• comment on a post 5 weeks over 3 years ago

    I meant to include this in my previous comment---the situation in Wisconsin is dire, as this is the largest lead to date for Johnson over Feingold:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/wisconsin/election_2010_wisconsin_senate

    This is really disturbing, as Feingold is probably one of the most decent and honorable individuals to ever serve in the United States Senate. That he should be taken out in this tsunami caused by a bumbling and incompetent President is unforgivable.

     

  • comment on a post 5 weeks over 3 years ago

    I disagree with your assessment that "Murray looks a lot safer...." Rasmussen has a new poll out this morning which shows the race to be a virtual tie, with Rossi ahead by one point:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/washington/election_2010_washington_senate

    This is one more race where Obama is a big drag on Democratic candidates, although I'll cut him some slack on this one. Murray is as dumb as a box of rocks, and was bound to lose as soon as a presentable candidate came along.

     

  • comment on a post 5 weeks over 3 years ago

    Rasmussen has changed the Wisconsin Senate race from toss-up to leans Republican. The poll was conducted on Sept. 29th, AFTER Obama's visit to the state.....showing once again what a negative impact this President has on our candidates.

    Barack Obama isn't the solution; Barack Obama is the problem. WE THE PEOPLE are the solution! Hopefully, this man will do the honorable thing and step aside in 2012, in time for the Clintons to return and clean up his mess.

     

  • on a comment on Whiners over 3 years ago

    As a public service, I'm going to try to educate you today, moron. Have you ever heard of a political phenomenon (circa 1980) known as "the Reagan Democrats"?

    These were good Democratic voters who put country ahead of party. When they saw a bumbling Democratic incumbent who was WEAK, incompetent, scorned by the world, ineffectual, and just generally a worthless piece of garbage, they decided to vote Republican.....for one of the greatest leaders of our time, Ronald Reagan.

    Well, the Reagan Democrats are restless again, my friend. We are alarmed at this "President" who travels the world, bowing to foreign dignitaries as he apologizes for our great country. No, this is neither a President we can be proud of, nor one we can support in future elections.

    We were proud to return to the party under Bill Clinton, and will be proud to return again once this current impostor is gone.

     

  • on a comment on Whiners over 3 years ago

    I went to the Bill Clinton school of politics, and he's a Democrat we can all be proud of. Remember President Clinton? He and his wife were derided as racists by the Obam-orons back in 2008.

    The current White House occupant is nothing more than an urban agitator dressed up as a President. And the impersonation is starting to wear thin, witness his sagging poll numbers.

     

  • on a comment on Whiners over 3 years ago

    From what you're saying, it's "silly" to compare the thoughts and ideas of two people if they're expressed in different formats or media. For example, analysts have often compared the ideas in Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" with those expressed in Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech, "A Time for Choosing". But in the Flatts world, such comparisons shouldn't be made.....one is a speech, one is a political essay in a book....so drawing parallels would just be silly!

    Rolling Stone's interview with the incredible shrinking President has a remarkably similar tone to Carter's malaise speech, and it's simple to see: they both believe that "the people" are to blame for their own mistakes and woes. Obama whined about voters' "lethargy"; Carter complained of a "crisis of confidence". Both men are clearly unable to take personal responsibility for their own failures. And I don't give a rat's ass whether they convey it in a book, a campaign speech, or in conversations with Amy and Malia. Bottom line, their whining shows weakness; both Obama and Carter are weak men.

    Americans don't like whining or weakness in their Presidents.

     

  • comment on a post Whiners over 3 years ago

    This is disgusting, and it sickens me. Americans don't like whining from their Presidents.

    I read excerpts from this interview this morning, and was reminded of Jimmy Carter's malaise speech in 1978. Carter suggested that there was a "crisis of confidence", and that the problem was with the American people.

    Two years later, Ronald Reagan re-defined the problem, and it wasn't the American people. He declared that there wasn't a crisis of confidence; there was a crisis of leadership. And that brings us to where we are today. Excuse my French, but Barack Obama couldn't lead a fart out of an asshole. He has no clue what leadership is all about.

    I can recall Presidential candidates---Mike Dukakis in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996---who knew damned well that they were facing sure defeat. But in the interest of rallying the troops, they maintained a positive tone, kept their senses of humor, and campaigned non-stop right up until election day. That's what leaders do.

    Goodbye, Barack Obama. I'm sure you'll make a very fine law professor somewhere.

     

  • it's just that nobody was listening. What do you think the "3 AM Phone Call" ad was all about? Her team tried to create the narrative that Obama was untested, and not ready or qualified to be President. And when they tried telling that to the knee-jerk left wing of the Democratic Party, the response that came back was essentially, "Don't confuse us with the facts...just give us our hope and change!"

    The best way to keep this calamity from happening again is to get states that currently do caucuses/conventions to change over to primaries. Caucuses cater to a small intellectual elite that are often on the fringe of party members. And primaries---where polls are open from 10-12 hours depending on the state---allow more people to come out and participate in the nominating process.

    Hillary slaughtered Obama in most of the primary states, but couldn't overcome a lead he built up in caucuses that favor the elites.

     

  • on a comment on [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    "BAN KENT!"

    There you go again........

     

  • comment on a post [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    This year's empty, mindless, extreme right candidates like Christine O'Donnell are the logical descendents of 2008's Obama-mania.

    The Barack Obamas/Sharron Angles of the world---non-serious people with no real background, no portfolio or resume, and no policy goals---are taking over our politics, armed with nothing but vapid slogans like "hope and change". Voters want a quick fix for everything, and are unwilling to listen to serious centrists who discuss policy: people like the Clintons, or Bob Bennett of Utah. These leaders get kicked to the curb to make room for the newest flavor of the moment. Bennett committed the horrible sin of trying to forge a serious health care policy with Ron Wyden of Oregon.

    In a sick and ironic twist, this O'Donnell woman was trying to reassure her supporters on primary night that they actually can win the general election, in spite of the fact that the RNC is running the other way, and fast. And the crowd began to cheer her on with a chant of "yes we can!". Showing that we've come 360 degrees from the election of 2008: from stupid left to stupid right.

    God help us all, because the leaders we're getting at the ballot box sure aren't going to help us.
     

  • No comparison is perfect. One way the two men (Carter and Obama) are dissimilar is that Carter put his fingerprints on, and micro-managed everything, e.g., his ill-fated energy policy. Obama on the other hand---and I think this is where many of us lost respect for him---attempted to outsource all of his major initiatives, so that he couldn't be held accountable for the outcomes. No fingerprints, no accountability; it got really sickening to hear David Axelrod make the rounds on the Sunday AM talk shows, reminding the anchors that, "there is no Obama bill, at this point". Whatever stimulus/HCR bill emerged from the Congress, Obama was going to be there smiling to claim credit for it, and his place in history. Only problem was, the actual bills---stimulus, HCR, finreg---that emerged were bad policy: poorly crafted and poorly executed.

    Which gets to the real similarity between Jimmy and "Chocolate" Carter: while pleasant and genial men, neither was a leader. Both were weak, and had only vague notions of where they wanted to take the country. Carter used to ruminate about wanting a government "filled with love", Barack talked about weighty things like "hope and change". And by thus trying to BS their way through everything, each ended up with no constituency, either on the right or the left.

    Goodbye, Barack. Sink back into the Chicago machine that spawned you.

     

  • comment on a post Chicago Mayoral race over 3 years ago

    How about Roland Burris?

     

  • comment on a post Chicago Mayoral race over 3 years ago

    who needs choices? Talk about a race to the bottom.....the group that  you listed makes me pine for the days of Harold Washington. The only one who hasn't been somehow tainted with some kind of scandal is Congressman Gutierrez, but I don't know of anything in his background that qualifies him to serve in an executive/managerial capacity, either. As to Moseley-Braun, I guess she's on some kind of quest to run for every office in the state of Illinois during her lifetime.

     

  • comment on a post Primary Day over 3 years ago

    The Repubs' self-inflicted wounds continue.....Christine O'Donnell is now the GOP Senate nominee from Delaware. Heh, heh, heh......

    This woman makes Sharron Angle look like Margaret Thatcher. And Ras has a trial heat between Coons and O'Donnell at a +26 point advantage for Coons. So---if this idiot gets even a 10 point bounce from her primary win, Coons still has the race in the bag. Biden's seat stays in the D column.

     

  • I've concluded that half of those on the far right are simply delusional, as they actually believe this freak O'Donnell can be elected. Given that W never broke 45% in Delaware---either 2000 or 2004---I don't see where this "conservative surge" is going to come from. Plus, this woman has played so dirty, e.g, her whispering campaign against Castle, that most Castle people will cross over and vote for Coons come November.

    The other half, e.g, Erick Erikson at RedState, are a strange breed, and imo, are mentally unbalanced. They call for the defeat of Castle, admitting that O'Donnell can't win statewide, but that it would still be better for the GOP. Go figure.

    On the other hand, I figured that Sharron Angle would be plummeting into the 30's by now, but a new Ras poll out this AM has her and Reid tied at 48%:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

    Fortunately, Delaware ain't Nevada.......

     

Diaries

Advertise Blogads