declare that your disparaging statement is a "fact". Sorry, bud, but that just doesn't make any sense.

    And let us know when you can produce these "serious polls" confirming your "fact".


  • on a comment on If George Bush... over 3 years ago

    I'd be willing to debate you on any of these five points, but the most laughable one is #5:

    "Set in motion the loss of over 5 million homes."

    Maybe you should look to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, not to mention the Community Reinvestment Act. And of course, there was the Democrats' absolute refusal in 2005 to allow any meaningful reforms to their special sandbox, Fannie and Freddie.......

    There are plenty of things for which we can blame George W. Bush, but the housing crisis is not one of them.



Advertise Blogads